HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 12 20 AIS Transamittal Amend to Metro Plan and Glenwood Refinement PlanMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: December 20, 2011
TO: Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions PLANNING COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
FROM: Gary Karp, Springfield Senior Planner MEMORANDUM
Molly Markarian, Springfield Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Amendment of: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) diagram (TYP411-00006/PA
11-5489); Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and text (TYP411-00005/PA 11-5489); Springfield Zoning Map
(TYP311-00001/PA 11-5489); and Springfield Development Code (TYP411-00007/PA 11-5489) – Continuation
of the October 18, 2011 Public Hearing.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Reconvene the Continued Public Hearing on these proposals to receive staff’s response to written and oral
testimony from that hearing and from the extended written record period of November 21, and to receive
additional testimony that might be submitted the evening of December 20.
ISSUE:
The City of Springfield and Lane County propose to:
1) Amend the Metro Plan diagram to designate 122.99 acres of land to Mixed Use/Nodal Development and
144.28 acres of land to Mixed Use;
2) Amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram to designate 33.26 acres of land to Residential Mixed
Use, 14.58 acres of land to Commercial Mixed Use, 46.33 acres of land to Office Mixed Use, and 173.60
acres of land to Employment Mixed Use, and amend plan text;
3) Amend the Springfield Zoning Map to zone 33.26 acres of land to Residential Mixed Use, 14.58 acres of
land to Commercial Mixed Use, 46.33 acres of land to Office Mixed Use, and 173.60 acres of land to
Employment Mixed Use; and
4) Amend Springfield Development Code Sections 3.4-200-280, 4.3-110, 5.3-115, Table 5.4-1, Sections
5.6-100-160, 5.12-160, 6.1-110, and Appendix 3.
DISCUSSION:
During the October 18th joint Planning Commission Public Hearing, 6 persons presented oral testimony: 4
persons spoke in favor of the proposal; 1 opposed with suggested modifications; and 1 neutral. In addition,
there were 5 persons who submitted written testimony into the record on that date. The joint Planning
Commissions continued the Public Hearing until December 20th and allowed for additional written testimony to
be submitted to staff by November 21st. Written testimony from 2 additional persons was submitted by this date
(Attachments 9 and 10).
All of the testimony is addressed in the attachments listed below. Except for Attachment 8, Planning
Commission Public Hearing Minutes October 18, 2011, each topic covered in staff’s responses to oral and
written testimony contains the phrase “Planning Commission Action”. In some instances the action requested is
“information only, no amendments are proposed.” In other instances the action refers to a text amendment
and/or a particular option. The staff will explain these proposed actions during the staff presentation phase of
the agenda preceding new public testimony. The Planning Commissions will deliberate and take action on all
elements of these proposed amendments, including recommendations generated from public testimony, after
the public hearing has been closed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissions of Springfield and Lane County forward a recommendation
for approval to the Joint Elected Officials of Springfield and Lane County. A Work Session for the elected
officials is scheduled for January 23, 2012; the Public Hearing is scheduled for February 21, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1-A: Written Submittal from Wildish, Randy Hledik Dated October 14, 2011
Attachment 1-B: Response to the Wildish Written Correspondence: the Randy Hledik Cover Letter and the
Schirmer Satre Group Analysis of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District
Attachment 2-A: Written Submittal from Zack Pardo Dated October 16, 2011
Attachment 2-B: Response to the Zack Pardo Correspondence
Attachment 3-A: Written Submittal from U of O Chris Ramey Dated October 17, 2011
Attachment 3-B: Response to U of O Chris Ramey Correspondence
Attachment 4-A: Written Submittal from John Oldham Dated October 18, 2011
Attachment 4-B: Response to the John Oldham Correspondence
Attachment 5-A: Written Submittal from Roxie Theron Dates October 18, 2011
Attachment 5-B: Response to the Roxie Thoren Correspondence
Attachment 6: Response to Questions Raised by Lane County Planning Commissioner Lisa Arkin from
October 18, 2011
Attachment 7: Response to Citizen Comments James Yarnell from October 18, 2011
Attachment 8: Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes from October 18, 2011
Attachment 9-A: Written Submittal from Stephen Roth Dated November 7, 2011
Attachment 9-B: Response to Stephen Roth Correspondence
Attachment 10-A: Written Submittal from Roger White Dated November 21, 2011
Attachment 10-B: Response to Roger White Correspondence
Attachment 11: Other Proposed Staff Amendments
Attachment 12-A: Development and Building Design Standard Figures
Attachment 12-B: Response to Development and Building Standard Figures
Attachment 1 A - 1
Attachment 1 A - 2
Attachment 1 A - 3
Attachment 1 A - 4
Page 1 of 54 SCHIRMER SATRE GROUP Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, Oregon 97401 541-686-4540 Fax 541-686-4577 WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) Especially the proposed Employment Mixed-Use Zone (SDC 3.4-200) in comparison with the property’s existing Light-Medium Industrial Zone and including a comparison with the Campus Industrial Zone (both SDC 3.2-400) October 14, 2011 Referencing the 9/22/11 Version EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LMI) COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL (CI) PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE (EMU) ANALYSIS 3.2-405 Establishment (Purpose) B. Light-Medium Industrial District (LMI). LMI uses are generally involved in the secondary processing of materials into components, the assembly of components into finished products, transportation, communication and utilities, wholesaling, and warehousing. The external impact from these uses is generally less than Heavy Industrial, and transportation needs are often met by truck. Activities are generally located indoors, although there may be some outdoor storage. This designation also can accommodate supporting offices and CI industrial uses. 3.2-405 Establishment (Purpose) A. Campus Industrial (CI). The CI District provides opportunities for diversification of the local economy by offering prime sites in a campus environment for large-scale light manufacturing firms and research and development complexes emphasizing modern technology and employing skilled workers in family wage jobs. The term campus includes innovative building designs, enhanced landscapes, large open spaces, and substantial pedestrian amenities. Generally, small- and medium-scale light manufacturing may, and supporting commercial/office uses shall be located within a business park, provided that combined business parks and/or permitted stand alone office/commercial uses do not exceed 40 percent of the gross acreage of a CI District. Business parks may include several buildings with multiple stories and a mix of uses. Warehousing and distribution are permitted as an accessory to a permitted use. Supporting retail uses for example, banks, restaurants, and day care facilities are permitted if these uses do not primarily serve the public. All uses in the CI District shall meet siting and operational performance standards to minimize impacts within the CI District and surrounding areas. Permitted uses, including the storage of raw materials and/or finished products, shall occur entirely within enclosed buildings. 3.4-205 Purpose A. Plan Districts are customized development standards applied to unique areas within the City where traditional zoning mechanisms are unlikely to achieve desired development objectives. An area may be unique based on natural, economic or historic attributes. The Glenwood Riverfront has all of these attributes which maximizes the value of the area’s proximity to the Willamette River; major transportation corridors, notably Interstate 5; and the University of Oregon; as well as Glenwood’s strategic location between downtown Eugene and downtown Springfield. B. The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District takes policies from the Glenwood Refinement Plan and establishes and implements development standards and building design standards specifically applicable to this Plan District. The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District implements the following visioning goals: 1. Improve public connections to the Willamette River; 2. Establish inviting public spaces, including parks, plazas, and multi-use paths; 3. Encourage aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings and sites that are context sensitive and oriented to human activity; 4. Provide opportunities for the installation, display, and creation of public art; 5. Allow for a mix of uses suitable to the unique development opportunities in Glenwood; 6. Provide opportunities for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a range of households; 7. Facilitate opportunities for businesses to provide goods and services to local, regional, statewide, national, and international markets; 8. Restore, enhance, and protect the ecological function of natural resources, and increase public awareness of these resources; 9. Protect the public from potential natural and manmade hazards; 10. Celebrate Glenwoods contributions to the regions historic development; 11. Enhance the transportation system to improve safety, convenience, and movement for all modes of travel, including vehicles, trains, public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians; 12. Provide a full range of urban public facilities and services for redevelopment and new Commentary The draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District is proposed to replace the existing Glenwood Riverfront Plan District zone in the Springfield Development Code. Creating Plan District zones is a trend in many localities. Sometimes referred to as boutique zoning; communities utilize this approach to address a particular geographic area. Thus is the case for Glenwood. Glenwood is unique it is centrally located in the Eugene-Springfield metro area, it has ready access to multiple transportation options (vehicle, rail, transit),it has substantial natural features (the Willamette River), and it has history (early settlement, industry, and regional transportation connections to name a few). This proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District code differs from the existing Glenwood Riverfront Plan District code in a couple of ways. First, as the title implies, its focus is on mixed-use. Second, is the ramping up of design and development standards and the level of review approval needed. Implementing a mixed-use zoning ordinance can be a worthy objective. Especially if the intent is well executed (its all in the details). As mixed-use implies, the intent is to allow a broader, yet still compatible, array of uses. Where traditional zoning separated uses (i.e., residential here, commercial there, and industrial around the corner), mixed-use zoning permits uses to occur in the same zone (sometimes on the same block or even in the same building). Springfields approach in this regard has resulted in a suite of four proposed mixed-use districts for Glenwood residential mixed-use, commercial mixed-use, office mixed-use and employment mixed-use. The purpose statement for the proposed code is lengthy; longer and more detailed than existing purpose statements in the Springfield code. In our analysis of the proposed employment mixed-use (EMU) zone, comparing it to the subject propertys existing Light-Medium Industrial (LMI) zone and comparison zone of Campus Industrial (CI)), we find the following: Observation The proposed Purpose statement includes a lengthy list of Visioning Goals. Among these is an emphasis on the environment, natural features, ecology and the like. In addition, aesthetics, public art, parks and open space and history are addressed. There is little mention of business. Attachment 1 A-5
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 2 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 development; and 13. Facilitate redevelopment while addressing the consequences of change to existing residents and businesses. Of the thirteen goals, only one, Goal 7, addresses business needs directly, while one other, Goal 13, addresses business needs obliquely. Suggestion The opening statements in both the sites existing Light-Medium Industrial zone and in the comparison Campus Industrial zone, especially the latter, address the needs of employment to a greater degree. We suggest that the proposed mixed-use goals be supplemented to address the needs of employment businesses to at least the same degree as the CI Establishment statement (SDC 3.2-405). A suggested addition is as follows: C. The Employment Mixed-Use District provides opportunities for support and diversification of the local economy by offering prime sites in an environment for small-, medium- and large-scale light manufacturing firms, warehousing and distribution facilities, research and development enterprises and office complexes, emphasizing modern technology and employing skilled workers in family wage jobs. Supporting retail uses for example, banks, restaurants, and day care facilities are permitted if these uses do not primarily serve the public. All uses in the Employment Mixed-Use District shall meet siting and operational performance standards as specified herein. 3.4-210 Applicability The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District includes all land in the Glenwood Riverfront that abuts the Willamette River and both sides of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway from the I-5 Bridges to the south boundary of Glenwood. The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District is divided into two distinct areas: A. The Franklin Riverfront; and B. The McVay Riverfront. Commentary Applicability is a section of the proposed code which has no comparison with either the LMI or CI zones. Naturally, as the LMI and CI are not bound to a particular location and the Glenwood mixed-use zone is, it is understandable that there is a paragraph describing the mixed-use districts geographic extent. 3.2-430 CI DistrictMonitoring Uses A. CI District uses shall be monitored by implementing a Pre-certification process. The purpose of Pre-certification is to determine whether a proposed use us, in fact, a permitted use within the CI District. Pre-certification applies to all new uses and any change of use in the CI District. B. The Director shall review the proposed use prior to the submittal of a development application or in some cases, a building permit. The Director shall consider both the permitted uses and the operational performance standards specified in Sections 3.2-415 and 3.2-425. If the Director does not approve the Pre-certification, the applicant may submit a request in writing to the Director to make a determination that the proposed use is similar to a permitted use. If the Director cannot make a determination that the proposed use is similar to a permitted use, the applicant may apply for an Interpretation as specified in Section 5.11-100. After Pre-certification by the Director, the form will be kept on file in the Development Services Department to be used for continued 3.4-215 Review A. Any proposed development within the Glenwood Riverfront shall require a Development Issues Meeting or a Pre-Application Report as specified in Section 5.1-120. B. All required applications in the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District shall be reviewed as specified in Chapter 5 including, but not limited to: Annexations; Master Plans; the Willamette Greenway Overlay District; the Floodplain Overlay District; the Hillside Development Overlay District; the Historic Overlay District, as applicable; Site Plan Review; and Land Divisions. 1. The development and design standards specified in Sections 3.4-270 and 3.4-275 shall supersede the Site Plan Review submittal requirements for the applicable topics specified in Section 5.17-120 and/or the Master Plan submittal requirements specified in Section 5.13-120, in lieu of the comparable submittal requirements of these applications. 2. Land divisions shall be prohibited on lots/parcels Commentary The sites current LMI zone requires Site Plan Review. Most of the listed uses are permitted outright (subject to Site Review approval). A few uses require a finding of compliance with certain additional standards (which can usually be addressed within a Site Review application). The comparison CI zone also requires Site Review. The list of permitted uses is more specific and there are CI standards to meet, but these, too, can typically be addressed within a Site Review application. The proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District ups the level of land use approval that is required. First, a pre-development meeting is required, either by way of a Development Issues Meeting (DIM) or a Pre-Application Report. Elsewhere in the Springfield code, DIMs are optional (although, in our opinion, very worthwhile). A Pre-Application Report is required for Master Plan but is otherwise optional. Following the pre-development meeting, as with LMI and Attachment 1 A-6
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 3 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 compliance with Section 3.2-415. larger than one acre and designated and zoned Office Mixed-Use or Commercial Mixed-Use, or on lots/parcels larger than 20 acres and designated and zoned Employment Mixed-Use until Final Site Plan Review or Final Master Plan approval has been granted by the City. C. Other Glenwood Riverfront application review procedures include, but are not limited to: 1. Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District Modifications, which shall be reviewed as specified in Section 3.4-230. 2. Design Standards Alternatives/Exemptions from Design Standards, which shall be reviewed as specified in Section 3.4-235. 3. Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District use interpretations, which shall be reviewed as specified in Section 3.4-260. 4. Any other applicable standard as specified elsewhere in this Code. D. Any other applicable agency permits/approvals/coordination including, but not limited to: 1. The Army Corps of Engineers/the Department of State Lands (wetland/riparian areas, stormwater outfalls/discharges and fills/excavations); 2. The Department of Environmental Quality (contaminated sites); 3. The Oregon Department of Transportation (access to/from Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway); and 4. Lane County Transportation (vacation of local access roads). CI, Site Plan Review is required. Here too, as with LMI and CI, findings of compliance with identified standards must also be part of the application. (LMI has only base standards; CI and EMU have both base standards and zone-specific standards - 3.2-445 for CI and 3.4-270 and 3.4-275 for EMU.) Whereas a required DIM may not be too onerous, the level and specificity of the mixed-use standards will likely cause a Site Review application to require more upfront effort (including time and cost). The more time and cost required of an applicant upfront, in advance of any certainty of development approval, the more an applicant may hesitate, postpone or not submit an application at all. (See sections 3.4-265, 3.4-270 and 3.4-275 below for an analysis of the proposed zone-specific standards.) Observation While making one of the two forms of a pre-development meeting a requirement (DIM or Pre-App), it is our opinion that that shouldnt be viewed as being too onerous. It is our experience that a Development Issues Meeting with Springfield staff can be very beneficial, especially when there may be complex zoning requirements, overlay zones, or natural resource, utility or transportation issues. Having a DIM with the city is, in many ways, akin to receiving the answers to a quiz in advance of the quiz itself. Suggestion Allow the required pre-development meeting to remain. Focus on the proposed standards. 3.2-435 CI DistrictStatus of Existing Uses Unless existing uses are on the prohibited use list specified in Section 3.2-415 after July 6, 2004, existing uses have status as specified below. The intent is that the existing uses do not become non-conforming uses. A. Corporate headquarters that are located outside of a business park including, Pacific Source, Symantec, and Holt International are permitted primary uses. If these uses own or have options on adjacent property for future expansion, they may expand without the need to be located within a business park. B. Large-scale light industrial manufacturing buildings may be reused for permitted office/commercial uses as long as these uses do not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area of the building. In addition, warehouse may occur as specified in Section 3.2-415. EXCEPTION: For SONY, reuse may include any permitted use in the CI District. If no large- or mediumscale light industrial manufacturing use is proposed, conversion to a business park is permitted. However, the acreage comprising a conversion to a business park shall be applied to the 40 percent gross acre standard for business parks as specified in Section 3.2-415, Note (2). The SONY site may also use the excess facility capacity as a private utility to serve other properties in the vicinity. C. Stand-alone day care centers that primarily serve CI 3.4-220 Non-Conforming Uses Any existing non-conforming building, structure and/or use may continue, expand, or be modified as may be permitted in Sections 5.8-120, 5.8-125 and 3.4-280 until they are either abandoned, as defined in Section 5.8-130, and/or redeveloped as defined in Section 6.1-110. Commentary The LMI zone does not include a specific reference (i.e., a prohibition, limitation or requirement) to a pre-existing or non-conforming structure or use. In that zone, other sections of the code prevail, specifically SDC 5.8-100 Non-Conforming Uses, the same section of the code that would apply in any zone not otherwise limited. The CI zone addresses specific permitted pre-existing uses. (This section of the CI zone has been amended over the years to accommodate a few specific uses as well as occupants and owners.) If not listed here, other pre-existing uses are regulated by sections elsewhere in the code, i.e. SDC 5.8-100. (One limitation to note is that, if not provided status as in the CI zone, other pre-existing uses have limits on uses and expansion by way of the default 5.8-100.) This non-conforming use section of the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District has been crafted in recognition of the quantity, diversity, standing, and viability of a wide array of structures and uses in the Glenwood neighborhood. This is an appropriate provision. Observation Re-development of the Glenwood neighborhood is likely to occur incrementally over a period of time. Allowing existing Attachment 1 A-7
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 4 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 District businesses are a permitted secondary use. D. Permitted stand alone office/commercial uses outside of business parks are a permitted primary use. E. Significant Goal 5 historic resources, including the Brabham farm, the Koppe farm, and the Rice farm, may continue as a residential use or as any permitted commercial use. Any external modifications to these structures shall be as specified in Section 3.3-900. structures and uses to continue under the same code provisions they now enjoy is appropriate. Suggestion Okay as proposed. 3.4-225 Conflicts In cases where: A. The development standards of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District conflict with local standards found in other Sections of this Code, the standards of the Plan District will prevail, unless there is a specific reference to another SDC Section. In that case, the referenced Sections standards will prevail. B. These development standards conflict with Federal and/or State regulations, the Federal and/or State regulations will prevail. Commentary This is standard conflict language. Of note, is the statement that the new standards herein for the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District will prevail. (See sections 3.4-265, 3.4-270 and 3.4-275 below for an analysis of the proposed zone-specific standards.) 3.2-440 CI DistrictConceptual 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 may be submitted when phased developments exceeding 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. (6238) 3.4-230 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District Modifications Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District modifications shall be categorized as Minor and Major. A. A Minor Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District modification shall be subject to a Directors decision under either a Type I or a Type II review procedure. Minor Modifications are those which result in any of the following: 1. Type I review procedure. a. Changes related to the streetscape, the visual elements of a street, including, but not limited to the street, adjacent buildings, street furniture, trees and open spaces, etc, that combine to form the street’s character, in a manner consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and implementation strategies and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. b. A change in the design of a street in a manner consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and implementation strategies and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. c. A change of 20 percent or less to a quantified building design standard as specified in Section 3.4-275. 2. Type II review procedure. a. A modification of a driveway access location in a manner consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and implementation strategies. B. A Major Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District modification shall be subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type III review procedure. Major Modifications are those that result in any of the following: Commentary The CI zone requires Site Review, Master Plan (if phasing is longer than that permitted by Site Review 3 years or more) or a Conceptual Development Plan (if over 50 acres). The proposed Employment Mixed-Use (EMU) zone requires Site Review (with findings of compliance with EMU-specific standards). And would also require Master Plan if a development proposal is for a site 5 acres or larger and/or includes a phasing timeline of 3 years or more. The current Glenwood Riverfront Plan District code includes Type I, Type II and Type IV review processes when seeking a modification. Current Type I and Type II review requirements have been found to be difficult, for both applicants and the city. For one, both include a reference to basic underlying assumptions. This has been found to be ambiguous and not easily found or determined by an applicant. It has been only following a pre-development meeting, that staff has been able to articulate the basic underlying assumptions as they apply to a particular application. This has been a source of ambiguity for applicants. (Underlying assumptions were also in the Master Plan ordinance, but were removed by the city when it adopted a new Master Plan procedure in 2009). The proposed Plan District Modifications are an improvement. They eliminate the underlying assumptions reference; they eliminate the Type IV procedure (which included two rounds of public notice and public hearing before both the Planning Commission and the City Council), and they clarify the situations where a Type I or a Type II process applies. In the new ordinance, both the Type I and the Type II processes are classified as a Minor Modification, with a Attachment 1 A-8
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 5 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 1. A change of more than 20 percent to a quantified building design standard as specified in Section 3.4-275. 2. A change that requires a street, mid-block connector, multi-use path or other transportation facility to be shifted, provided the change maintains the connectivity requirements established by the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and implementation strategies and that the shift does not impact the integrity of a Subarea. 3. A modification not specifically listed under the minor modification categories specified in Subsection A and the major modification categories specified in this Subsection. EXCEPTION: Any modification to the street grid that necessitates a street or other transportation facility to be eliminated (unless permitted as specified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Transportation Chapter, Franklin Riverfront Local Street Network), a modification that proposes to eliminate or change the minimum width or length of one or both of the park blocks, or other proposal that is not consistent with applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan policies and/or implementation strategies shall require an amendment of the Glenwood Refinement Plan as well as the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District as specified in Section 5.6-100. C. All Major Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District Plan modifications shall include a peer review of the proposed modification, at the applicants expense, to supplement the record of the public hearing. Peer review is a process used for evaluating modifications proposed by the design team specified in Subsection 3.4-275B. Peer review is performed by firms employing architects, engineers and planners. The Director shall choose the peer review firm based upon the following criteria: 1. A description of the firms history, size and professional capabilities to undertake the project in a timely manner; 2. An outline of the firms experience with regard to achieving high-quality functional, aesthetic and economical building design; 3. Demonstrated experience with sustainable construction, such as completed projects that received a LEED rating, or other similar sustainable design programs; 4. A list key personnel assignments for the peer review; 5. The proposed format for the presentation of the review and recommendations; 6. The time schedule to perform the review; 7. The submittal of 3 separate professional references with persons who are familiar with the work of the firm. References will be contacted by person, phone and/or correspondence as to the firms past performance; and 8. Any experience with previous peer reviews to decision by the Planning Director. In place of the previous Type IV process, there is a new Major Modification process, but is only at Type III process. Type III processes include only one public notice and hearing. The new Type I covers changes to street and streetscape design and up to a 20 percent change in a building design standard. Type I procedures do not include public notice and are often rendered a decision within 30-45 days. The new Type II addresses changes in driveway locations. Type II processes include public notice but no public hearing, with decisions by the planning director typically within 60-75 days. (A local jurisdiction has up to 120 days from the day an application is deemed complete to render a decision and allow sufficient time for local appeals. It has been a City of Springfield practice to complete Type I and Type II processes in a shorter amount of time.) The proposed Major Modification Type III process covers changes to street locations, changes to a building design standard by more than 20 percent and a modification to any other standard not specifically mentioned elsewhere in this section. One new provision which, in our opinion, requires additional consideration is subsection C requiring Peer Review. Peer review is not currently a requirement in Springfield. Peer review has been utilized a few times by Springfield, but the city has facilitated the activity and paid for the cost. It is our opinion that peer review, whether required or not, whether paid for by the applicant or the city, is completely unnecessary. It is overly burdensome on the applicant, especially in terms of time and the uncertainty of the outcome. It is also overly burdensome on the public as an unnecessary public expense. Further, it calls into question the expertise of the applicants consultant team and their ability to adequately interpret the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code to apply identified requirements to the applicants proposal. It the city has concerns with a specific development proposal, there multiple opportunities to express those concerns. First, there is the required Development Issues Meeting; an excellent opportunity for the city to put forth any and all concerns they may have for a particular proposal. Second, there is Site Review and/or Master Plan. Site Review includes a Pre-Submittal process where the city can provide commentary regarding a proposal. Master Plan requires both a Pre-Application and a Pre-Submittal process two opportunities to review and comment on a proposal. Observation The proposed plan modification procedures are an improvement over existing code. Attachment 1 A-9
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 6 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 include the type and number of reviews conducted. D. Major and Minor Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District Plan modification criteria. The proposed modification shall: 1. Maintain the integrity of the north/south east-west street grid that provides multi-modal internal circulation in the Franklin Riverfront and the future internal street layout in the McVay Riverfront established by the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and implementation strategies, or the proposed modification shall be necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property including, but not limited to: a. Hillsides; b. Protecting significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features; or c. Adjusting existing property lines between proposed development area boundaries. 2. Not significantly affect the landscaping, stormwater management, design, circulation and access policies and implementation strategies in the applicable chapters of the Glenwood Refinement Plan or the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. 3. Result in a development design that meets or exceeds the applicable purposes of Section 3.4-205. This criterion applies to Major Modifications. The Peer review requirement is unnecessary and overly reaching on the part of the city. Suggestion For the reasons cited in the commentary above, strike Section C in its entirety. 3.4-235 Design Standards Alternatives/ Exemptions from Design Standards A. Sections 3.4-270 and 3.4-275 list development and design standards that require compliance from the developer. A developer may choose to: 1. Comply with the development/design standards; 2. Request an exemption from certain development/design standards; and/or 3. Propose alternative development/design standards that shall meet or exceed the standard in question. B. The developer shall submit a request in writing to the Director for a development/design exemption or alternative development/design proposal at the time of application for a Development Issues Meeting or Pre-Application Report, as specified in Subsections 5.1-120A and B. The request shall be revised as necessary and submitted with the Pre-Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Subsection 5.1-120C to allow the City sufficient time for review and consideration. If the applicant desires to proceed with the development/design exemption or alternative development/design proposal, at the Pre-Submittal Meeting the Director shall reclassify the Site Plan Review or Master Plan application from a Type II procedure to a Type III review procedure as specified in Section 5.1-130. It shall be the developers responsibility to make the case for a development/design exemption or alternative development/design proposal as part of the formal Site Plan Review and/or Master Plan application submittal. Commentary This section provides clarity for an applicant regarding the opportunity to suggest either an alternative or an exemption from design standards. Clarity is always appreciated by an applicant. The proposed requirements and process is clear and fair, EXCEPT for one provision that requiring Peer Review. Peer Review is being required, at the applicants expense, to justify a requested design alternative or exemption. As above, Peer Review is completely unnecessary, overly burdensome and costly and calls into question the ability of the applicants consultant team to interpret the code. The process outlined in the proposed code provides multiple opportunities for the city to review and evaluate a particular alternative or exemption. There is the required DIM for all applications, the required pre-submittal process for Site Review and the required pre-application and pre-submittal processes for Master Plan. All of these occur before an application is submitted as complete and before formal processing and timelines begin. These represent more than adequate opportunities for the city to review and comment on the proposal. Observation The Peer Review requirement is unnecessary and overly reaching on the part of the city. Attachment 1 A-10
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 7 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 In this case, a peer review of the proposed exemption and/or alternative standard shall be submitted at the applicants expense. Suggestion For the reasons cited in the commentary above, strike Peer Review requirement in its entirety. 3.4-240 Phased Development A. If development that is planned to occur in phases will be completed in less than 3 years, a phased development plan shall be submitted concurrently with the Site Plan Review application as specified in Section 5.17-100. B. For phased developments lasting more than 3 years, or in situations described in Section 3.4-235, a Master Plan application, as specified in Section 5.13-100, shall be required to guarantee phasing continuity. Commentary This section regarding phased development mirrors requirements regarding phased development and standard processing elsewhere in the existing code and is fine. 3.4-245 Land Use Designations, Zoning District Descriptions and Applicable Overlay Districts A. Applicable land use designations. 1. The Metro Plan designations are as follows: a. The Metro Plans Mixed-Use designation applies to all land within the Glenwood Riverfront. b. The Metro Plans Nodal Development Area designation applies to all land within the Franklin Riverfront and the land along McVay Highway, north of the Union Pacific Railroad trestle. The Nodal Development Area designation supports a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly land use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be oriented to pedestrians and transit. c. The Metro Plans Public and Semi-Public designation includes existing publicly owned metropolitan and regional scale parks, and publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries in recognition of their role as visual open space, as well as some other areas needed for public open space at a non-local level. This designation may apply to public open spaces envisioned in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, and/or any necessary major public facility, at such time as they are placed under public jurisdiction. Until that time, these public open space areas and future major public facilities, (e.g., a fire station) will retain the applicable mixed-use designation and zoning described in Subsections A.2 and B. When appropriate, the City or an affected public agency may initiate a Metro Plan and Zoning Map amendment for the subject property to be designated Public and Semi-Public and zoned Public Land and Open Space. 2. The Glenwood Refinement Plan designations are Residential Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, Office Mixed-Use and Employment Mixed-Use and Commentary This section of the proposed code provides linkage and relationship to the Metro Plan, describing applicable Metro Plan land use designations, corresponding Glenwood Refinement Plan land use designations, and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan zoning districts. The referenced Nodal Development Area correlates with Nodal Development Area 8A in the 2002 TransPlan. The Primary, Secondary and Accessory uses listed as examples correlates with those of the existing CI zone, with one exception. The proposed Secondary Uses (3.4-245.B.4.d) include commercial retail and sales, public eating and drinking and personal services. In the existing CI district, these are permitted only in business parks and may not serve the public. The proposed code herein is an improvement in terms of providing a broader array of permitted uses and an expanded service market. This is beneficial in terms of providing flexibility in the market place and providing opportunity for close-to-work support services. The cited limitation on warehousing and distribution (3.4-245.B.4.c) mirrors the existing CI zone. Observation The proposed code clarifications regarding the relationship between the Metro Plan, Glenwood Refinement plan and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District is well articulated. Suggestion Okay as is. Attachment 1 A-11
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 8 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 are delineated(?) as Subareas A, B, C, and D, respectively. The descriptions of these designations are the same as the base zoning districts described in Subsection B. B. Establishment of base zoning districts. The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District is comprised of Subareas A, B, C and D that comply with the Glenwood Refinement Plan designations and establish the following base zoning districts. Note: The definitions of Primary Use, Secondary Use, and Accessory Use can be found in Section 3.4-250 and in Chapter 6, Definitions. 4. Employment Mixed-Use. Subarea D provides for office employment and light manufacturing employment uses with limited external impacts that have riverfront views and points of access to the river. In Subarea D: a. Primary uses are office employment uses; professional, technical and scientific commercial service uses; educational facilities compatible with the employment mixed-use orientation of this subarea as specified in Section 3.4-250; and production, assembly, testing, and packaging functions associated with light manufacturing or technology uses shall be permitted on any floor of a building. A hospital with supporting medical office buildings shall also be considered a primary employment use. Within a primary use building, accessory uses including, but not limited to child care, indoor recreation centers, cafeterias, restaurants, or other contracted services for the benefit of office employees and that do not generally serve the public may be located. b. Secondary educational facilities compatible with the employment mixed-use orientation of this subarea as specified in Section 3.4-250. c. Secondary warehousing and distribution functions associated with a primary light manufacturing use are permitted. d. Secondary commercial retail sales and services, public eating and drinking establishments, and personal services restricted to the ground floor shall be permitted. Secondary commercial uses may occupy up to 100 percent of the ground floor of a building. e. In order to preserve the employment land supply, no more than 50 percent of a development area within Subarea D shall be dedicated to a secondary commercial use. f. No residential uses shall be permitted. C. Applicable overlay districts: 1. The Willamette Greenway Overlay District as it applies in Glenwood (Section 3.4-280); 2. The Floodplain Overlay District (Section 3.3-400); 3. The Hillside Overlay District (Section 3.3-500); and 4. The Historic Overlay District (Section 3.3-900), as applicable; see Subsection 3.4-270N. Attachment 1 A-12
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 9 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 3.2-410 Schedule of Light-Medium Industrial Use Categories The following uses are permitted in the districts as indicated, subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 5.11-100. P = PERMITTED USE subject to the standards of this Code. S = SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS subject to special locational and/or siting standards as specified in Section 4.7-100; in the SHI District, the S standard is found in Section 3.2-420, Note 2. D = DISCRETIONARY USE subject to review and analysis under Type III procedure (Section 5.9-100) at the Planning Commission or Hearings Official level. N = NOT PERMITTED SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED unless exempted elsewhere in this Code. Use Categories/Uses Manufacture and/or Assembly of (Section 4.7-100) Appliances P Apparel and other finished products made from canvas, cloth, fabrics, feathers, felt, leather, textiles, wool, yarn and similar materials P Chemical and chemical products N Communication equipment, including radio and television equipment P Compounding, or treatment of the following previously prepared materials: bone, Cellophane, clay, cork, Fiberglas, glass, hair, horns, metal, paper, plastic, shells, stones, synthetic resins, textiles, tobacco, wool and yarns N Concrete blocks, cinder blocks and septic tanks N Costume jewelry, novelties, buttons, notions P Cutlery, hand tools and hardware P Dairy products, including butter, cream, cheese, milk, yogurt N Electronic components and accessories P Electronic transmission and distribution equipment P Engineering, laboratory, scientific, and research instruments P Explosives, manufacturing and distribution N Finished wood manufacturing and assembly, including cabinets and door frames P Food processing and packaging to include beverages, candy and other confectionery products, vegetables, meat, poultry and seafood P Fireworks N Furniture, including restoration P Greeting cards, business forms and other business related printing P Industrial machinery P Lumber, wood and paper products N Manufactured/modular housing, allied components P Measuring, analyzing, and controlling instruments P Medical, dental, surgical equipment and supplies P Medicinal chemical and pharmaceutical products P 3.2-415 Schedule of Campus Industrial Use Categories SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED unless exempted elsewhere in this Code. The following uses are permitted in the district as indicated, subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 5.11-100. Use Category/Uses Primary Uses(3) Advertising, marketing, and public relations P Agricultural cultivation is permitted as an interim use on undeveloped land, provided that spraying, dust, odors, and other side effects of the use do not interfere with the operation of permitted uses in the CI District(7) P Blueprinting and photocopying P Business Parks(2) P Call centers that process predominantly inbound telephone calls P Computer systems design services P Corporate headquarters, regional headquarters, and administrative offices(4) P Data processing and related services P E-commerce including mail order houses P Educational facilities in business parks including, but not limited to, professional, vocational and business schools; and job training and vocational rehabilitation services P Graphic art services P High Impact Public Facilities(10) D Internet and web site and web search portal (includes services and technical support center) P Internet publishing and broadcasting P Laboratories, including medical, dental and x-ray P Large- and medium-scale research and development complexes(6) P Light industrial manufacturing involving the secondary processing of previously prepared materials into components or the assembly of components into finished products(1) P Mail distribution facilities(5) P Management, consulting, public relations offices P Media productions, including, but not limited to: TV and radio broadcasting studios as well as cable and other program distribution and motion picture production P Non-profit organization office P Printing and publishing P Professional membership and union offices P Satellite telecommunications P Software development (includes services and technical support center) and publishing P Wired or wireless telecommunications offices P Secondary Uses(3) (8) ATMs; banks, savings and loans, credit unions P Barber, beauty, nail and tanning shops P Bike paths and pedestrian trails P Building maintenance services P 3.4-250 Schedule of Use Categories In Subareas A, B, C and D, the following uses shall be permitted in the base zoning districts as indicated, subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 3.4-260. Prohibited uses are listed in Section 3.4-255. P = PRIMARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Primary uses are defined in Chapter 6 as the principal use approved in accordance with this Code which usually occupies greater than 50% of the gross floor area of a building or greater than 50% of a development area. "S" = SECONDARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Secondary uses are defined in Chapter 6 as Any approved use of land or a structure which is incidental and subordinate to the primary use, and located on the same development area as the primary useSecondary uses shall not occur in the absence of primary uses. N = NOT PERMITTED SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED for all development proposals within Subareas A, B, C and D. Categories/Uses For Subarea D Accessory Uses A use or uses within a primary commercial, office and/or employment building that is for the employees benefit and which does not generally serve the public; including, but not limited to: building maintenance facilities, central mail rooms, child care, conference rooms; employee restaurants and cafeterias, indoor recreation areas and indoor recycling collection centers. P Commercial/Retail Eating and drinking establishments whose principal activity involves the sale and/or service of prepared foods and beverages directly to consumers including, but not limited to, bakeries, cafes, delicatessens, restaurants, coffee shops, brew pubs, and wine bars. P Personal services whose principal activity involves the care of a person or a persons apparel including, but not limited to, fitness centers, spas, barber shops, shoe repair, dry cleaners, tailors, and daycare. S Professional, scientific, research and technical services are small-scale commercial office enterprises whose principal activity involves providing a specialized service to others. These activities can be housed in office storefronts, office buildings, or in residential or live/work units and include, but are not limited to, legal advice and representation, accounting, banking, architecture, engineering, design and marketing, real estate, insurance, physicians, and counselors. P Retail Sales and Services commercial enterprises whose principal activity involves the sale and/or servicing of merchandise (new or reused), directly to consumers. Examples include, but are not limited to, bookstores, grocers, pharmacies, art galleries, florists and apparel shops. S Commentary The proposed list of Permitted Use Categories and Uses is well articulated. It includes a broad array of permitted uses. It is more encompassing that the existing CI district. The definitions of Primary, Secondary and Accessory Use are clear. Observation Three observations. First is concerning the third listed use in the Employment category Light Manufacturing. It appears as though company vehicles must be stored indoors. We doubt that that is the intention. Second is the manner in which Educational Facilities are described. Specifying classroom facilities is limiting in the context of labs, gyms, libraries and other facilities associated with education. Note (1) seems to draw an arbitrary distinction between P and S uses. Third is concerning the two listed uses in the Hospitality category. Conference/Visitor Centers and Hotels are not permitted in the Employment Mixed-Use zone. Our recollection is that there has been interest in the property fronting the river, immediately south of the Springfield Bridge. If the conversation regarding that particular location has moved on, then the proposed code language herein is fine. If that particular location is still considered a possible Hotel/Conference center location, then the proposed code language might want to be re-visited. Suggestion Change Light Manufacturing uses to read: storage of materials occurs entirely indoors Change Educational Facilities to read: Public/private educational facilities for primary and secondary education. P Public/private educational facilities that includeand vocational rehabilitation. P Change Hospitality to read: Conference/Visitor Center to includeconference/ exposition centers. P Attachment 1 A-13
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 10 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Metal and metal alloy products N Metal fabrication and machine shops P Musical instruments P Paint, varnishes, lacquers, enamels, allied product N Prosthetics and orthopedic devices P Office computing and accounting equipment P Optical instruments, including lenses P Perfumes and toiletries P Photographic equipment and supplies P Signs and advertising display P Toys, sporting and athletic goods P Transportation equipment including airplanes, autos, boats, buses, helicopters, motorcycles, RVs, trailers and trucks P Watches, clocks and related components P Other Primary Industrial Uses Batch plant: Asphaltic and Portland cement concrete N Bulk plant: Refined flammable liquids delivered by tank car or pipe line N Cleaning and dyeing plants N Foundry and stamping plants N Gas storage tanks and distribution facilities N Ice and cold storage plants N Incineration or reduction of garbage, dead animals, offal and refuse N Industrial Parks P Leather tanning and finishing N Lubricating oil and grease processing and storage N Media productions, including TV and radio broadcasting, motion picture production and newspaper / book / periodical publishing P Plating and coating works N Recycling facilities N Regional distribution headquarters, including indoor storage P Research development and testing laboratories and facilities P Slaughters houses N Transportation Related, Non-manufacturing Automotive and heavy equipment repair and service including the recapping of tires P Auto wrecking, storage and towing services N Maintenance facilities for passenger bus vehicles or motor freight vehicles P Key/card lock fuel facilities P Transportation facilities listed in Section 3.2-310 P Secondary Uses Serving On-Site Industrial Uses Accessory structures P Administrative professional or business offices P Blue printing Photostatting and photo developing P Cafeteria serving employees only P Child care facilities primarily serving employees P Recreation area serving the development area P Financial institutions P Heliports and helistops P Manufactured unit used as a permanent office (Section 4.7-170) S Manufactured home used as a night watch persons quarters (Section 4.7-185) S Day care facilities that meet Childrens Services Division (CSD) regulations P Eating and drinking establishments including, but not limited to: delicatessens, restaurants, and coffee/espresso shops P Industrial, professional equipment, supply stores P Low impact public utility facilities P Outdoor recreation uses and pedestrian amenities including, but not limited to facilities that are provided in association with a primary use within the same development area P Parking lots and parking structures P Pedestrian plazas and similar public spaces P Product showrooms, limited to wholesale sales P Retail, wholesale and service uses P Accessory components of a Primary Use(3) Central mail room P Conference rooms for tenant use P Employee lounges and dining rooms P Indoor recreation areas including, but not limited to game/craft rooms, exercise/dance studios P Warehousing(9) P Prohibited Uses Heavy industrial uses that involve the primary manufacturing of large volumes of raw materials into refined materials including, but not limited to processing from trees to lumber, wood products or paper; from ores to primary metals; and animal or fish processing in packing plants N Any use that cannot meet the operational performance standards specified in Section 3.2-425 N Any retail uses, unless permitted as a secondary use as specified in Section 3.2-415 N Stand-alone industrial/commercial warehousing, unless permitted as a secondary use as specified in Section 3.2-410 N Mini-warehouse storage facilities N Drive-through facilities N Medical and dental practitioner offices N Motor freight terminals N Moving and storage facilities N Truck and auto repair and painting facilities N Truck and car washes N Gas stations N Motels N Notes (1) There is no use list for this category of uses. Proposed light industrial manufacturing uses shall comply with the operational performance standards specified in Section 3.2-425 in order for to be considered a permitted use. Large- and medium-scale light industrial manufacturing uses may stand alone. Small-scale light industrial manufacturing uses shall be located within a business park. (2) No more than 40 percent of the gross acres of a CI District shall be developed as business parks. Business parks shall be 5 acres or more in size. Unless specified Educational Facilities Public/Private educational classroom facilities for primary and secondary education. N Public/Private educational classroom facilities that include, but are not limited to higher education, business, professional, and vocational schools and job training and vocational rehabilitation services. P/S(1) Employment Business Parks P Hospitals P Light Manufacturing uses engaged in the manufacture (predominantly from previously prepared materials) of finished products or parts including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, testing, and packaging of these products that are not potentially dangerous or environmentally incompatible with office employment uses and all manufacturing and storage of materials and company vehicles occurs entirely indoors. These uses include, but are not limited to, manufacture of electronic instruments, preparation of food products, pharmaceutical manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories, and businesses that recycle manufactured materials for sale to the public within a building. P Office Employment uses are typically housed in office buildings where there is limited interaction between the public and the proprietor, associated with the performance of a range of administrative, medical, high-tech, nanotechnology, green technology, pharmaceutical and biotechnology, information technology, information management, and research and development functions. These uses include, but are not limited to, call centers, corporate or regional headquarters, physicians clinics, software development, media production, data processing services and technical support centers. P Recycling facilities that occur completely within buildings and located only on the west side of McVay Highway. P Warehousing and distribution - Warehousing and distribution are for the storage and regional wholesale distribution of manufactured products and for products used in testing, design, technical training or experimental product research and development permitted in conjunction with business headquarters. S Hospitality Conference/Visitor Center include, but are not limited to conference hotels, museums, and conference/exposition centers. N Hotels include, but are not limited to, inns, bed and breakfasts, guesthouses, extended stay hotels or apartment hotels, limited service hotels, full service hotels. Hotels may be converted to apartments as may be permitted by this Code and the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, related Attachment 1 A-14
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 11 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Outdoor storage of materials directly related to a permitted use P Service and Repair Small scale repair and maintenance services listed in Section 3.2-310 P Warehouse Commercial, Wholesale Trade, Storage and Distribution Regional distribution headquarters, including indoor storage P Warehouse/commercial uses engaged primarily in the wholesaling of materials to the construction industry (Section 4.7-245) S Wholesale trade, warehousing, distribution and storage (to include ministorage) P Warehouse commercial retail and wholesale sales listed in Section 3.2-310 P Business, Labor, Scientific and Professional Organizations and Headquarters and Recreational Uses Recreational facilities in Section 3.2-310 P Other Uses Agricultural cultivation of undeveloped land P Business, labor, scientific and professional organizations and headquarters P Public utility facilities High impact facilities (Section 4.7-160) S Low impact facilities P Notes (None) in Section 3.2-435, business parks may contain permitted small- and medium scale light industrial manufacturing uses as well as any permitted primary or secondary uses. Multiple story buildings are encouraged; office/commercial uses may be located above industrial uses. Development standards for business parks shall be as specified in Sections 3.2-445 and 3.2-450. (3) The following commercial and office uses are permitted within a business park. (4) Corporate headquarters, regional headquarters, and administrative offices may be permitted as part of a large-scale light-manufacturing use or located within a business park. Corporate and regional headquarters may also stand alone. The acreage comprising stand alone corporate or regional headquarters site shall be applied to the 40 percent gross acre standard for business parks specified in Note (2), above. Corporate and regional headquarters shall have at least 20 or more employees at the time of occupancy. (5) The acreage comprising a stand alone mail distribution site shall be applied to the 40 percent gross acre standard for business parks as specified in Note: (2), above. (6) Large- and medium-scale research and development complexes may stand alone. Stand alone large- and medium scale research and development complexes are considered an industrial component of the CI District. Small-scale research and development complexes shall be located within a business park. (7) Agricultural cultivation are permitted as an interim use on undeveloped land, provided that spraying, dust, odors, and other side effects of the use do not interfere with the operation of permitted uses in the CI District. (8) Secondary uses. (a) In no case shall a secondary use stand alone or be permitted in the absence of a primary use. (b) Retail, wholesale and service uses, either alone or in combination, shall not exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area of a building. These uses shall exclude any drive-through facility and shall not primarily serve the public. Except for ATMs, each use is limited to 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. (c) Child care facilities may exceed the 2,500 square foot standard in order to comply with size requirements specified in ORS 667A. (9) Warehousing is permitted only as a secondary use in the following circumstances: (a) For the storage and regional wholesale distribution of products manufactured in the CI District; (b) For products used in testing, design, technical training or experimental product research and development in the CI District; and/or (c) In conjunction with permitted office-commercial uses in the CI District. (d) The secondary use status of warehousing is typically determined by a square footage standard which is less than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the primary use. In the CI District, the number of building codes, fire codes and referenced standards in effect at the time of application for a building permit. N Housing (high density), including, but not limited to: Apartments N Condominiums N Dormitories N Lofts N Row Houses N Senior /Congregate Care Facilities N Townhouses N Live/Work Units N Parking Public or Private Parking Structures P Public Open Space Riverfront Linear Park/Multi-Use Path P Park Blocks to include recreational facilities and stormwater management N Public Utilities and Other Public Uses Low Impact Facilities Any public or semi-public facility that is permitted subject to the design standards of this Code, including, but not limited to: wastewater, stormwater management, electricity and water to serve individual homes and businesses and other utilities that have minimal olfactory, visual or auditory impacts; street lights; and fire hydrants. P Public uses including, but not limited to fire and police stations. N Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities. Only flush mounting the entire antenna on a building shall be permitted if: the connecting cables cannot be seen; they are color matched to the building; and they match the faade of the building. If conditions do not favor flush mounted antennas, a stand-alone monopole antenna not more than 15 feet high, measured from the place of attachment on the roof, shall be permitted if the antenna is set back so it cannot be seen from street. S Notes (1) In order to qualify as a primary use, the educational classroom facility shall have a staff of at least 20 instructors and/or administrators. Educational classroom facilities with fewer employees shall be permitted as a secondary use. Attachment 1 A-15
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 12 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 employees at the time of occupancy may also be used to determine secondary use standards status. In this case, the primary use shall have 20 or more employees and the warehousing use shall have fewer employees than the primary use. If the employee standard is met, the warehousing use may have more square footage than the primary use. (10) If approved in a Conceptual Development Plan, or a Master Plan for the subject CI site, or included in an adopted Public Facilities Plan, high impact public facilities are subject only to Site Plan Review approval. 3.4-255 Prohibited Uses The following uses shall be prohibited within the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District: Agricultural machinery rental/sales/service Auto parts, tires, batteries, and accessories Auto/truck sales/rental/service Warehouse Commercial Retail Sales (Big box stores)(1) Car and truck washes Drive through facilities including, but not limited to banks and restaurants Equipment, heavy, rental/sales/service Exterior display and storage of merchandise (a) Free-standing wireless communication towers Key/card lock fuel facilities Light manufacturing use that cannot meet the operational performance standards specified in Section 3.4-270 Manufactured dwelling sales/service/repair Mini-warehouse storage facilities Motels Motor freight terminals Moving and storage facilities Recreational vehicle and heavy truck, sales/rental/service Service stations and gas stations Tires, sales/service Transit park and ride facility Truck and auto repair and painting facilities Notes (1) A big-box store (also supercenter, superstore, or megastore) is a physically large retail establishment, usually part of a chain, generally more than 50,000 square feet in size. The term sometimes also refers, by extension, to the company that operates the store. Examples include large department stores and specialty retailers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and IKEA and/or home improvement centers such as Lowes or Home Depot. EXCEPTION: Outdoor seating for restaurants and pedestrian-oriented accessory uses, including flower, food, or drink stands shall be permitted. Temporary public gatherings including, but not limited to open-air markets and festivals shall also be permitted as specified in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. Commentary This list of Prohibited Uses mirrors the prohibited uses of the existing CI district and closely matches the prohibited uses listed in the LMI district. Observation While the proposed list of prohibited uses mirrors existing lists of prohibited uses, one might question the prohibition of a service station/gas station. If the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District is to be a dense, user friendly, convenient place to live or work, indeed if the Franklin Blvd area is to be attractive for conference/visitor/hotel complex, then the lack of a convenient, walkable location to service ones vehicle seems short-sighted. It seems a service station (well-designed of course) could at least be a Discretionary Use on the interior (south) side of Franklin Blvd. and on the interior (west) side of McVay Highway. Secondly, and for similar reasoning, a prohibition on drive through coffee/espresso facilities seems a bit harsh. These facilities are extremely popular, are profitable for the developer/land owner, and appreciated by nearby residents and employees. It seems that these could be Discretionary or Secondary Uses. Suggestion Change 3.4-255 Prohibited Uses to delete the following uses from the list: Drive through facilities including, but not limited to banks and restaurants Service stations and gas stations Attachment 1 A-16
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 13 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 3.4-260 Interpretations A. The use categories listed in Section 3.4-250 include examples that illustrate permitted uses within the particular category. A specific use not identified within a category will be permitted by the Director if: 1. A finding is made that the proposed use meets the intent of the category as defined in Section 3.4-250; 2. The use has impacts to surrounding properties and City infrastructure that are similar in type and magnitude to the other permitted uses typical of the category; and 3. The Director enters the decision into a registry on file in the Development Services Department. The registry shall be made available to the public upon request and shall contain the following information: a. The street address or other easily understood geographic reference to the property upon which the specific use will occur; b. The date of the decision; and c. A description of the decision made. 4. Use interpretations made under this Section are subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision. B. Uses that the Director determines cannot be readily interpreted as specified in Subsection A. will be processed as a formal interpretation as specified in Section 5.11-100. Commentary There is an existing Interpretations section of the Springfield Development code (SDC 5.11-100). In the existing code, Interpretations are processed as a Type II, Type III or sometimes a Type IV process. The proposed code language herein provides for an initial interpretation process that is simpler, timelier and less costly. Observation The code as proposed is a little ambiguous. It says that interpretations made under this Section are subject to LUBA Appeals. same manner as a limited land use decision. It seems that it would be clearer that this proposed process be handled as a Type I process. Suggestion Revise Section A.4 to read: 4. Use interpretations made under this Section are to be processed under the provisions found in SDC 5.1-125 Type I Applications and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision. 3.2-420 Base Zone Development Standards Development Standard(1): Minimum Lot./Parcel Size(2) 10,000 sf Minimum Frontage(3) 75 feet Panhandle Lot/parcel- Minimum Frontage- both single and double panhandles 40 feet Maximum Lot/parcel Coverage See SDC Landscape Setbacks (4) Front Yard, Street Side Yard, and Through Lot/parcel Rear Yard: Building Setback 10 feet Parking, Driveway and Outdoor Storage 5 feet Interior Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback: Building Setback from residential districts 10 feet Building Setback from CI District 10 feet Building Setback within the CI District from other districts N/A Building separation from other buildings within the CI District N/A Parking, Driveway and Outdoor Storage 5 feet Maximum Height(6) See below Industrial District abuts an LDR or MDR District to the north SDC 3.2-225A1b Industrial District abuts an LDR or MDR District to the east, west or south Limits w/in 50 feet 3.2-420 Base Zone Development Standards Development Standard(1): Minimum Lot./Parcel Size(2) 10,000 sf Minimum Frontage(3) 75 feet Panhandle Lot/parcel- Minimum Frontage- both single and double panhandles N/A Maximum Lot/parcel Coverage See SDC Landscape Setbacks (4) Front Yard, Street Side Yard, and Through Lot/parcel Rear Yard: Building Setback 20/30 feet Parking, Driveway and Outdoor Storage 5 feet(5) Interior Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback: Building Setback from residential districts 50 feet Building Setback from CI District N/A Building Setback within the CI District from other districts 20 feet Building separation from other buildings within the CI District 20 feet Parking, Driveway and Outdoor Storage 5 feet(5) Maximum Height(6) 45 feet Industrial District abuts an LDR or MDR District to the north N/A Industrial District abuts an LDR or MDR District to the east, west or south N/A 3.4-265 Base Zone Development Standards Subarea D Minimum Development Area: (1) 5 acres Minimum Lot/Parcel Size: None Minimum Street Frontage: (2) None Maximum Lot/Parcel Coverage: None Minimum Density: (3) N/A Setbacks: Build-to Lines/Building Setbacks SDC 3.4-275H Landscape/Screening Setbacks SDC 3.4-270F Solar Standards: (4) SDC 3.2-225 Minimum/Maximum Building Height: SDC 3.4-275D Additional Standards: (4)(5)(6)(7) Notes (1) Minimum Development Area. In the McVay Riverfront, the minimum development area is necessary due to the number of small lots/parcels and in order to prevent piecemeal development of a number of large lots/parcels for compliance with CIBL findings. EXCEPTIONS: (a) The developer may submit a letter to the Director stating that either abutting property owners are not willing to participate in the assembly of the minimum 5 acre development area; or there are smaller properties that cannot meet the 5 acre standard (for example, on west side of McVay Highway). (b) Parks, when phased, and public facilities shall be exempted from the minimum development area standard. (c) In Subarea D where there are lots/parcels larger than 5 acres, land divisions will not be permitted Commentary The proposed Base Standards for the MUE district are relaxed from existing standards in either the LMI or the CI district. Setbacks will be reviewed in sections 3.4-270 and 3.4-275 below. Observation It is curious that the Solar standards are proposed to apply only in the Greenway Overlay District, the first 150 feet from the ordinary low water line, and are intended to protect vegetation within the Greenway Setback and the Riverfront Park. Riparian and wetland vegetation does just fine regardless of receiving sunshine or not. Suggestion Change 3.4-265 Base Zone Development standards Subarea D to delete from the standards: Solar Standards: (4) SDC 3.2-225 (4) Solar standards shall apply only within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District in order to protect the riparian/wetland vegetation within the Greenway Setback Line and the riverfront linear park. Attachment 1 A-17
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 14 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Notes (1) Exceptions to these development standards may be allowed for lots/parcels created prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Code, 1982. (2) Until annexed to the City, the minimum lot/parcel size in the SHI District shall be 40 acres and the minimum development area shall be 10 acres. (3) The Director may waive the requirement that buildable City lots/parcels have frontage on a public street when all of the following apply: (a) The lots/parcels have been approved as part of a Development Area Plan, Site Plan, Subdivision or Partition application; and (b) Access has been guaranteed via a private street or driveway by an irrevocable joint use/access agreement as specified in Section 4.2-120A. (4) Setback Exceptions: (a) 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. (b) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including the TransPlan), or the Citys Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of any building permit that increases required parking. (c) In the CI District, setbacks from local streets shall be 20 feet and from collector and arterial streets 30 feet. (d) In the CI District, the Director may reduce building setbacks and separations without a variance when: 1. The building design incorporates landscaped stormwater quality facilities within the setback area that also enhances pedestrian amenities and the campus environment; 2. Necessary to protect natural assets identified in the Gateway Refinement Plan or elsewhere in this Code; 3. Necessary to preserve existing healthy mature trees; 4. Necessary to accommodate handicapped access requirements; or 5. Legally created lots/parcels do not meet the minimum lot/parcel size. (5) In the CI District, no outside storage is permitted. (6) Height Exceptions. Incidental equipment may exceed the height standards. Notes same as LMI See (4) and (5) until a Final Site Plan or Final Master Plan application is approved by the City. (2) While there is no minimum frontage standard, all lots/parcels shall have frontage on a public street unless the proposed development has been approved as part of a Master Plan, Site Plan or land division, and access has been guaranteed via a private driveway with an irrevocable joint use/access easement agreement as specified in Subsection 4.2-120A. (3) The density standard applies to high density residential housing in those Subareas where this type of housing is required or permitted. See the Exception specified in Section 3.4-245B.1.a. There is no maximum density. (4) Solar standards shall apply only within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District in order to protect the riparian/wetland vegetation within the Greenway Setback Line and the riverfront linear park. (5) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above grade structure, except a fence, may be built upon or over that easement. (6) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including the TransPlan), or the Citys Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of any building permit that proposes parking spaces. (7) Architectural extensions including but not limited to, cornices, eave overhangs, porches and balconies extending beyond an exterior wall of a building may protrude into any 5-foot or larger setback area or build-to line by not more than 2 feet. 3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards A. Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks. 1. Public Streets, alleys and sidewalks in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. 2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks Commentary The street, alley and sidewalk section of the proposed code is well written and easily understood. Observation It is a bit unclear what is intended by the McVay local street network reference to subsection A.2.b is meant to accomplish. A.2.b refers to the Franklin local street Attachment 1 A-18
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 15 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Transportation Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. The following is an overview of the Glenwood Riverfront street network: e. McVay Riverfront Arterial Street. McVay Highway shall be designed and constructed as a multi-modal facility. In consideration of significant infrastructure improvements required along the frontage of McVay Highway and to the uncertainty as to the timing of these improvements, an Improvement Agreement may be accepted in lieu of completing frontage improvements at the time of development approval. In the case of property requiring annexation to the City, the terms of making the improvements shall be made part of the Annexation Agreement. f. McVay Riverfront Local Street Network. i. Primary access from McVay Highway shall be from east-west streets in the vicinity of East 19th Avenue, Nugget Way and the south end of Glenwood. ii. A grid street pattern may be accomplished by incorporating north-south streets as specified in Subsection A.2.b or by shared private driveways. 3. Construction and design of public streets, alleys and sidewalks shall be as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. B. Street Trees and Curbside Planter Strips. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. Street trees, especially those that provide shade, and curbside planter strips in the public right-of-way shall be as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Therefore, street trees will not be subject to the regulations of this Section and will not be counted toward any landscaping required by this Section. As a general rule, street tree selection should be selected on the basis of providing shade and have a size relationship with the street landscape (e.g., the wider the street, the larger the trees). Trees at least 40 feet tall are required for pedestrian areas. Design considerations shall be focused on space requirements of the selected trees at all phases of their life cycle. Scale, soils, underground obstruction, overhead constraints, branch height, mature tree size, and shadow patterns are examples of design considerations. Proposed tree species shall provide continuity between one site and the next in the same block. Street trees shall be placed either directly in planter strips or within tree wells located between the sidewalk and the curb as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Street trees and planter strips in the public right-of-way shall be shown on the required Site Plan. network. It is not clear how the Franklin local street network standards are to be applied to the McVay local street network. The provision of shared driveways is wise to include. Suggestion Ask staff for clarification regarding the reference to A.2.b. Street Trees and Curbside Planter Strips Commentary Street trees and planter strips will be regulated per Springfields Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). Observation It is not clear why, if street trees are regulated by EDSPM, the proposed code contains narrative regarding such regulatory language as tree selection, design considerations and continuity. If these are intended to be requirements in addition to EDSPM, then the code should say so. Suggestion Ask staff for a clarification regarding the above. Attachment 1 A-19
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 16 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 C. Lighting. 1. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. Decorative public street lighting and pedestrian level lighting, as may be permitted in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, shall be included with all new developments or redevelopment. 2. Private on-site lighting shall comply with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America recommended practices and shall: a. Be the minimum illumination necessary for a given application, including parking areas, as specified in Subsection G.9.e. b. Be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflection are contained within the boundaries of the property; and directed downward and away from abutting properties, public rights-of-way, and riparian zones, wetlands and other protected areas identified in this Code. c. Create a safe and secure environment for pedestrians and bicyclists during hours of darkness and reduce or prevent light pollution by minimizing glare. d. Provide pedestrian level lighting, whether free standing or attached to a building. Pedestrian level lighting is distinct from street lights because it is intended to light sidewalks the pedestrian right of way rather than streets. Where poles are used they are typically shorter and placed at more frequent intervals than street lights. e. Be as specified in Subsection G.9.e for parking lot lighting. Lighting Commentary Default requirements are per EDSPM for public lighting and IES for private lighting. Decorative fixtures and pedestrian lighting separate from street lighting is required. Illumination levels and light source shielding requirements are within normal parameters. Observation Subsection C.2.d references pedestrian lighting and states that pedestrian lighting should be distinct from street lighting. It should be clarified that where street lighting is provided, additional pedestrian lighting is not required for street-side sidewalks. References in the proposed code to subsection G.9.e may be in error. G.9.e is in regards to parking limitations in setbacks. It appears as though this reference should be to G.9.d. Suggestion Change subsection C.2.d to read: Provide pedestrian level lighting, whether free standing or attached to a building. Pedestrian level lighting is distinct from street lights because it is intended to light sidewalks the pedestrian right of way rather than streets. Where sidewalks are adjacent to streets, street lighting shall meet the pedestrian lighting need. Where sidewalks are not associated with streets, pedestrian lighting shall be provided. Where poles are used they are typically shorter and placed at more frequent intervals than street lights. D. Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be required: off-street as part of the multi-use path as specified in Subsection 3.4-270E; on-street; or as part of a mid-block connector. 1. Bicycle facilities in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapters. 2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. 3. Bicycle facilities including, but not limited to mid-block connectors and on-street markings shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Springfield Standard Construction Specifications. 4. Bicycle parking shall be as in Table 3.4-2. Bicycle Facilities Commentary Bicycle facilities are to be provided in accordance with standard provisions in EDSPM. Observation Subsection D.4 references Table 3.4-2. It is not clear, at this location in the draft code, where Table 3.4-2 is located. Suggestion Change subsection D.4 to read: 4. Bicycle parking shall be as in Table 3.4-2 in subsection G.13. E. Multi-use Path. The multi-use path shall be part of the riverfront linear park along the entire length of the Willamette River in the Glenwood Riverfront. The multi-use path shall include, but not be limited to opportunities for walking, jogging, running, cycling, and inline skating. The multi-use path may be located both inside and outside the 75 foot-wide Greenway Setback Multi-Use Path Commentary The multi-use path is to be located along the entire length of the Willamette River through the Glenwood Riverfront and is to be designed and constructed in accordance with the EDSPM. Attachment 1 A-20
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 17 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Line/Riparian Setback in order to incorporate clusters of trees and riparian vegetation outside of the setback. 1. The multi-use path shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapters. 2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapter policies and implementation strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. 3. The multi-use path shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Springfield Standard Construction Specifications. Observation Proposed code states that the path may be located inside or outside the 75-foot Greenway Setback Line. Suggestion Add subsection E.4 as follows: 4. The multi-use path shall be located inside the 75-foot Greenway Setback Line wherever possible, and shall in no case be located outside the 150-foot Greenway Overlay District. The path shall be inside the Greenway Setback Line unless permission is granted by the adjacent property owner. Section 4.4-105 Landscaping A. These regulations ensure that new development complies with the landscaping provisions of this Code and any applicable Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, Master Plans, and Conceptual Development Plans; is adequately screened from less intensive development; considers the effects of vegetation on public facilities; retains significant clusters of natural trees and shrubs wherever possible; minimizes runoff; facilitates energy conservation and crime prevention; and improves the appearance of the City to create a desirable place to live and work. B. Three types of landscaping may be required: 1. Landscaping standards for private property as specified in this Section and other Sections of this Code. 2. Street trees in the public right-of-way as specified in Section 4.2-140. 3. Curbside planter strips in the public right-of-way as specified in Section 4.2-135. C. Materials and installation costs of planting and irrigation other than what is required by the Minimum Development Standards (Section 5.15-100) shall not be required to exceed 10 percent of the value of the new development, including parking facilities. The Director shall determine the location, quantity and quality of required landscaping as specified in this Code. D. Unless otherwise specified in this Code, the following areas of a lot/parcel shall be landscaped: 1. All required setback areas and any additional planting areas as specified in the appropriate zoning district. 2. Parking lot planting areas required in this Section. E. At least 65 percent of each required planting area shall be covered with living plant materials within 5 years of the date of installation. The living plant materials shall be distributed throughout the required planting area. The planting acceptable per 1,000 square feet of required planting area is as follows: 1. As a minimum, 2 trees not less than 6 feet in height that are at least 2 inches in caliper (at the time of planting, not including root ball); and 2. Ten shrubs, 5 gallons or larger. 3. Lawn and/or groundcover may be substituted for trees or shrubbery, unless required for screening 3.2-445 Campus Industrial Design Standards B. Landscaping. The following landscaping standards are in addition to standards specified in Section 4.4-105: 1. A minimum of 35 percent of each development area shall be landscaped open space. 2. Plants shall be sized to attain 90 percent coverage of required landscape areas (excluding tree canopies), within 3 years of installation. Plantings of native species and plant communities shall achieve 90 percent coverage within 5 years of installation. 3. At least 10 percent of the interior of a parking lot having 20 or more parking spaces shall be landscaped. This standard is in addition to any landscaping setbacks required in Section 3.2-420. 4. Natural assets identified in the Gateway Refinement Plan, any other applicable refinement plan or elsewhere in this Code shall be included in the site design and protected. Where protection of these natural assets prevents the development of the site consistent with this Code, the functional equivalent of the natural assts may be substituted as may be allowed by the City. 3.2-625 Mixed-Use District Development StandardsGeneral D. Landscaping and Screening. 1. Intent: Landscaping is intended to compliment built forms within a development area, softening and providing visual relief and contrast to buildings, sidewalks and parking lots. Trees, as part of a landscaping plan, shall provide shade for pedestrian comfort as well. The installation of landscaping shall be accomplished in a manner that assures that planted stock receives adequate irrigation. Screening is intended to compliment a development area by shielding trash receptacles, storage areas and other unsightly facilities from public view within the development area. a. Mixed-use developments shall provide landscaping and screening in accordance with Sections 4.4-100 and 4.4-110 and the following standards: b. Street trees shall be required consistent with Section 4.2-140. Species shall be compatible with the design features specified in Subsection F. Private Property Landscape Standards. 1. Purpose. The City recognizes the aesthetic, ecological and economic value of landscaping. This Subsection establishes private property landscaping standards in the Glenwood Riverfront in order to provide: a. The establishment of a sense of place; b. The preservation and enhancement of the Glenwood Riverfronts urban forest on hillsides; c. The retention of significant clusters of riparian vegetation along watercourses; d. The promotion, retention and use of existing non-invasive vegetation; e. The restoration of natural plant communities and the provision of habitat through sustainable landscaping and controlling invasive species; f. The mitigation for loss of natural resource values; g. Erosion control; h. The reduction of stormwater runoff pollution, temperature, and rate and volume of flow; i. The minimization of impervious surface impacts; j. The promotion of compatibility between land uses by reducing the visual, noise and lighting impacts of specific development on users of the site and abutting uses; k. The promotion of safety, security, and privacy; l. On-site open space, pedestrian pathway definition and residential/business entry identification; m. The facilitation of energy conservation by providing shade from the sun and shelter from the wind; and n. The retention and/or growth of long-term property values. 2. Applicability. a. The landscaping standards of this Subsection shall apply to all private property (property located outside of public right-of-way) in the Glenwood Riverfront as follows: i. New development; ii. Redevelopment including expansions of use; Landscape Standards Commentary Landscape standards for the LMI district are the standard provisions of the Springfield code (4.4-105). Landscape standards for the CI district are the standard provisions of the code (4.4-105) plus a short list of additional requirements, primarily addressing minimum open space, landscape coverage, parking lot planting and protection of natural features (3.2-445.B). The proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District includes greatly expanded code language regarding landscape standards. New are Purpose and Applicability sections. The purpose section codifies aspirational objectives (e.g., sense of place) and environmental objectives (e.g., urban forest, native landscape materials, open space and stormwater management). The applicability section clarifies that all new development as well as expansion of existing uses must meet landscape requirements. There are sections on general landscape standards (3.4-270.F.3) and specific landscape categories (3.4-270.F.4). The section regarding general landscape standards encourages the retention and use of existing vegetation, requires plant and tree species diversity (no monoculture plantings), specifies minimum tree, shrub and ground cover sizes at time of installation, and clarifies installation, maintenance and irrigation requirements. In general, the proposed landscape standards are not all that much more stringent than existing code (4.4-105). Indeed, there is additional flexibility regarding tree type and shrub size. One can now mix and match. As for irrigation, alternatives are encouraged, including the use of temporary irrigation if warranted by the planting scheme and the use of rainwater, treated wastewater, etc. The section on landscape categories is new. It is similar to code found in other communities (e.g., Eugene). It codifies three landscape schemes. L1 applies to open areas and setbacks and primarily consists of ground covers, with a percentage of shrubs and trees. L2 applies to screening requirements (abutting uses, parking areas, utilities, trash and recycling areas) and consists of evergreen hedges supplemented with trees and ground covers. Attachment 1 A-21
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 18 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 when there are adequate provisions for ongoing maintenance. EXCEPTION: These standards do not apply to single-family and duplex dwellings on individual lots/parcels in the LDR District. F. Parking lot planting areas shall include 1 canopy tree at least 2 inches in caliper that meets City street tree standards as may be permitted by the Citys Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and at least 4 shrubs, 5-gallon or larger, for each 100 square feet of planting area. Shrubbery that abuts public right-of-way or that is placed in the interior of any parking lot shall generally not exceed 2-1/2 feet in height at maturity. Parking lot planting areas shall include: 1. Parking and driveway setback areas specified in the applicable zoning district; and 2. 5 percent of the interior of a parking lot, exclusive of any required parking setbacks, if 24 or more parking spaces are located between the street side of a building and an arterial or collector street, and are visible from any street. 3. See also Section 3.2-240D.8.c. for multifamily design standards. G. All new required planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground irrigation system unless where planted with native species or plant communities, or as may be exempted by the Director. H. Landscaped setbacks abutting required screening on the same property may be exempted by the Director from planting requirements if the area is not visible from any public right-of-way or adjacent property. I. Planting Installation Standards. 1. The applicant shall provide methods for the protection of existing plant material, which will remain through the construction process. The plants to be saved and the method of protection shall be noted on the Planting Plan. 2. Existing trees to be retained on private property shall not have construction occur within the drip line, unless a landscape architect certifies that affected trees will have at least a 90 percent chance of survival over a 5-year period. Trees to be saved shall be kept free from trunk abrasion. 3. The Planting Plan may be required to include specifications for topsoil, including depth and organic matter requirements, to ensure the health and vitality of required planting. Where planting areas have been excavated, the Planting Plan shall provide for the replacement of topsoil. All waste material shall be removed from required planting areas prior to the application of topsoil. a. Inspection may be made by the Director prior to planting to verify proper rough grade and installation of irrigation systems. b. Plant materials and soil preparation may be inspected prior to or in conjunction with the occupancy inspection to ensure that placement, quantity, size and variety conform to the approved Planting Plan and the G., below and shall provide continuity with nearby landscaping. The Director may grant a 1-for-1 reduction in the number of street trees required when a development preserves healthy, mature trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk Required street trees shall be placed in planter strips between sidewalks and curbs as specified in Sections 4.2-135 and 4.2-140, or in individual tree pits. If individual tree pits are utilized, each pit shall be a minimum of 64 square feet per tree, with a minimum width of 4.5 feet. 2. Screening of parking areas, drives, mechanical equipment, and trash receptacles shall be as specified in Section 4.4-110. In addition: a. No trash receptacles shall be allowed within the front setback areas abutting residential districts. b. All ground-mounted utility equipment not installed underground shall be placed to reduce visual impact or screened with walls or landscaping. c. Notwithstanding the timelines specified in Section 4.4-105, plants shall be sized to attain 50 percent coverage in 2 years and 100 percent coverage in 4 years. 3. Irrigation systems are required to support landscaping. Drought-resistant plants are encouraged. See Sections 5.17-120D.3. and 4.4-105. 4. Parking areas, drives, and mechanical equipment shall be screened as specified in Section 4.4-110. Trash receptacles shall be screened from on and offsite view by placement of a solid fenced or walled enclosure, from 5 to 6 feet in height. No receptacles are allowed within front setback areas abutting residential districts. All ground-mounted utilities equipment not placed underground shall be placed to reduce visual impact or screened with walls or landscaping. Plants shall be sized to attain 50 percent coverage in 2 years and 100 percent coverage in 4 years. 5. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1. through 4, above. iii. A change of use category of existing buildings where the landscaping is nonconforming; and iv. A change of use category that results in the need to supply additional on-site parking or loading areas, or that change the driveway location. EXCEPTION Portions of private property within the WG Overlay District, as specified in Section 3.4-280, shall comply with riparian/wetland protection standards specified in Sections 4.3-115 and 4.3-117 and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. b. All portions of a development area that are not used for buildings, parking, internal sidewalks, mid-block connectors or other impervious surfaces shall be landscaped as specified in Subsection F.4.a. 3. General landscaping standards. a. Minimum standards. The landscaping standards for the Glenwood Riverfront shall be minimums; higher standards can be substituted, provided all fence, wall or vegetation height limitations specified in this Section are met. Crime prevention should be considered when exceeding the landscaping standards because the height and density of vegetation may become a safety issue. b. Protection of existing vegetation. Existing vegetation, excluding those plants on the Nuisance Plants List in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, may be used to meet the landscape standards, if relocated on site and/or protected and maintained during the construction phase of the development. See also Subsections F.5. and 6. Any necessary tree felling shall comply with Section 5.19-100. c. Selection of materials. Landscape materials shall be selected and sited to produce a hardy and drought-resistant landscape area. Selection shall include consideration of the soil type and depth, the amount of maintenance required, spacing, exposure to the sun and wind, the slope and contours of the site, and compatibility with existing native vegetation preserved on the site. Shrubs resembling trees shall not be used to meet the tree standards. d. Plant diversity. i. Shrubs. If there are more than 25 required shrubs, no more than 75 percent of them shall be of one species. ii. Trees. If there are more than 8 required trees, no more than 40 percent of them shall be of one species. If there are more than 24 required trees, no more than 25 percent of them can be of one species. This standard shall apply only to trees The L3 standard applies to the interior of parking lots, the interior of courtyards and addresses the provision of stormwater infiltration planters in parking lot islands, courtyards and other areas. Whereas in the existing code, 5% of parking lot interior is to be landscaped in LMI zones and 10% in CI zones, in the proposed code the minimum landscape area is 10% of the interior area of a parking lot. Quantities of trees and shrubs are measured differently. More trees are required, but the quantity of shrubs is not all that different. Observations It is not clear whether these landscape standards supplement or are in lieu of standard landscape provision in the Springfield code (4.4-105). The L2 screening requirement for parking lots requires a 4-foot hedge (4.b.i(a)). 4-foot hedges along front right-of-way have been found to be a hindrance to safety, visibility, natural light and air circulation. (Indeed subsection 4.b.i states that for safety considerations, visibility into an area is more important than a total screen.) L2 also requires a 10 to 20 foot setback from the front property line and 7 foot setback from side and rear property line. These distances have been found to be excessive in one case and unmanageable in the other. Further, a 20-foot landscape setback from the street is not exactly compact, urban development. Throughout the landscape standards, credit is provided for preserving existing mature trees and healthy vegetation. Suggestions Change subsection F.2.a to read: a. The landscaping standards of this Subsection shall replace the landscape standards of section 4.4-105 and shall apply to all private property (property located outside of public right-of-way) in the Glenwood Riverfront as follows: Change subsection F.4.b. EXCEPTION to read: EXCEPTION: In Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the nodal development area, if a developer desires additional parking along the frontage of McVay Highway than permitted in Subsection G.5.b.iii., the required landscape setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet along the entire frontage of the parking lot. Change subsection F.4.b.i to read: i. Separation of usesThe L2 standard screening shall be set back 7 feet along the front property line and 3 feet along side and rear property lines. Change subsection F.4.b.i(a) to read: Attachment 1 A-22
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 19 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 requirements of this Section. Nursery tags identifying variety and species shall remain on plant specimens until the Final Building Inspection by the Building Official or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4.4-110 Screening A. Unless otherwise specified in this Code, screening shall be required: 1. Where commercial and industrial districts abut residential districts and no approved screening exists; 2. For outdoor mechanical devices and minor and major public facilities; 3. For outdoor storage yards and areas in non-residential districts abutting residential districts along their common property line; 4. For trash receptacles; 5. For automobile wrecking and salvage yards; and 6. For multifamily developments. B. Screening shall be vegetative, earthen and/or structural and be designed to minimize visual and audible incompatible uses from adjacent properties. Unless specified elsewhere in this Subsection, screening shall be continuous to at least 6 feet above ground level. The following standards shall apply: 1. Vegetative Screening. Evergreen shrubs shall be planted to form a continuous hedge. When immediate screening is necessary, a sight-obscuring fence shall be installed in place of, or in conjunction with the shrubs. The 6-foot height standard specified in Subsection B., above shall occur within 4 years of planting. EXCEPTION: For multifamily development, the vegetative screening standard specified in Section 3.2-240D.8.d apply. 2. Earthen Screening. Earthen berms may be used to screen either visual or noise impacts. A berm shall be combined with evergreen plantings or a fence to form an attractive sight and noise buffer. The maximum height of a berm shall be 6 feet along local streets and 8 feet along collector and arterial streets or railroad rights-of-way, unless an acoustical engineer determines a lower or higher height can be utilized. Height shall be measured from the base of the berm to the top of the berm and does not include additional fences or landscaping. The exterior face of the berm shall be constructed as an earthen slope. The interior face of the berm may be constructed as an earthen slope or retained by means of a wall, terrace or other means acceptable to the Building Official. The maximum slope shall be 1:3. The crest area shall be a minimum of 4 feet wide. The slopes shall be protected by trees, shrubs and groundcover to prevent erosion. Berms shall be irrigated as specified in Section 4.4-100. No part of a berm shall encroach into an easement. The toe of a berm over 3 feet in height shall be set back at least 5 feet from any property line, unless when abutting being planted to meet the standards and does not apply to existing trees that are counted towards meeting the total number of trees required. e. Specific tree standards. i. In any required landscape area, trees shall be selected from the list in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. At the time of planting, deciduous trees shall be a minimum caliper of 2 inches (dbh) in caliper and permitted conifer trees shall be fully branched, between 4-6 feet in height. Spacing and time of coverage of trees shall be as specified in Subsection F.4. ii. The categories of trees are defined as follows: (a) Large trees in the public right-of-way or on private property are those trees over 40 feet tall and more than 35 feet wide branching at maturity; (b) Medium-sized trees on private property are those trees 25 feet to 40 feet tall and 16 feet to 35 feet wide branching at maturity; and (c) Small or narrow-stature trees on private property are those trees less than 25 feet tall and less than 16 feet wide branching at maturity. f. Specific shrub and ground cover standards. i. All of the landscaped area that is not planted with trees and shrubs shall be planted in ground cover plants, which may include grasses. Mulch (as a ground cover) shall be confined to areas underneath plants and shall not be a substitute for ground cover plants. ii. All shrubs shall be of sufficient size and number to meet the required height and coverage standards of this Subsection within 4 years of planting, unless otherwise specified in Subsection F.4. Shrubs shall be at least the one-gallon container size at planting. iii. Ground cover plants other than grasses or sod shall be: (a) At least the 4 inch pot size; (b) Planted in triangular spacing at distances appropriate for the plant species; and (c) Planted at a density that will cover the entire area within 3 years, unless otherwise specified in this Section. iv. Any plants listed on the Nuisance Plants List shall be prohibited from being planted in the Glenwood Riverfront. g. Installation. i. Landscaped area preparation. All new required landscaped areas shall be cleared of groundcover and shrubs on the (a) Enough evergreen shrubs to form a continuous screen 3 feet high within 3 years of planting along public right-of-way and 4 feet high within 3 years of planning elsewhere. Attachment 1 A-23
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 20 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 public right-of-way. Berms shall not interfere with the drainage patterns of the property. 3. Structural Screening. A fence or masonry wall shall be constructed to provide a uniform sight-obscuring screen. EXCEPTIONS: a. No screen shall exceed 4 feet in residential district front yard setbacks, and all screening shall comply with vision clearance requirements of Section 4.2-130. b. Wherever a required screen in the form of a fence is adjacent to a residential or commercial district or an arterial or collector street, it shall be non-metallic and of a subtle color to blend with surrounding vegetation. A slatted chain-link fence may be approved by the Director. c. Any refuse container or disposal area which would otherwise be visible from a public street, customer or resident parking area, any public facility, adjacent property, or any residential area, shall be screened from view as specified in Subsections 1 and 3, above. All refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. See also Section 3.2-240D.3.b. for multifamily design standards. This standard does not apply to single and 2-family dwellings. d. When abutting a street, outdoor storage areas and yards shall be provided with a 5-foot planting strip as specified in Section 4.4-100. Nuisance Plants List. ii. All required landscaping shall be in-ground or in permanent raised planters. iii. All landscaping shall be installed according to accepted planting procedures: (a) All plant materials shall conform in size and quality grade to the American Standard for Nursery Stock, current edition; and (b) All plant material shall be installed according specifications prepared by a Landscape Architect based on the site, context, soil type, exposure, maintenance plan and this Section. iv. Topsoil removed during construction shall be replaced with topsoil. v. Plant materials shall be properly supported to ensure survival. Support devices, including guy wires or stakes, shall not interfere with vehicle or pedestrian movement and shall be left in place until the plant materials can safely support themselves. vi. All required landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Alternatively, if the landscaping standards of this Subsection cannot be met, other arrangements shall be made and approved as specified in Section 5.17-150. h. Maintenance. i. All landscape materials shall be guaranteed by the property owner for a period of one 12 month growing season from the date of installation. A schedule of continuing maintenance of plantings shall be submitted and approved with the Final Site Plan application. ii. Unless otherwise provided by the lease agreement, the owner, tenant and their agent, if any, shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping, which shall be: (a) Maintained in good condition to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance; (b) Replaced or repaired as necessary beyond the guarantee period specified in Subsection F.3.h.i; and (c) Kept free from refuse and debris. (d) The Director may require a site inspection to determine if the height and coverage of required landscaping has been established as required by the applicable 3 or 4 year time line. iii. Unless prohibited by this Code, all groundcover, shrubs and trees in landscaped areas shall be controlled by pruning or trimming so that they will not: Attachment 1 A-24
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 21 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 (a) Interfere with the maintenance or repair of any public utility; (b) Restrict pedestrian or vehicle access; or (c) Constitute a traffic hazard because of reduced visibility. EXCEPTION: Pruning and trimming in riparian and wetland areas shall be as specified in Sections 4.3-115 and 4.3-117 and/or the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. iv. Tree topping is an extreme form of crown reduction and shall be prohibited within the Greenway Setback Line and any riparian or wetland area unless necessary for health and/or safety reasons as determined by a certified Arborist. In other areas of the Glenwood Riverfront, tree topping may be permitted under the following circumstances: if a tree smaller than 8 inches in diameter is topped, it shall be replaced in kind; if a tree 8 inches or larger in diameter is topped, the owner shall have a certified Arborist develop and carry out a 5-year pruning schedule. EXCEPTIONS: Tree topping shall be permitted to: (a) Remove a safety hazard which has the potential to cause personal injury, damage to property or the environment. Examples of a safety hazards include, but are not limited to those listed in Subsection F.3.h.iii.; and/or (b) Remove dead or diseased material as determined by a certified Arborist. i. Irrigation. The intent of this standard is to ensure that plants will survive the critical establishment period when they are most vulnerable due to lack of watering. All landscaped areas shall provide an irrigation system as follows: i. A permanent built-in irrigation system with an automatic controller; or ii. An irrigation system designed and certified by a licensed Landscape Architect as part of the Landscape Plan that provides sufficient water to ensure that the plants will become established. The system does not have to be permanent if the plants chosen can survive adequately on their own once established; or iii. Irrigation by hand. If the applicant chooses this option, the inspection required in Subsection F.3.h.i.(c) shall ensure that the landscaping has become established. iv. The following options will be encouraged in order to reduce the amount of potable Attachment 1 A-25
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 22 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 water used for landscape irrigation by the use of: (a) Captured rainwater; (b) Recycled wastewater; (c) Water treated and conveyed for non-potable uses; and/or (d) Other non-potable water sources including, but not limited to: stormwater; air conditioning condensate; irrigation wells; and foundation drain water. v. The final irrigation plan diagram, if necessary, shall be submitted with the Final Site Plan Review application. 4. Landscape standard categories. a. The L1 standard is a landscape treatment that enhances open areas between buildings and in required setbacks or screening areas specified in Subsection F.2.b.; and along pedestrian mid-block connectors. While primarily consisting of ground cover plants, the L1 standard also includes a mixture of trees, high shrubs, and low shrubs. The tree standard shall be one large tree per 30 linear feet, one medium tree per 22 linear feet, or one small tree per 15 linear feet for each 1,000 square feet of landscaped area. Trees of different sizes may be combined to meet the standard. Trees may be grouped. The shrub standard shall be either two high shrubs or three low shrubs for each 400 square feet of landscaped area. The shrubs and trees may be grouped. Ground cover plants shall fully cover the remainder of the landscaped area. The L1 standard shall comply with the vision clearance standards specified in Section 4.2-130. EXCEPTION: The L1 tree standard will not be required when used at entry ways to high density residential properties. b. The L2 standard is a landscape treatment to screen different abutting uses and parking lots, utilities, and trash dumpsters and recycling areas. The L2 standard shall be applied as specified in Subsection F.4.b.i . along public streets and private driveway frontages where parking lots are permitted; common property lines and/or rear property lines; or at the interface of the linear park where there are no property lines. The L2 standard shall be applied as specified in subsection F.4.b.ii. for screening trash containers and recycling facilities. The L2 standard shall comply with the vision clearance standards specified in Section 4.2-130. The prescribed heights of required fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of finished grade. For trash dumpsters and recycling areas, the L2 standard shall be applied as specified in Subsection ii., below. Attachment 1 A-26
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 23 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 EXCEPTION: In Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the nodal development area, if a developer desires additional parking along the frontage of McVay Highway than permitted in Subsection G.5.b.iii., the required landscape setback shall be increased to 20 feet along the entire frontage of the parking lot. i. Separation of uses. The L2 standard shall be designed to separate and mitigate the impact of abutting uses; and separate parking lots from public rights-of-way and private common driveways to allow surveillance of the lot from the street or driveway, where visibility into areas is more important than a total visual screen. The L2 standard screening shall be set back 10 feet along the front property line and 7 feet along side and rear property lines. The intent is to partially conceal vehicles from public view while still providing clear visibility to promote safety. In this case, the L2 standard shall require: (a) Enough evergreen shrubs to form a continuous screen 4 feet high within 2 years of planting. The shrubs shall be properly maintained and shall be replaced with new shrubs when the screen ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring the view. For security, the screen may be combined with a decorative wrought iron fence along the property line fronting a street, common private driveway or the Willamette River; or a black coated chain link fence along any side or rear property line that does not front the Willamette River. Permitted fences shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Other chain link fences, slats, wood fences, electrified fences and fences with barbed wire or razor wire shall be prohibited. (b) One large tree shall be required per 30 linear feet of landscaped area, one medium tree per 22 linear feet of landscaped area, or one small tree per 15 linear feet of landscaped area. Trees of different sizes may be combined to meet the standard. (c) Ground cover plants shall fully cover the remainder of the landscaped area. At least 10 five-gallon shrubs or 20 one-gallon shrubs shall be planted for each 1,000 square feet of the required screening area. The remaining area shall be planted in lawn or other living ground cover. (d) Walls. (1) A 4-foot high decorative wall at Attachment 1 A-27
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 24 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 least 6 inches thick may be substituted for the shrubs specified in Subsection F.4.b.i.a, but the trees and ground cover plants shall still be required. A decorative wall may be constructed of materials including, but not limited to: stone, rock, textured concrete masonry, pre-cast or site-cast concrete, brick, or a combination of these materials and shall include a cap.; or may consist of materials that complement the facade of the building. (2) In the case of an outdoor utility yard as permitted in Subsection M.1., a decorative wall may be at least 8 feet tall. (e) Any wall or fence shall be placed along the interior side of the landscaped area, outside of any public utility easement. EXCEPTION: A required screen shall not be permitted within the Greenway Setback Line, as specified in Section 3.4-280. ii. Screening trash containers and recycling facilities. Screening shall be designed to conceal large outdoor items including, but not limited to skids and pallets; as well as the trash containers and recycling facilities that are needed for the business or residential use. Trash containers and recycling facilities shall: (a) Not be visible from streets and adjacent properties; (b) Be provided with either a solid enclosure on all sides at least 6 feet tall with a gate that blends into the building design or a combination of a solid enclosure and shrubs that complies with Subsection F.4.b.i; (c) Not be located in vehicle parking stalls; (d) Not be located within required landscape areas; and (e) Not block driveways. iii. Screening utilities. Ground-mounted utility equipment including, but not limited to: exterior transformers, mechanical units such as condensers and generators, switch gear, backflow preventers, utility pads, cable television and telephone pedestals shall be placed underground or within buildings, where practicable. When placed above ground, equipment shall be located to minimize visual impact and screened with either: an enclosure that blends with the proposed building design; Attachment 1 A-28
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 25 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 landscaping; or both. When enclosures are used, they shall be tall enough to completely screen the equipment at the time of the equipment installation. Groundcover and shrubs, planted tall enough to completely screen the equipment and any required cover, shall attain 50 percent coverage after 2 years and 100 percent coverage within 4 years. c. The L3 standard is a landscape treatment that applies within parking lots, including interior courts, but not including any required landscape setbacks necessary for screening, as specified in Subsection F.4.b.i. At least 10 percent of the interior of a parking lot shall be landscaped. The L3 standard serves three purposes: to reduce storm water runoff through infiltration swales and other measures; to provide shade; and for screening. Water quality features may be incorporated into planter islands and required setbacks. The L3 standard shall comply with the vision clearance standards specified in Section 4.2-130. i. Infiltration planter islands, infiltration planter basins between parking aisles, infiltration tree wells and required parking lot setbacks shall be used to accommodate storm water runoff as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. ii. Wheel Stops. Secured wheel stops or rubber parking blocks shall be placed to prevent vehicles from overhanging a landscaped infiltration area or setback. Wheel stops shall be designed to allow runoff to enter the landscaped infiltration area. iii. L3 standard - trees. Trees of different sizes may be combined to meet this standard. In order to provide a canopy effect, one of the following options may be selected: (a) At a minimum, one large tree per 4 parking spaces; or (b) At a minimum, one medium tree per 3 parking spaces. iv. L3 standard shrubs and ground cover plants. At a minimum, one medium to small shrub per space shall be required. The remainder of the area shall be planted in ground cover plants. 5. Existing mature vegetation and healthy trees, excluding those plants on the Nuisance Plants List in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards, shall be retained to the maximum extent practicable. However, plantings intended to mitigate for the loss of natural resource values shall be subject to applicable standards as Attachment 1 A-29
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 26 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 specified in Sections 3.4-280, 4.4-115, 4.4-117 and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. 6. Preserving Existing Trees and Vegetation. When the developer proposes to retain existing trees and vegetation outside of riparian and wetland areas, as specified in the Sections referenced in Subsection F.5., to meet the applicable landscape category, tree and vegetation preservation specifications shall be included in the Landscape Plan submitted during the Site Plan Review process. a. Credits for preserving existing trees shall accrue on a 1-to-1 basis, based on the size of the tree being preserved, as defined in Subsection 3.e.ii. b. The Landscape Plan shall include a separate written statement and a site plan for preserving existing trees and vegetation. All of the following elements shall be included: i. A written statement that: (a) States the trees and vegetation proposed to be preserved are healthy, and/or can be relocated on-site as determined by a certified Arborist; (b) Provides an explanation of the method for the protection of existing trees and vegetation to remain during the construction process; and, if necessary (c) Requests any credits for preserving existing trees. ii. The Plan shall be drawn to scale and show all trees proposed to be preserved on the site, and their species, diameter and drip lines. iii. Site construction shall not be allowed within the drip lines of trees which are to remain. Preserved vegetation shall not be disturbed. Finish grade shall be at the original grade, or a well or planter shall be constructed that is equal or larger in size than the drip line. EXCEPTION: These statements shall not preclude the construction of walkways within the drip lines of trees if they are part of the proposed development. iv. Upon approval of the Landscape Plan as part of the Site Plan Review process, the trees and vegetation proposed to be preserved shall be noted on the property, prior to construction. G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards. 1. Vehicle/bicycle parking standards shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and the Housing and Economic Development Chapters. 2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Vehicle/Bicycle Parking Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Vehicle Parking Commentary Parking requirements in the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District are more stringent that in the exiting LMI or comparison CI districts. Parking Location In Subarea D, parking is permitted under, within or on top Attachment 1 A-30
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 27 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Appendix 3. 3. Private vehicle/bicycle parking and loading standards shall be designed and constructed as specified in this Subsection. Public vehicle parking shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. 4. Vehicle Parking - General. Adequate vehicle parking shall be provided to support new development and redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront, while minimizing the adverse visual, environmental, and financial impact of parking on the public. In line with the land use vision for compact development and a walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment, on-street parking, aboveground and underground off-street parking structures, and parking located under buildings or parking within buildings shall be encouraged. Locating and designing all required vehicle parking to minimize the viewing of parked cars by pedestrians from street frontages and minimize light and noise impacts of parking lots strengthens the character of the Glenwood Riverfront, reinforces the emphasis on pedestrian, bike, and transit for travel, and minimizes the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. 5. Types of Vehicle Parking Facilities Permitted. The following types of parking facilities shall be permitted: a. In all Subareas i. On-street parking. ii. Aboveground and underground parking structures. iii. Surface parking facilities located in interior courts. iv. Parking facilities may be incorporated within or on top of a building. b. In Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the nodal development area, in addition to parking facilities permitted in Subsection G.5.a.iii., the following parking facilities shall be permitted, if screened from public view as specified in Subsection F.4.b.: i. Under, within or on top of buildings; ii. Behind buildings; and/or iii. Along any street frontage. However, not more than 25 percent of the lot/parcel frontage to the side of a building shall be utilized for parking. EXCEPTION: The percentage of the lot/parcel frontage to the side of a building may be increased as specified in F.4.b. 6. Maximum off-street vehicle parking spaces by use category shall be as specified in Table 3.4-1: Vehicle Parking Standards Table 3.4-1 Category: Employment Use Standard Hospital 1/200 sf or 1.35/bed of buildings, behind buildings, or between a building and the street BUT NOT IN EXCESS OF 25% OF THE FRONTAGE, UNLESS ADDITIONAL IS GRANTED BUT THEN THERE IS A 20-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. In the existing LMI district, parking is permitted anywhere on the site as long as setbacks and screening is provided as required. In the comparison CI district, parking is to be provided behind the building, along the side of a building or internal to a development to the greatest degree possible. Parking Quantity In the existing code, parking quantity is based on minimum quantity. In the proposed code, parking quantity is based on maximum quantity. Of the parking quantity required in the proposed code (3.4-270.G.6 Table 3.4-1), Light Manufacturing and Office Employment maximums are 10% greater than the existing code minimums. For Light Manufacturing Storage, parking maximums are about 50% greater than existing code minimums. Hospital uses are not called out in existing code. In looking for a comparison, Eugene calls our parking quantity for Hospitals. Interestingly, the proposed Springfield parking quantity numbers match the Eugene code, BUT whereas in Eugene, the numbers are minimums, IN THE PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD CODE THEY ARE MAXIMUMS. There are revised requirements regarding company vehicle parking quantity and location. As for quantity, certain uses must provide a parking space for every company vehicle, in addition to the number of spaces otherwise required. As for location, company vehicles are now defined in three classes, with the middle and heaviest class vehicle required to be parked ENTIRELY INSIDE A BUILDING. To assist the property owner in complying with the parking quantity maximums, the proposed code provides flexibility, including shared parking, unbundled parking, car sharing, subsidized transit passes, credit for off-peak work shifts and the tried and true carpool/vanpool. In the existing code, an applicant may request parking quantity up to 120% of the minimum if accompanied with a parking study. In the proposed code, additional parking may be provided ONLY IN A PARKING STRUCTURE. Parking Lot Design There is a greater emphasis placed on breaking up the expanse of a parking lot, on providing pedestrian access and on canopy shade trees than in the existing code. In general, parking lots are to be separated into areas no more than 50 spaces. The parking lot can be larger, but parking areas (bays and adjoining bays) are to be separated with a raised pedestrian walkway, landscape area or buildings. Alternative paving materials, including permeable paving, and shared driveways are encouraged. Attachment 1 A-31
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 28 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Light Manufacturing 1/550 sf + 1/co vehicle(2) Light Mfng Storage 1/1650 sf + 1/ co vehicle(2) Office Employment 1/350 sf Educational Facility Parking Study Warehousing 1/ee + 1/co vehicle(2) Notes (1) When calculating the parking requirements for an eating or drinking establishment that has outdoor seating, up to 20 outdoor seats shall be exempt from the seating calculation. (2) The U.S. Department of Transportation establishes commercial truck classifications based on the vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating. Classes 1, 2 and 3 are "Light Duty"; Classes 4, 5 and 6 are "Medium Duty"; and Classes 7 and 8 are "Heavy Duty". Trucks classified as medium and heavy duty that are used as part of a commercial or light manufacturing use shall be stored entirely within a building. Light duty trucks and automobiles used as company vehicles may utilize parking lots. (3) Public parking for the park blocks and riverfront linear park will be provided on street. (4) Subsidized/ affordable housing parking reductions: (a) At the time of building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit documentation demonstrating that the housing units will be used for the intended population for a minimum of ten years. Such documentation may include, but is not limited to, an application form submitted to receive subsidy from the City or State. (b) Upon a change in occupancy from subsidized housing to another use, the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces is as required for the new use. The additional parking may be provided off site as may be permitted by this Section. 7. Parking Maximum Benefits and Options. a. Parking Maximum Benefits: i. Supports mobility management. Parking management is an important component of efforts to encourage more efficient transportation choices, which helps reduce problems such as traffic congestion, roadway costs, pollution emissions, energy consumption and traffic accidents; ii. Improves walkability. By allowing more clustered development and buildings located closer to sidewalks and streets, parking management helps create more walkable communities; iii. Supports transit. Parking management supports transit oriented development and transit use; iv. Provides facility cost savings. Reduces development costs to governments, Observations Parking requirements are more stringent in the proposed code. Some of the requirements seem a bit onerous. Four specifics stand out. 1. Limiting parking between the side of a building and the street to 25% of the frontage and requiring a 20 foot setback if a request for more than 25% is to be granted. The proposed code already includes a number of restrictions on parking location. Limiting parking along the side of a building to 25% after already prohibiting parking in front of the building is a challenge in terms of land efficiency and customer experience. (How many customers are going to enjoy walking from behind or the rear side of a building around to the other side of a building to the front where the entrance is?) The opportunity to place more than 25% of the side frontage in parking is appreciated. But requiring a 20 foot setback is a very inefficient use of land. There is no discernable reason for the 20-foot setback. 10 feet is more than enough. 2. Parking is limited in front of buildings. In subarea D, the objective is to encourage developers and property owners to invest, and businesses to locate, in the Glenwood neighborhood. Businesses need parking. They need visitor, vendor, supplier and customer parking. Visitor and customer parking needs to be visible, convenient and readily accessible. Good design dictates that a drivers end destination be visible as soon as they turn into a driveway or parking area. If the concern is large parking lots in front of buildings, design standards can limit the size of the lot and limit the length of unbroken rows of cars and still ensure visibility, landscaping, lighting and pedestrian access. 3. Medium- and heavy-duty company vehicles must be parked inside of a building. Large company vehicles can easily be accommodated behind a building and screened from view. 4. Parking quantities exceeding the maximum must be provided in a parking structure. The cost of providing structured parking more or less assures that it will not happen (for the foreseeable future). Existing code limits additional parking quantity to 120% and the proposed code does likewise. The proposed parking lot standards, including screening, lighting, landscaping and pedestrian accommodation are more than sufficient to address aesthetic and functionality concerns. Additional parking can remain a discretionary request, backed up by a parking study, but it should be permitted on surface lots. Attachment 1 A-32
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 29 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 businesses, developers and consumers; v. Supports compact growth. Parking management helps create more accessible and efficient land use patterns, and so helps preserve green space and other valuable ecological, historic and cultural resources; vi. Allows more flexible facility location and design. Parking management gives architects, designers and planners more ways to address parking requirements, creating more functional and attractive communities; vii. Supports equity objectives. Management strategies can reduce the need for subsidies, improve travel options for non-drivers, and increase affordability for lower-income households; and viii. Reduces stormwater management costs, water pollution and heat island effects. Parking management can reduce total pavement area and incorporate better design features. b. Options available to help meet parking maximums include: i. A legally-binding shared parking agreement may be submitted as specified in Subsection 4.6-110E. where multiple uses or multiple developments share one or more parking facilities, and peak parking demand occurs during different times of the day. An example of this type of situation is office development with nearby residential development. ii. Unbundled parking, where parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial unit, may be utilized. In this scenario, tenants or owners are able to purchase only as much parking as they need or want and are given the opportunity to save money by using fewer parking stalls. The developer shall specify the number of unbundled parking spaces proposed and provide an explanation of how this type of parking reduction will affect the proposed development as part of the Site Plan Review application submittal. No more than 50 percent of the parking provided shall be unbundled parking. iii. Car sharing. (a) Car sharing reduces the rate of personal vehicle ownership. In this concept, a household or business gains the benefits of private vehicle use without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. A household or business has access to Suggestions Change subsection G.5.b.iii to read: iii. Along any street frontage. However, not more than 50 percent of the lot/parcel frontage on the front side of a building shall be utilized for parking. EXCEPTION: The percentage of the lot/parcel frontage on the front side of a building may be increased as specified in F.4.b. (Note: F.4.b is modified as suggested above.) Change subsection G.5.b.ii to read: ii. Behind buildings, internal to the development or to the side of a building to the greatest degree practicable; and/or Change G.6 Table 3.4-1 as follows: Use Standard Hospital 1/150 sf or 1.75/bed Change G.6(2) to read: (2) The U.S. Department of Transportation establishes commercial truck classifications based on the vehicle’s gross vehicle weight rating. Classes 1, 2 and 3 are "Light Duty"; Classes 4, 5 and 6 are "Medium Duty"; and Classes 7 and 8 are "Heavy Duty". Trucks classified as medium and heavy duty that are used as part of a commercial or light manufacturing use shall be located either: (a) Within an enclosed building; or (b) Outside of a building when the following standards are met: (i) Be prohibited in front and street-side yards; (ii) Meet building setback standards specified in this section; (ii) Be screened as specified in Section 3.2-445. Light duty trucks and automobiles used as company vehicles may utilize parking lots. Change G.8 to read: 8. Additional Vehicle Parking. A request for parking that exceeds the maximum parking standards specified in Table 3.4-1 shall be permitted only within: a. A parking structure that accommodates parking for more than one use. The parking structure may be privately owned, or in-lieu-of-fees may be paid to the City for an appropriately sized public parking structure upon establishment of a parking district serving portions of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Attachment 1 A-33
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 30 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 a fleet of shared-use vehicles on an as-needed basis. A household or business gains access to these vehicles by joining an organization that maintains a fleet of cars and/or light trucks, e.g. ZipCar, that are parked in designated, leased spaces in a network of locations, typically in private parking facilities. (b) Car sharing shall be permitted in public and private parking structures and parking lots. iv. Carpool/Vanpool parking. (a) If the carpool/vanpool option is chosen, it shall apply when there are at least 20 parking spaces. The carpool/vanpool parking spaces shall be based upon 5 percent of the employees on the largest shift. (b) The carpool/vanpool spaces shall be located closer to the primary employee entrance or secondary entrance from a parking lot than any other employee parking, except disabled accessible spaces. (c) Reserved areas shall have markings and signs that indicate the space is reserved. (d) Parking in reserved areas shall be limited to carpools/vanpools established through rideshare programs by public agencies and to vehicles meeting minimum rideshare qualifications set by the employer. v. Subsidized transit passes. vi. Establishment of alternative work schedules. This option includes alternative work schedule techniques such as staggered and flexible work hours and the shortened workweek. 8. Additional Vehicle Parking. A request for parking that exceeds the maximum parking standards specified in Table 3.4-1 shall be permitted only within a parking structure that accommodates parking for more than one use. The parking structure may be privately owned, or in-lieu-of-fees may be paid to the City for an appropriately sized public parking structure upon establishment of a parking district serving portions of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District. 9. Vehicle Parking Lot Design Standards. These standards shall apply to parking lots located in interior courts permitted in all Subareas, as well as other parking lots permitted in Subarea D. a. In both public and private parking lots, the stall width and length and aisle width standards specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual shall apply. b. All parking lots shall incorporate the following elements including, but not limited to: Use Plan District. b. A shared surface parking lot located behind the building, screened, landscaped and meeting applicable parking lot design standards as specified in this section. Attachment 1 A-34
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 31 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 i. Pedestrian walkways that provide priority over vehicles routes, are direct and accessible, and enhance safety for pedestrians and vehicles. Parking lots with 50 or more spaces shall be divided into separate areas by landscaping or protected raised pedestrian walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. Pedestrian walkways shall include pedestrian-scaled lighting as specified in Subsection d., below and elevated crosswalks and/or distinguishing paving colors, textures or materials, as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The pedestrian routes shall lead to an entrance in the rear or, if applicable, the side of a building; ii. The use of alternative surfacing as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, including permeable surfacing , where applicable, shall be preferred as an option over traditional impervious surfacing; and iii. Strategies to reduce heat island effects, such as canopy shade trees and landscaping as specified in Subsection F.4.c. c. Parking Lot landscaping Standards. Parking lot landscaping shall be required as specified in Subsections F.4.b. and c. d. Parking lot lighting shall be provided for safety purposes. Parking lot lighting may be a mix of bollards at ground level and pedestrian-level lighting in compliance with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America recommended practices for pedestrian walkways and parking lots. e. Vehicle circulation or parking shall not be allowed within any required or optional building setback specified in Subsection 3.4-275H. 10. Vehicle Parking Structure Design Standards. Aboveground and underground parking structures shall be designed as specified in Subsection 3.4-275K. 11. Vehicle Parking Access and Driveways. a. In Subarea D, vehicle access to a parking lot or parking structure also may be from a common driveway serving multiple developments; in this case, a recorded joint-use/access easement shall be required. c. Curb cuts for all parking lots or parking structures shall be constructed to maintain the elevation, appearance and continuity of sidewalks crossed by curb cuts. 12. In all Subareas and in all types of parking facilities, Electric Vehicle (EV) parking stations and structures supporting photovoltaic panels shall be encouraged and permitted, where appropriate. Attachment 1 A-35
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 32 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 13. Bicycle Parking. Safe and convenient bicycle parking shall be provided for residents, visitors, employees and patrons. In mixed-use developments, e.g. high density residential and commercial, the required parking for each use shall be used. Required off-street bicycle parking spaces by use category shall be as specified in Table 3.4-2: Bicycle Parking Standards Table 3.4-2 Category: Employment Use Standard Office Employment 1/2750 sf Light Manufacturing 1/3000 sf Light Mfng Storage 1/3000 sf Warehousing 1/5 employees 14. Bicycle Parking Location and Security. a. Long term bicycle parking required in association with a commercial or employment use shall be provided in a well-lighted, secure location within a convenient distance of a main entrance and any secondary entrance. A secure location is defined as one in which the bicycle parking is: a bicycle locker, a lockable bicycle enclosure, or provided within a lockable room. b. Long term bicycle parking provided in outdoor locations shall not be farther away than the closest on-site automobile parking space, excluding disabled accessible parking. c. Long term bicycle parking required in association with high density residential use shall be provided in a well-lighted, secure ground-level or below ground location within a convenient distance of an entrance to the residential unit. A secure location is defined as one in which the bicycle parking is provided outside the residential unit within a garage, a lockable room, a lockable bicycle enclosure, or a bicycle locker. d. Short term bicycle parking shall consist of a securely fixed structure that supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without damage to wheels, frame, or components and that allows the frame and both wheels to be attached to the rack by the bicyclist’s own locking device. Innovative bicycle racks that incorporate street art shall be encouraged. Short term bicycle parking shall be provided within a convenient distance of and clearly visible from, the main entrance and/or any secondary entrance to the building, but it shall not be farther away than the closest automobile parking space, excluding disabled accessible parking. 15. Loading areas. Loading areas shall: a. Be concealed from public view; b. Be located at the rear or side of the development area, with access taken from a public service street or alley; c. Be equipped with closable overhead doors that Bicycle Parking Commentary Bicycle parking requirements specified herein are generally the same as existing code. Parking quantity is the same or only slightly greater. Long-term and short-term space requirements are similar. Suggestions None. Loading Commentary Loading area requirements are simple and straight forward; even a little less proscriptive than existing code. Attachment 1 A-36
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 33 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 blend in to the design of the building; d. Not be located where pedestrian or bicycle circulation through or between development areas can be impeded; e. Not encroach upon required landscaping; and f. Not encroach upon public and/or private driveways and sidewalks. Suggestions None. H. Wastewater Facilities and Services. 1. Public Wastewater Facilities. Public wastewater facilities shall comply with Section 4.3-105. a. Public wastewater facilities shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Public Facilities and Services Chapter. b. Public wastewater policies and implementation strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. c. Public wastewater facilities shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. 2. Private Wastewater Facilities. The use of septic systems in unincorporated areas of the Glenwood Riverfront may continue and/or expand as may be permitted in the Oregon Administrative Rules, Springfield Development Code and Springfield Municipal Code, unless a health hazard is declared as specified in Oregon Revised Statutes 222.840-915. If expansion is permitted with an existing private wastewater system, the developer shall certify that the existing septic system is functioning and can meet the above cited regulations for any new or expanded use proposed and provide for a suitable hook-up to the public wastewater system should the existing septic system fail. Wastewater Commentary Proposed code allows existing septic systems to continue until public service is available. Existing septic may expand if in compliance with ORS. Suggestions None. I. Stormwater Facilities and Services. All new development, redevelopment and associated infrastructure in the Glenwood Riverfront shall manage stormwater runoff on site to provide for water quality treatment and groundwater recharge, to the maximum extent practicable. 1. Public stormwater facilities. Public stormwater facilities shall comply with Section 4.3-115. a. Public stormwater facilities shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Open Space and Public Facilities and Services Chapters. b. Public stormwater policies and implementation strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. c. Public stormwater facilities shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. 2. Private stormwater facilities. a. Private stormwater facilities shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Open Space and Public Facilities and Services Chapters. b. Private stormwater policies and implementation strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. Stormwater Commentary Existing EDSPM applies today and will continue to apply to the Glenwood Riverfront regarding stormwater management. Suggestions None. Attachment 1 A-37
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 34 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 c. Private stormwater facilities shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to incorporate the Low Impact Development Approach. J. Public Park and Open Space. 1. Public park and open space facilities shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Open Space and Public Facilities and Services Chapters. 2. Public park and open space policies and implementation strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. 3. Public park and open space facilities including, but not limited to the park blocks and the riverfront linear park shall be designed and constructed as specified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan and in the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District, and shall be consistent with Willamalane Park and Recreation District design and construction standards. 4. The Glenwood Refinement Plan establishes two public open space areas in the Glenwood Riverfront, a riverfront linear park and the park blocks: a. The riverfront linear park will follow the Willamette River through Subareas A, B, C and D along the entire Glenwood Riverfront within the Willamette Greenway (WG) Overlay District Greenway Setback Line/Riparian Area boundary. The WG Overlay District is a continuous area along the Willamette River measured 150 feet from the ordinary low water mark. Within the Willamette Greenway is the Greenway Setback Line, which is measured 75 feet from the top of bank and contiguous with the 75 foot-wide Water Quality Limited Watercourses riparian setback. Development and uses riverward of the Greenway Setback Line shall be water-dependent and water-related. Development and uses landward of the Greenway Setback Line to the 150-foot WG Overlay District boundary shall be as permitted in the underlying zoning district only as specified in Section 3.4-280. In addition to Site Plan Review, development within the WG Overlay District will require Type III review procedure. Riparian and wetland areas in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be protected as specified in Sections 4.7-115 and 4.7-117. Access to the riverfront linear park and the Willamette River shall be as follows: i. No development shall restrict public access to the riverfront linear park. ii. Required public access to the Willamette River and the riverfront linear park shall be in the vicinity of the intersections of the north-south streets and the park blocks with the riverfront street in the Franklin Riverfront and no more than one-half mile Parks and Open Space Commentary Parks and open space in the Glenwood Riverfront are proposed to be comprised of two distinct elements two park blocks in the Franklin Boulevard area and a continuous riverfront park for the full length of the Willamette River through Glenwood. Much of the text in this section of the proposed code mirrors the text of section 3.4-280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards. Of import in this section is the requirement for public access to the riverfront park from adjacent public street network. In Subarea D, public access is to be provided in the vicinity of street intersections and no more than one-half mile apart. (3.4-270.J.4.a.ii). Suggestions None. See commentary, observations and suggestions in section 3.4-280 below. Attachment 1 A-38
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 35 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 apart in the McVay Riverfront. Amenities including, but not limited to, benches and seating areas along the multi-use path shall be required in the vicinity of public access. The developer may opt to provide additional access to enhance the development area. b. Park Blocks in the Franklin Riverfront in Subarea A. The design of the north-south park blocks requires a minimum width of approximately 150 feet, measured from the face of curb to face of curb in order to provide an area needed to support both passive and active park uses and stormwater management for nearby development. The maximum length of individual park blocks from Franklin Boulevard to the Willamette River will depend upon the block length of a particular development, which may range from 250-350 feet. K. Location of transit stations. 1. The proposed location of transit stops shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter. 2. In all Subareas, the final location of transit stops on Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway shall be approved during the final design review for each street project that will include input from the Lane Transit District and approval from the City Council. Transit Stations For Subarea D, transit stations will be part of the design and improvement of McVay Highway and will be coordinated with LTD. No special requirements for the Glenwood Riverfront are presented. L. Signs. Signs are not regulated by the SDC. Sign regulations are found in Chapter 8 of the Springfield Municipal Code (SMC), 1997. Wall signs and free standing signs in all Subareas shall be as specified in SMC Section 8.2 Signs Signs are regulated elsewhere in the Springfield code. No special requirements for the Glenwood Riverfront are presented. 3.2-425 CI District Operational Performance Standards The operational performance standards listed below apply to all uses permitted within the CI District. For permitted light industrial manufacturing uses, compliance with these operational performance standards shall be the determining factor. In all other cases, the use lists in Section 3.2-415 are the determining factor. A. All manufacturing operations shall be entirely enclosed within a building; EXCEPTION: The Director may allow an outdoor utility yard to store tanks containing gases and/or fluids that are essential to the operation of the permitted use that cannot otherwise be contained in an enclosed building for fire and life safety reasons, as determined by the Fire Marshall. The utility yard shall be screened from public view by a masonry or decorative concrete wall at least 8 feet in height that is an extension of the building, complements the faade of the building and meets the setback requirements specified in Section 3.2-420. B. All applicable on-site design standards specified in Section 3.2-445 shall be met; C. The storage of raw materials and/or finished products shall occur entirely within enclosed buildings. The parking of trucks necessary for the operation of the M. Light Manufacturing Operational Performance Standards. Proposed light manufacturing uses permitted in Subarea D shall comply with the operational performance standards specified below. Light manufacturing uses may stand alone or be in a business park with other permitted uses. There is no use list for light manufacturing uses. However, if the proposed use complies with the operational performance standards listed below, that use will be permitted. 1. All light manufacturing operations shall be entirely enclosed within a building. EXCEPTION: The Director may allow an outdoor utility yard to store tanks containing gases and/or fluids that are essential to the operation of the permitted use that otherwise cannot be contained in an enclosed building for fire and life safety reasons, as determined by the Fire Marshal. The utility yard shall be screened from public view by a masonry or decorative concrete wall at least 8 feet in height that is an extension of the building, complements the facade of the building and meets required setbacks and building landscaping standards specified in Subsection F. This exception shall not apply to development Operational Performance Standards Commentary The proposed Operational Performance Standards for the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District are essentially the same as existing performance standards found in the CI district. Observation In subsection M.3, the EXCEPTION narrative reflects what is believed to be an appropriate requirement for trucks. This narrative, as presented herein, contrasts with the narrative in subsection 3.4-270.G.6(2) above, wherein it is proposed that trucks be required to be entirely inside a building. Suggestion Ask staff if these two truck references couldnt be coordinated. The narrative in this subsection mirrors existing CI requirements, is practicable and acceptable. Attachment 1 A-39
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 36 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 facility shall also occur within enclosed buildings, unless permitted as specified in Sections 4.6-125 and 3.2-445C.; D. Office and commercial uses shall not primarily serve the public; E. The movement of heavy equipment on or off the site shall not be permitted. EXCEPTION: Truck deliveries and shipments are permitted; F. Proposed uses on the prohibited use list specified in Section 3.2-415 shall not be permitted; and G. Proposed uses shall also comply with the additional operational performance standards listed below. The intent is not to specifically deny a use, but ensure compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Compliance with these operational performance standards are the continuing obligation of the property owner. Failure to comply with these operational performance standards shall be a violation of this Code and/or Chapter 5 of the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. 1. Air pollution. Air pollution includes, but is not limited to, emission of smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. Air pollution shall not be discernable at the property line by a human observer relying on a persons senses without the aid of a device. The applicant shall obtain and maintain all applicable licenses and permits from the appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies. EXCEPTION: Water vapor or other benign plumes from processes or pollution control equipment shall not be considered air pollution. 2. Fire and explosive hazards. All activities involving the use, storage and/or disposal of flammable or explosive materials shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code as most recently adopted by the City. 3. Glare. a. Glare resulting from exterior lighting, excluding low-intensity pedestrian-level lighting, shall be controlled by deflecting light away from abutting uses and from public rights-of-way as specified in Section 4.5-100. b. Glare resulting from an industrial operation including welding or laser cutting shall not be visible from the outside of the building. 4. Groundwater Protection. Proposed development utilizing hazardous materials that may impact groundwater quality shall be as specified in Section 3.3-200. 5. Hazardous Waste. Proposed development shall not utilize or produce hazardous waste unless permitted as specified in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-102-0010 through 340-102-0065 or any applicable Federal regulation. 6. Noise. These standards apply to noise generated by any machinery or equipment on the development site. The maximum permitted noise levels in decibels across lot/parcel lines and district boundaries shall be as specified in OAR 340-035-0035, Noise Control Standards for Industry and Commerce. proposals adjacent to any residential or commercial mixed-use designation/zoning. 2. All applicable building design standards specified in Section 3.4-275 shall be met. 3 The storage of raw materials and/or finished products shall occur entirely within enclosed buildings. The parking of medium duty and heavy duty trucks as defined in G.6 Table 3.4-1 Item (2) necessary for the operation of the facility shall also occur within enclosed buildings. EXCEPTION: Medium and heavy duty trucks necessary for the operation of the facility may be screened by a masonry or concrete wall or other permanent fully opaque screen that extends from the building and complements the faade of the building. The wall shall have a minimum height of 8 feet. The screen shall totally conceal trucks from the public street level view on the Glenwood Riverfront and shall meet the setback requirements of 3.4-275H. 4. The routine movement of heavy equipment on or off the development area shall not be permitted. EXCEPTION: Trucks and necessary heavy equipment shall be allowed during construction and trucks for deliveries and shipments. 5. Uses on the prohibited use list specified in Section 3.4-275 shall not be permitted. 6. Proposed uses shall comply with the additional operational performance standards listed below. The intent is not to specifically deny a use, but to ensure compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Compliance with these operational performance standards shall be the continuing obligation of the property owner. Failure to comply with these operational performance standards shall be a violation of this Code and/or Chapter 5 of the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. 7. Air pollution. Air pollution includes, but is not limited to emission of smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. Air pollution shall not be discernable at the property line by a human observer relying on a persons senses without the aid of a device. The applicant shall obtain and maintain all applicable licenses and permits from the appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies. 8. Fire and explosive hazards. All activities involving the use, storage and/or disposal of flammable or explosive materials shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code as most recently adopted by the City. 9. Glare. a. Glare resulting from exterior lighting, excluding low-intensity pedestrian-level lighting, shall be controlled by shielding light emissions from abutting uses and from public rights-of-way as specified in Section 4.5-100. b. Glare resulting from a light manufacturing operation including, but not limited to welding or laser cutting shall not be visible from the outside of the building. Attachment 1 A-40
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 37 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 EXCEPTION: Excluded from these noise standards are background traffic on State highways and public streets and occasional sounds generated by temporary construction activities, truck deliveries, warning devices, or other similar temporary situations. 7. Radiation. There are various sources of radiation, including, but not limited to ionizing radiation, electromagnetic radiation, and radiation from sonic, ultrasonic, or infrasonic waves. Uses that involve radiation shall comply with the regulations in OAR 333-100-0001 through 333-100-0080 and any applicable Federal regulation. 8. Vibration. No use, other than a temporary construction operation, shall be operated in a manner that causes ground vibration that can be measured at the property line. Ground transmitted vibration shall be measured with a seismograph or a complement of instruments capable of recording vibration displacement, particle velocity, or acceleration and frequency simultaneously in 3 mutually perpendicular directions. 10. Hazardous Waste. Proposed development shall not utilize or produce hazardous waste unless permitted as specified in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-102-0010 through 340-102-0065 or any applicable Federal regulation. Where hazardous waste is permitted, the proposed use shall not be adjacent to any residential or commercial mixed-use designation/zoning. 11. Noise. These standards apply to noise generated by any machinery or equipment on the development area. The maximum permitted noise levels in decibels across lot/parcel lines and district boundaries shall be as specified in OAR 340-035-0035, Noise Control Standards for Industry and Commerce. 12. Radiation. There are various sources of radiation including, but not limited to ionizing radiation, electromagnetic radiation, and radiation from sonic, ultrasonic or infrasonic waves. Uses that involve radiation shall comply with the regulations in OAR 333-100-0001 through 333-100-0080 and any applicable Federal regulation. Where sources of radiation are permitted, the proposed use shall not be adjacent to any residential or commercial mixed-use designation/zoning. 13. Vibration. No use, other than a temporary construction operation, shall be operated in a manner that causes ground vibration that can be measured at the property line. Ground-transmitted vibration shall be measured with a seismograph or a complement of instruments capable of recording vibration displacement, particle velocity, or acceleration and frequency simultaneously in 3 mutually perpendicular directions. N. Historic and Cultural Resources There are no known or listed historic or cultural resources in subarea D. 3.2-445 Campus Industrial Design Standards In the CI District, new buildings; expansions of, or additions to existing buildings; or improvements to existing faades that require a building permit shall provide architectural designs that encourage flexibility and innovation in site planning by complying with the following on-site design standards: A. Building Exteriors. In order to break up vast expansions of single element building elevations applicable to both length and height, building design shall include a combination of architectural elements and features, including, but not limited to: offsets, windows, entrances, and roof treatments. 1. Offsets. Offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 100 feet of lineal building wall by providing recesses or extensions with a minimum depth of 4 feet. EXCEPTION: Variations in building wall materials, including, but not limited to: wood siding, brick, stucco, textured concrete block, tile, glass, stone, or other suitable materials may be used instead of offsets. The Director, in consultation with the Building Official, may approve other suitable materials without the need for a Variance. 3.4-275 Building Design Standards The following building design standards shall be established for the Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District: A. General. Glenwood is a gateway to the City and region. Future development/redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront will contribute to furthering a sense of place and distinctiveness. Therefore, special attention will be paid to building and site design to mitigate the visual impact of increased density by promoting aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings and sites that shall be context-sensitive and oriented to the human scale and establishing an inviting streetscape in the Glenwood Riverfront. The term human scale generally refers to the use of human-proportioned architectural features and site design elements clearly oriented to human activity. These standards will be applied during the Site Plan Review process. The building design standards are based upon: 1. The building design standards as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Land Use and Built Form Chapter. 2. The building design standards shall be as specified in Appendix 3. General Commentary There are three areas of existing code which specify building standards Section 3.2-445 Campus Industrial Design Standards, 3.2-450 Business/Industrial Park Standards and 3.2-625 Mixed-Use District Development Standards. Following initial narrative regarding intent and sometimes design team requirements, each of these three sections articulates a basic set of building design requirements. These typically cover: 1. Exteriors, Facades. 2. Height, Massing and Articulation. 3. Windows and Doors (including awnings and weather protection). 4. Orientation and Entrances. 5. Building Setbacks. 6. Pedestrian Amenities. 7. Screening. The proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District includes a fourth articulation of building design standards for the Springfield Code. Outlined below are a few brief Attachment 1 A-41
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 38 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Smooth-faced concrete panels or prefabricated steel panels may also be used as accents, but shall not dominate the building exterior. Exterior colors for buildings and fences shall be subdued or earth tones. 2. Windows. Ground floor windows are required for all office and commercial uses, including those office and commercial uses that are contained within light industrial manufacturing uses. Ground floor windows for the remainder of a light industrial building are optional. All elevations of office and commercial buildings abutting any street shall provide at least 50 percent of their length (e.g., a 100-foot-wide building faade shall have a total of at least 50 linear feet of windows) and at least 25 percent of the ground floor wall area as windows and/or doors that allow views into lobbies, merchandise displays, or work areas. On corner lots/parcels this provision applies to both elevations. Where upper story windows are proposed, either awnings, canopies, or other similar treatments shall be required for ground floor windows or variations in window materials, trim, paint or ornamentation may be used. EXCEPTIONS: a. A mural, that does not include any advertising, may be used to meet 50 percent of the ground floor window standard specified in Subsection 2. above. Murals are regulated under Chapter 8.234 of the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. b. Building elevations adjacent to alleys or vehicle accessways used primarily for servicing and deliveries are exempt from this standard 3. Entrances. To the greatest extent practicable, all new buildings in the CI District shall be oriented toward both exterior and internal streets. a. The primary entrance to all buildings in the CI District shall be visible from the street; and b. A weather-protected area, including, but not limited to: awnings or canopies, at least 6 feet wide, shall be provided at all public entrances. 4. Roof Treatments. The following roof treatments are required. a. Sloped roofs and multiple roof elements shall be the primary methods for roof treatment. Variations within one architectural style; visible roof lines and roofs that project over the exterior wall of a building enough to cast a shadow on the ground and architectural methods used to conceal flat roof tops may also be used. Mansard style roofs shall not be permitted. If building wall offsets are used, offsets or breaks in roof elevation with a minimum of 3 feet or more in height may be used for every 100 feet of lineal building wall. b. The architectural design of the building roof shall also incorporate features which screen all heating, ventilation and air conditioning units from adjacent LDR and MDR properties 3. The building design standards shall be designed and constructed as specified in this Section. EXCEPTION: Park structures including, but not limited to kiosks and restroom facilities shall be exempt from all building design standards. B. Design Team. A design team shall be required for any proposed development requiring Site Plan Review procedure in order to comply with the design and development standards of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District. The design team shall include an Oregon Registered Architect, Landscape Architect, and Civil Engineer. Design teams are encouraged to: 1. Design buildings and sites utilizing sustainable building and site design guidelines, such as those promoted through the National Association of Home Builders National Green Building Program, the Sustainable Building Advisor Institute, or similar sustainable building and site design programs; and 2. Employ the concept of adaptive reuse with the recognition that buildings frequently undergo alterations to conform to different uses or uses not taken into account in the original design. C. Building Facades. The design of buildings and their relationships to the public realm are critical factors in the development of an active and vital pedestrian environment. In all Subareas building facades shall have the following architectural detailing: 1. The ground floor of a building shall: a. Incorporate awnings, canopies, porticos, or arcades; b. Provide variation in building materials including, but not limited to: tile, brick, split faced concrete block, concrete horizontal siding, masonry veneer, and powder coated aluminum or traditional wood storefronts that are differentiated by, trim, paint, and ornamentation; c. Provide ground floor windows and entrances that provide a high level of transparency by allowing views both inward and outward; and d. Utilize signs; or other features, including public art. e. More than one type of building material may be used for building identity. 2. The upper stories shall: a. Include architectural detailing utilizing some of the same design elements specified in Subsection C.1.; and/or b. Incorporate a change in the window style; c. Integrate a change in floor height; building step backs as specified in Subsection D.4.; or a combination of these elements. d. Provide differences in height and architectural elements including, but not limited to: parapets; cornices; and other details also may be used to create interesting and varied rooflines. In addition, building corners may incorporate taller elements including, but not limited to: towers; turrets; and bays. remarks regarding this new proposed code. Design Team Commentary Design team requirements are cited in a number of locations in the Springfield Code, including Master Plan, Site Review, and Business Parks and now in the proposed Glenwood Mixed-Use code. Additionally, individual design expertise is required in a number of specific locations through out the code. Arborists, transportation engineers, civil engineers, geotechnical engineers and surveyors are oft citied professional requirements. The design team requirement for this new Glenwood mixed-use district is essentially the same as cited elsewhere. Building Facades Commentary Building faade requirements include offsets in the building face, variations in height, variation in building materials, including paint and ornamentation. In subarea D, faade offsets shall occur every 100 feet for manufacturing uses and every 50 feet for commercial and office uses. This is comparable to current CI and MU requirements. Window requirements include a certain amount of window length and certain percent of window area on ground floors and second stories. In subarea D, first floor windows shall be a minimum of 40% for manufacturing and 60% for commercial and office. This is comparable to existing CI (50%) and MU (30%). In Subarea D, second floor windows may be substituted with false windows or building faade patterns. Attachment 1 A-42
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 39 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 and the street. Mechanical equipment shall also be buffered so that noise emissions do not exceed the standards specified in Section 3.2-425G.6. The City may require a noise study certified by a licensed acoustical engineer for compliance verification. C. Screening. Screening shall be as specified in Section 4.4-110. In addition, truck parking for vehicles necessary for the operation of the facility shall be screened by a masonry or concrete wall that is an extension of the building and complements the faade of the building. The wall shall have a minimum height of 8 feet. The wall shall totally conceal trucks from public view and shall meet the setback requirement specified in Section 3.2-420. EXCEPTION: The Director may consider proposed truck parking that is enclosed by buildings and complies with Section 4.6-125. D. Pedestrian Walkways and River Access 1. Walkways from a sidewalk to building entrances. A continuous pedestrian walkway shall be provided from the primary frontage sidewalk for pedestrians to access building entrances. 2. Walkways from parking lots to building entrances. Internal pedestrian walkways shall be developed for persons who need access to the buildings from the parking lots. The walkways shall be located within the parking lots and designed to provide access from the parking lots to the entrances of the buildings. The walkways shall be distinguished from the parking and driving areas by use of any of the following material: special pavers, brick, raised elevation, scored concrete or other materials as approved by the Director. 3. In the Gateway CI District, access to the McKenzie River, both for pedestrians and bicycles, shall be addressed in the site design, where specified in the applicable refinement plan or TransPlan. E. Transit Stations and Stops. When required, transit stations and stops shall conform to the standards of the Lane Transit District. 3.2-450 Business/Industrial Parks A. Development plans submitted as part of a Business/Industrial Park Site Plan Review application shall be prepared by a design team comprised of a project architect, engineer, and landscape architect, one of whom shall serve as the project coordinator. The design team shall certify that building, elevation, site, and landscape plans submitted in connection with the Site Plan Review application comply with the on-site design standards specified in Section 3.2-445 and any other applicable CI District provisions. B. Subdivisions in the LMI District shall conform to Industrial Park standards: 1. Development plans submitted as part of an Industrial Park Site Plan Review application shall be prepared by a design team comprised of a project architect, engineer, and landscape 3. Building facades that do not front a street, alley or mid-block connector shall be constructed with design elements similar to those facades fronting streets. D. Height. The following standards are intended to allow for a range of building heights within a development area that supports an interesting skyline, the ability to market view properties, and reduces impacts of shading from tall structures on the public realm. Lower structures combined with taller structures within a single development area will be permitted to allow for a variety of design solutions. 1. In all Subareas, the minimum building height shall be 2 stories. EXCEPTION: Single story buildings shall be only permitted within a portion of a development area. If a single story building is proposed, the minimum height shall be 20 feet. 2. In all Subareas, there shall be no maximum building height. a. In all Subareas, the maximum building height shall be 3 stories for the portion of a building between the Greenway Setback Line and the WG Overlay District boundary. b. In Subarea A: i. The rationale for establishing minimum heights is generally intended to ensure that high density residential development shall be maximized. Therefore, building height standards shall promote a Residential Mixed-Use designation and zone that supports a minimum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. High density residential development at the densities prescribed above allows for 5 to 6 story buildings. High density residential development over 6 stories shall be permitted if the proposed development is located in such a manner as to provide solar protection for public open spaces including, but not limited to, the Riverfront Linear Park. ii. Developers may utilize any type of construction permitted by the Oregon Structural Specialty Code, related building codes, fire codes and referenced standards in effect at the time of an application for a building permit. 4. In Subarea D the same step back standard shall be met on the east or west faade. The step backs are intended to provide substantial seasonal daytime sunlight on the street and sidewalk and within the Willamette Greenway; and create a height transition between the proposed development and adjacent development. Uses for the lower roofs may include, but not be limited to balconies and observation decks. 5. In all Subareas, non-residential ground floor space (commercial/office/light manufacturing businesses) shall have a minimum floor to floor height of 15 Building Height Commentary Minimum building height shall be 2 stories, with a minimum first floor height of 15 feet. In all subareas the maximum building height shall be 3 stories for the portion of a building within the Greenway Overlay Area. Otherwise there is no maximum building height. Building heights are to vary where possible from one building to another or from one portion of a building to another. An occasional single story building will be permitted. If so, its minimum height shall be 20 feet. Attachment 1 A-43
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 40 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 architect, one of whom shall serve as coordinator. The design team shall certify that building, site, and landscape plans submitted in connection with the Site Plan Review and Building Permit applications comply with applicable SDC provisions and conditions of approval. 2. Buildings and uses within an Industrial Park shall be approved as specified in the criteria specified below: a. The proposed development is of general design character, (including, but not limited to: anticipated building design, type, location, setback, bulk, height, signage, and distribution of landscaped area, parking, streets and access) which will not create problems for the appropriate development of neighboring properties. b. The proposed development will create an attractive, safe, efficient, and stable internal environment. c. Proposed buildings, streets and other uses will be designed and sited to ensure preservation of significant on-site vegetation, topographic features, and other unique or worthwhile natural features, and to prevent soil erosion or flood hazard. 3.2-625 Mixed-Use District Development StandardsGeneral Mixed use zoning districts require special attention to building design because of the intermixing of land uses and higher intensity of development that can occur in these areas. The standards below implement commonly accepted design principles with the goal to achieve more attractive, functional and pedestrian oriented design. Not every case and circumstance is anticipated by these standards, nor is it the goal of this Section to prescribe every design detail of development. It is expected that the Springfield development community will apply their own design creativity to build on these principles and create attractive, livable, and viable projects. The standards below provide an objective framework for achieving the desired goal of attractive, pedestrian oriented development. Developers may choose to meet these standards as prescribed, or they may propose other design ideas which are equal or superior to a particular standard in meeting the design objectives in Subsections A.-G., below. Where developers request an exemption from a stated standard, it is their responsibility to propose an alternative design and to demonstrate to the Director that it is equal or superior to the stated standard. The Director has the authority to authorize an exception to these standards and determine the acceptability of an alternative design the developer proposes. When developers propose alternative designs that are not acceptable to the Director, they may appeal the decision as specified in Section 5.3-115. A. Building Design Standards. Intent: New structures and improvements to faades requiring building permits shall provide architectural relief and interest, with emphasis at building entrances and along sidewalks, to feet to accommodate space for mechanical systems. E. Massing/Building Articulation. Where buildings are highly visible from public areas, massing shall be addressed by articulating the facades with insets and projections to create visual interest and enhance views from the adjacent public realm. In all Subareas: 1. All sides of a building that are open to public view shall receive articulation design consideration. No buildings shall create blank, flat walls along these areas. 2. To break up vast expanses of single element building elevations, applicable to both length and height, building articulation shall be accomplished through combinations of the following techniques. Each story shall contain a minimum of 3 features listed below: a. Creating small insets and projections to break up the wall surface and create a more human-scale environment. A landscaped or raised planter bed may be provided within each recess or projection that contains plant materials including, but not limited to, trees and/or shrubs and trellises for climbing vines that will grow to screen the wall. Building insets and projections are different from building setbacks specified in Subsection H., below. b. Repeating window patterns and window trim at intervals equal to the articulation interval. c. Providing design elements specified in Subsection C.1 for each interval, where applicable. d. Variation in rooflines including, but not limited to: dormers, stepped roofs, gables and cornices to reinforce the articulation interval. If building wall offsets are used, breaks in roof elevation with a minimum of 3 feet or more in height shall be used. Mansard style roofs shall not be permitted. e. Changing building materials or colors for each interval. f. Providing art including, but not limited to: mosaics, murals, decorative masonry patterns, sculpture, or reliefs over a substantial portion of a wall surface for each interval. 5. In Subarea D, a. Articulation for light manufacturing businesses shall occur at a minimum of every 100 feet. b. Articulation for office and commercial businesses shall occur at a minimum of every 50 feet. EXCEPTION: Where a light manufacturing building has commercial businesses on the ground floor, the 50 foot standard in Subsection 5.b., above shall apply. F. Windows and doors. The proportions, materials, and detailing of windows and doors are key to the attractiveness of a building and an active streetscape. A significant amount of glass adds to the pedestrian Massing and Articulation Commentary Building facades facing a street, shared drive or open space are to have building faade features; a minimum of three on each faade. There are many features what would satisfy this requirement. Some are the same as cited elsewhere windows, offsets, variation in building height and changes in building materials. In general, satisfying the building faade requirement (Subsection C herein) will satisfy the massing and articulation requirement. In subarea D, articulation shall occur every 100 feet for manufacturing uses and every 50 feet for commercial and office uses. Windows and Doors Commentary As noted above, in subarea D, windows and doors shall constitute 40 % of a ground floor faade for manufacturing Attachment 1 A-44
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 41 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 promote and enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and orientation. Blank walls shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by complying with the following minimum requirements. The following standards are intended to be specific and quantifiable while allowing for flexibility in design. 1. Ground floor windows shall be required for all civic and commercial uses. All elevations of buildings abutting any street shall provide at least 50 percent of their length (e.g., a 100-foot wide building faade shall have a total of at least 50 linear feet of windows) and at least 25 percent of the ground floor wall area as windows and/or doors that allow views into lobbies, merchandise displays, or working areas. On corner lots/parcels this provision applies to both elevations. EXCEPTION: Elevations of buildings adjacent to alleys or vehicle accessways used primarily for service and delivery access is exempt from this requirement. 2. Ground floor windows are required as part of the primary entrance elevation for all industrial uses. Windows are required for at least 30 percent of the primary entrance and ground level offices that are part of the entrance elevation. The windows shall be measured in linear fashion (e.g., a 100-foot wide building entrance and office faade shall have a total of at least 30 linear feet of windows and/or doors on the ground floor that allow views into lobbies, merchandise displays, or working areas). 3. Along the vertical face of a structure, offsets shall occur at a minimum of every 50 feet by providing at least one of the following: a. Recesses, including, but not limited to: entrances and floor area with of a minimum depth of 4 feet. b. Extensions, including, but not limited to: entrances and floor area with a minimum clearance of 4 feet, a minimum depth of 4 feet, and a maximum length of an overhang shall be 25 feet. c. Offsets or breaks in roof elevation with a minimum of 3 feet or more in height. 4. In order to break up vast expanses of single element building elevations, building design shall include a combination of architectural elements and features, including, but not limited to: offsets, windows, entry treatments, wood siding, brick, stucco, textured concrete block. 5. In order to provide differentiation between the ground floor and upper stories, building design shall include bays or balconies for upper levels, and awnings, canopies, or other similar treatments for lower levels. Variation in building materials, trim, paint, ornamentation, windows, or other features including public art, may also be used. 6. External modifications proposed for structures listed on the Springfield Historic Landmark Inventory shall comply with the applicable standards specified in Section 3.3-900. character of the development by visually linking interactions between people inside and outside of buildings and by offering a clear view from the sidewalk to the interior space of shops, office lobbies, merchandise displays, and working areas. Windows and doors also contribute to a safe pedestrian environment by allowing eyes on the street both day and night. Transparency for residential buildings is measured along a line 5 feet above the first floor finished elevation. Transparency for other buildings is measured along a line five feet above the sidewalk elevation. 1. Ground floor windows and doors that face a public street, alley or mid-block connector. The following standards apply to primary entrances to buildings: d. In Subarea D: i. Light manufacturing windows and doors shall comprise a minimum of 40 percent of a buildings first floor faades to allow views into lobbies, merchandise and work areas and allow persons inside to look out. ii. Commercial and office windows and doors shall comprise a minimum of 60 percent of a buildings first floor faades to allow views into lobbies, merchandise and work areas and allow persons inside to look out. 2. Upper story windows that face a public street, alley or mid-block connector. In all Subareas, upper story windows shall be required on all building facades and shall comprise a minimum of 25 percent of the buildings faade for each story, measured in linear fashion. EXCEPTION: In Subarea D, window-like treatments (e.g. window frames or tromp doeuil windows), may be substituted. 3. In all Subareas, the use of low-reflective glass shall be encouraged as an energy conservation method. 4. In all Subareas, frosted glass, spandrel windows, or other types of glass or film coatings between 3 feet above the sidewalk grade to 8 feet above the building slab that diminish transparency on the ground floor shall be prohibited. G. Orientation/Entrances. Safe, appealing, and comfortable street environments shall be necessary in order to promote walking and support public health. All buildings shall be oriented towards the public realm, including streets, mid-block connectors, parks and open space. Primary entrances shall be designed so that they are not easily confused with entrances into ground floor businesses; provided with lighting for night time safety and security; and oriented so that pedestrians have a direct and convenient route from the sidewalk. Corner lots/parcels offer unique possibilities because of their visibility and access from two streets, and create unique spaces of concentrated activity where pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists come together. These possibilities include, but are not limited to: cafØ seating, sidewalk vending, or the provision of public art or water features. uses and 60% for commercial and office uses. Upper story windows shall be 25% of a faade. Except in subarea D where artificial windows or building faade treatments may be utilized. Orientation and Entrances Commentary Buildings and their main entrances shall face the street. Main entrances shall be easily recognized as such, with 9 foot height and lighting. Primary entrances shall have at least 3 of the following: canopies, suspended from the building at least 9 feet above the sidewalk, faade projections or recesses, variation in roof lines and/or display windows. Corner buildings shall have the main entrance facing the primary street or at the corner. At buildings with corner entrances: upper story entrances shall be away from primary entrances and parking shall be away from corners. Observations Attachment 1 A-45
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 42 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 7. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1 through 6, above. B. Building Orientation and Maximum Setbacks. Intent: To the greatest extent practicable, all new buildings in a mixed-use development shall be oriented toward both exterior and internal streets in a manner that accommodates pedestrian comfort, convenience and safety. 1. In the Downtown Mixed Use Area, buildings shall be oriented towards fronting streets in a manner that frames and defines both streets and pedestrian areas along those streets. The maximum building setback in the Downtown Mixed Use Area is 10 feet. Buildings in this area shall not be separated from fronting streets by off-street parking, vehicle circulation aisles or drive-thru lanes. EXCEPTIONS: Street setbacks in the Downtown Mixed Use Area may be approved by the Director when: a. The building design incorporates public seating, plazas, or other usable public space as specified in Subsection G. below; b. The building design incorporates landscaped stormwater quality facilities within the setback area that also enhance the pedestrian scale, orientation and interest; c. Necessary to preserve existing healthy mature trees; or d. Necessary to accommodate handicapped access requirements. 2. Parking in the Downtown Mixed Use Area shall be located beside or behind buildings, internal to development on a site. For existing development sites, outparcel buildings between a large parking lot and the street shall be used to help define the streetscape, and lessen the visual impact of the parking lot from the street. 3. Public entrances to all new buildings in the Downtown Mixed Use Area shall be visible from the street and oriented so that pedestrians have a direct and convenient route from the street sidewalk to building entrances. 4. In MUC Districts outside of the Downtown Mixed Use Area, buildings may be set back from fronting public or private streets, but shall be connected to those by a continuous internal sidewalk (and as needed, sidewalk crossings). This internal sidewalk network shall connect customer entrances of buildings on a development site with one another and with fronting public sidewalks or rights-of-way. The internal sidewalks shall be at least 5 feet wide. The internal sidewalk network shall connect transit stops or station to buildings on the development site to form a direct and convenient pedestrian connection with these transit facilities. 5. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1 through 4, above. C. Weather Protection. Intent: Awnings and canopies are 1. In all Subareas: a. Primary entrances to all new buildings located on a street, alley or mid-block connector shall be designed to include at least 3 of the following design elements: an awning, canopy, overhang, or arch above the entrance; recesses or projections in the building faade surrounding the entrance; a peaked roof or raised parapet structures over the door; or display windows surrounding the entrance. Primary entrance design elements attached to buildings shall be: i. At least 9 feet above the sidewalk or grade; and i. Suspended from the building (i.e. not supported by posts or columns that may interfere with pedestrian traffic). ii. Allowed to extend over the sidewalk portion of the right-of-way. b. Primary entrances to all new buildings located on a corner lot/parcel shall face either the higher classification street or the intersection, using a cutaway, diagonal or other entrance design. If both streets are the same classification, one street may be chosen as the primary entrance. i. Enhanced building corners may include characteristics as specified in Subsection G.1.a. ii. The location of stairs, elevators, and other upper story building access points shall be located towards the middle of the block to free sidewalk-level building retail opportunities to occur at corners. iii. Parking and automobile access shall be located away from corners. c. Primary pedestrian ingress and egress for parking structures shall be as specified in Subsection K.2. 3. In Subarea D, entries to light manufacturing buildings shall portray a quality office appearance while being architecturally related to the overall building composition. 4. In all Subareas, secondary entrances shall face the side or rear of all new buildings to allow access to available parking, where necessary. H. Build-to Lines and Building Setbacks. 1. Build-to-Lines. a. An urban streetscape shall be created by locating new buildings close to the street and close to one another wherever practical. The streetscape creates a sense of enclosure along sidewalks and provides a variety of street level faades. These standards establish a pleasant and diverse pedestrian experience by connecting activities occurring within a structure to adjacent sidewalk areas. The build-to line is a line that is parallel to the property line and contiguous with the sidewalk, interfaces with the faade of the building, and An emphasis on primary entrances is common in commercial and mixed-use zones. Emphasis on placing entrances at the corner of a corner building is also common. What seems a bit stringent in the proposed code is the requirement to keep upper story entrances and parking and auto access away from the corner entrance. There is efficiency and very real visitor/customer psychology that benefit when the primary automobile entrance is associated with the primary building entrance. Lines of sight are important. Suggestions Change subsection G.1.b.ii to read: ii. The location of stairs, elevators, and other upper story building access points shall be located in coordination with corner building entrances and maintain the opportunity for sidewalk-level building retail opportunities to occur at corners. Change subsection G.1.b.iii to read: iii. Where such occurs, parking and automobile access located at or near building entrance corners, shall be located and designed in coordination with corner building entrance requirements. Build-to Lines and Setbacks Commentary Build-to and Setbacks The proposed code includes a build-to line. The line is defined as being parallel with the front property line and coincident with the sidewalk. In essence, there is a zero-foot setback anywhere in the proposed mixed-use district. Thats the standard. But there is a provision to have a building setback under certain conditions. In subarea D, a building may be setback 10 feet if pedestrian amenities are provided in that 10 foot area. In addition, in subarea D buildings may be setback more than 10 feet so long as the additional setback has a proposed use and the additional Attachment 1 A-46
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 43 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 intended to protect pedestrians from the weather and add to the architectural interest of buildings. New commercial or mixed-use residential development shall provide a weather-protected area adjacent to sidewalks and plazas. 1. Awnings or canopies shall be at least 6 feet wide, and shall follow building offsets to eliminate long expanses of awnings and or canopies. 2. Awnings and canopies shall not obscure architectural features (e.g., transom area) of the building and shall not extend into the second story of the building. 3. Awnings and canopies shall be in proportion to the overall building and shall match the width of the storefront or window opening. 4. Backlit awnings and canopies are not permitted. 5. Awnings and canopies shall be suspended from the building and not supported by posts. 6. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1 through 5, above. E. Street Connectivity and Internal Circulation. Intent: To make mixed-use developments part of a connected street system that serves vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Public or private streets connect the development to adjacent neighborhoods and zoning districts. When street connections are not practicable, pedestrian connections are made to and through the development in lieu of planned street connections. Pedestrian connections shall equal what would be available if they were on a street. 1. Streets and accessways of any one development or site shall interconnect with those of adjacent developments or sites. Internal street or circulation patterns that isolate a development from all adjacent developments, and only allow access to fronting arterial or collector streets, shall be prohibited. EXCEPTION: The Director may determine that topography and/or existence of natural features of the development site would be better accommodated with an alternative circulation pattern. 2. Streets and accessways shall align and connect to each other to create a direct and convenient pattern of circulation that is consistent with the Citys existing street and block pattern in the area. The maximum block perimeter shall be 1,400 feet. 3. A mixed use developments street network (both public and private on-site streets) shall connect directly to neighborhood streets in the surrounding area, providing multiple paths for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular movement to and through the development area. In this way, trips made from the surrounding residential neighborhood to the mixed use development will be possible without requiring travel along a major thoroughfare or arterial. 4. Outparcel buildings shall be connected to and served from the internal streets of the primary equates to a zero setback. b. In all Subareas, buildings shall be constructed up to the build-to line, unless the developer desires a building setback as specified below. Pedestrian amenities shall be addressed as specified in Subsection I.2.a. 2. Building Setbacks. b. In Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the modal development area, buildings may exceed the maximum 10 foot setback. In this case, the depth of the setback shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed use of the setback. The setback shall include pedestrian walkways from the public sidewalk to the primary entrance of the building and landscaping as specified in Subsection F.4.b. Pedestrian amenities as specified in Subsections I.2.a. and I.2.b. shall be required. c. In all Subareas, park structures including, but not limited to kiosks and restroom facilities shall be exempt from all building setback standards. d. In all Subareas, no parking shall be permitted within any building setback. I. Pedestrian Amenities. 1. The intent of the pedestrian amenities is to provide comfortable and inviting pedestrian spaces. Pedestrian amenities serve as informal gathering places for socializing, resting, and enjoyment of the Glenwood Riverfront, and contribute to a walkable district. Pedestrian amenities shall be consistent with the character and scale of surrounding developments, intended use and expected number of people. 2. Pedestrian Amenities Standards. The pedestrian standards are minimums. The developer is encouraged provide additional pedestrian amenities. a. Where there is no building setback, the following coordinated pedestrian amenities shall be provided on each block or development area, if applicable, located between the curb and the build-to-line: i. At least one bench for every 80 feet of street frontage; ii. At least one trash receptacle for every 80 feet of street frontage; and iii. At least one pedestrian scale wall mounted light meeting the standards specified in Subsection C.2 for every 50 feet of street frontage. b. Where there is a building setback, in addition to the pedestrian amenities specified in Subsection I.2.a., two additional pedestrian amenities from the list specified in Subsection I.2.c, shall be provided for each 80 feet of street frontage. c. Additional pedestrian amenities include, but are not limited to: setback is the minimum necessary to accommodate the use. Where this occurs, the original 10-foot setback and the additional setback must include a sidewalk connecting the street sidewalk to the building entrance, landscaping and pedestrian amenities. Parking Parking is not permitted in building setbacks. In subarea D, parking is limited to 25% of the building front unless more is granted, but then only with a 20 foot setback Observations The latest edition of the proposed code increased building setback flexibility. However, parking is still limited in front of a building. It seems that in subarea D that there should be some flexibility in that regard. It is, after all, an employment area, not a shopping of living area. In the existing LMI zone, there is no such parking prohibition. In the comparison CI zone, parking is encouraged to be at the side or in the rear of a building, but parking in front of a building is not prohibited. (Think about how attractive, and how successful, the campus industrial developments have been in the Gateway area Sony, Symantec, PacificSource to name a few.) Parking is in front of a building (along with entrances, sidewalks, canopies and amenities). These developments not only look great, but are successful sources of employment and business operations. Suggestions Change subsection H.2.d to read: d. In Subareas A, B and C, no parking shall be permitted within any building setback. Add subsection H.2.e: e. In Subarea D, parking may be permitted in front of the building so long as the setback and other provisions of H.2.b are met. Pedestrian Amenities Commentary It is well known that the use of pedestrian amenities improves the urban environment for the pedestrian, the property owner, and especially the business owner. A comfortable walking (shopping, employment) environment is very helpful to the business owners bottom line. The more a pedestrian (shopper, employee) enjoys a place, the better their frame of mind (and the more theyll shop and the better theyll work). Observations The list of pedestrian amenities in the proposed code is comprehensive. There is nothing there that seems out of place. Attachment 1 A-47
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 44 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 development area of which they are a part. 5. Pedestrian paths and sidewalks shall connect all building entrances with each other and with public rights-of-way in a manner that is direct and convenient for the pedestrian. 6. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1 through 5, above. F. Neighborhood Compatibility. Intent: To achieve a compatible transition between mixed-use and other zones of differing height, bulk and scale requirements, consideration shall be given to the scale and design of surrounding buildings to promote compatibility and complement or enhance the character of existing single-family neighborhoods. Development in mixed-use districts shall be appropriate and related to the setting and established character of the surrounding area or neighborhood. Minimum standards adjacent to Low Density Residential Districts are: 1. Architectural compatibility between new development and adjacent LDR development, including, but not limited to: similar roof forms, windows, trim, and materials, shall be required to the maximum extent practicable. 2. Lighting shall be arranged and constructed not to produce direct glare on adjacent LDR development as specified in Section 4.5-100. 3. Site obscuring landscaping shall be required, including, but not limited to: the retention of existing vegetation; installation of a 6-foot minimum height, site-obscuring fence with shade trees planted a maximum of 30 feet on center (2-inch caliper at planting); and/or other landscaping to provide visual buffering. 4. Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent LDR properties and the street as specified in Subsection D.4., above. Mechanical equipment shall be buffered so that noise does not typically exceed 50 decibels as measured at the LDR property line. The City may require a noise study certified by a licensed acoustical engineer. 5. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1 through 4, above. G. Pedestrian Amenities. Intent: To provide appropriate pedestrian amenities in mixed-use developments, pedestrian amenities, including, but not limited to: benches, ornamental paving and public art shall be provided and durably designed and integrated into an overall design scheme or pattern. 1. All new structures and substantial improvements to existing buildings shall provide pedestrian amenities, as specified in this Subsection. The number of pedestrian amenities provided shall comply with the following sliding scale. Size of Structure or Number of Substantial Improvement Amenities <5,000 sq. ft. 1 5,00010,000 sq. ft. 2 10,00050,000 sq. ft. 3 i. Sitting space (i.e., outdoor seating areas for restaurants, benches, garden wall or ledges between the building entrances and sidewalk); ii. Building canopy, awning, pergola, or similar weather protection (minimum projection of 4 feet over a sidewalk or other pedestrian space); iii. Transit shelters; iv. Trash receptacles; v. Information kiosks; vi. Security bollards; vii. Mail boxes; viii. Sidewalk displays; ix. Drinking fountains; x. Wayfinding signage for pedestrians consisting of a distinctive logo and directional guidance to neighborhood destinations; xi. Planting beds, hanging flower baskets, and/or large semi-permanent potted plants; ornamental planters; xii. Pedestrian-scale lighting either free standing or attached to the face of the building placed between 12-14 above the ground for every 50 feet of street frontage; xiii. Decorative pavement patterns and tree grates; xiv. Decorative clocks; xv. Public art sculpture, statues, murals, or fountains; xvi. Bicycle racks; xvii. Stands selling flowers, food or drinks, as may be permitted by the Springfield Municipal Code; and xviii. Entry steps, porches and front gardens for residential mixed-use buildings. J. Screening roof-top mechanical equipment. It is common practice, in the development of contemporary multi-story buildings, to locate necessary building functions including, but not limited to: heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems; roof penetrations, such as plumbing and exhaust vents; elevator penthouses; and air conditioner units on the tops of buildings. Visual impacts of mechanical equipment shall be located and/or screened so they are not visible from adjacent public and private streets or adjacent residentially zoned property. Acceptable screening includes: raising the parapet on all sides of the building to be as high as the highest mechanical unit or vent on the roof, or a secondary roof screening system designed to be as high as the highest mechanical unit or vent on the roof. Secondary roof screening systems shall be enclosed groups of units rather than a box around each unit, incorporated into the design of the building, and constructed with materials that are compatible with those of the building. Mechanical equipment also shall be sited and shielded to protect adjacent uses from noise impacts. However, requiring a specific spacing may be limiting in terms of design and best placement of the amenities. Suggest some flexibility. Suggestions Add the following subsection to I. Pedestrian Amenities: 3. The above 80-foot spacing may be flexed, and pedestrian amenities may be grouped or placed closer than the 80-foot standard as long as the quantity of amenities meets the minimum and the spacing averages 80-feet along the street frontage Roof-top Screening Commentary Standard provisions. No suggested revisions. Attachment 1 A-48
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 45 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 >50,000 sq. ft. 4 2. Acceptable pedestrian amenities include: a. Sidewalks incorporating ornamental paving treatments, including, but not limited to: concrete masonry unit pavers, brick, or stone, which are 50 percent wider than required by this Code. b. A public outdoor seating plaza adjacent to, or visible and accessible from, the street (minimum useable area of 300 square feet). c. Sidewalk planters between the sidewalk and building including stormwater swales. d. Street tree density more extensive than required by this Section. e. Streetscape scale container planters. f. Installation of 3-inch caliper size or larger to fulfill the street tree requirement. g. Public art, including, but not limited to: sculptures, fountains, clocks, or murals with a value equal to or greater than 1 percent of construction value of the structure. h. Pocket parks with a minimum usable area of 300 square feet. 3. Guidelines for the siting, construction and character of pedestrian amenities: a. Amenities shall be visible and accessible to the general public from a fully improved street. Access to pocket parks, plazas, and sidewalks shall be provided via a public right-of-way or a public access easement. b. The size or capacity of pedestrian amenities shall be roughly proportional to their expected use, including use by employees, customers, residents, and other visitors. The Director may alter minimum area standards for pocket parks and plazas based on this guideline. c. Amenities shall be consistent with the character and scale of surrounding developments. For example, similarity in awning height, bench style, planter materials, street trees, and pavers is recommended to foster continuity in the design of pedestrian areas. Materials shall be suitable for outdoor use, easily maintained, and have at least a 10-year expected service life. d. Bus stops, as a pedestrian amenity, shall conform to standards of the Lane Transit District. 4. The proposal contains an equally good or superior way to achieve the intent of Subsections 1 through 3, above. K. Parking Structure Design Standards. In all Subareas, aboveground and underground parking structures shall be designed to meet the following standards: 1. Integral Design. The aboveground parking structure facade shall complement the design context of the area as expressed in scale, proportion, materials of nearby buildings, and all other applicable standards, as specified in 3.4-275: a. On the ground floor of the parking structure along local, collector and arterial street frontages, commercial uses that are permitted in all Subareas are permitted to wrap the ground floor. Window and door openings for both the structure and commercial uses shall comprise a minimum of 50 percent of the length of the faade and 50 percent of the ground floor street facing wall area. EXCEPTION: Commercial uses along service streets and alleys shall be optional. b. All ground floor facades of the parking structure, with special emphasis on garage entrances/exits, shall incorporate architectural details including, but not limited to: decorative metal grill work; overhead trellises; trees; planter seat walls; decorative tile and art work; and pedestrian-scaled lighting, as a means of emphasizing human scale. c. On upper floors, parking structure openings shall be screened by incorporating architectural details including, but not limited to: decorative metal grill work; translucent panels; and/or art work to obscure vehicles from public view. d. Garage entrances and exits shall utilize lights, sound or other similar warning devices to warn pedestrians of approaching vehicles and shall be located as specified in Table 4.2-4. e. Parking structures shall have level floors at street frontages. 2. Pedestrian Access. All parking structures shall provide direct pedestrian access to local, collector or arterial streets where possible; and to service streets or alleys, when necessary. 3. Parking Structure Setbacks. a. The setbacks for the exterior walls of any aboveground parking structure shall be the same as the permitted use. b. The setbacks for the exterior walls of any underground parking structure shall not encroach into the minimum above-grade building setbacks, or across any public or private easement line. c. All underground parking structures that are not directly under a building shall be designed to have appropriate areas of adequate soil depth above the parking structure to ensure healthy tree and landscape growth based on the evaluation and recommendation of a licensed Landscape Architect. Parking Structure Design Commentary The design intent in the proposed code is that parking structures blend in with surrounding buildings whether they are residential, commercial, office or employment. Required details, access and setbacks are the same or similar to buildings in the same subarea. Commercial uses, where permitted in the subarea, are permitted on the ground floor of parking structures. Suggestions None. Attachment 1 A-49
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 46 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 3.4-280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards The following standards shall be established for the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the Willamette Greenway (WG) Overlay District: A. Purpose. The Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District is established to: 1. Protect, conserve, enhance, and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, economic, and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River; 2. Implement Oregon’s Willamette River Greenway Program goals and policies, and Metro Plan Willamette Greenway policies; 3. Establish criteria, standards, and procedures for the development of land, change of use, and the intensification of uses within Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District; 4. Provide for the review of any intensification of use, change of use, or development within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District; 5. Allow for use and development consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning while preserving, protecting, and enhancing the qualities of the river and the riparian area; 6. Allow and encourage a variety of water-dependent and water-related uses, recreational developments, and public access to and along the Willamette River while preserving, protecting, and enhancing the qualities of the river and the riparian area; 7. Protect and improve water quality in the Willamette River in order to support designated beneficial water uses including, but not limited to fish and aquatic life, water contact recreation and aesthetic quality; protect riparian area ecological functions and values and to buffer the river from development; maintain or reduce stream temperatures; maintain natural stream corridors; minimize erosion, nutrient and pollutant loading into water; and stabilize slopes to prevent landslides contributing to sedimentation of water features; and 8. Promote public access to and along the Willamette River for the purpose of increasing recreational opportunities, providing emergency vehicle access, assisting in flood protection and control, providing connections to other transportation systems, and helping to create a pleasant, aesthetically pleasing urban environment. 9. Maintain public safety and protect public and private property, especially from vandalism and trespass, to the maximum extent practicable. B. Applicability. 1. The provisions of the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District apply to all lands within the Glenwood Riverfront that are 150 feet from the ordinary low water line of the Willamette River, also referenced as the WG Overlay District outer Commentary Existing Code Land use requirements regarding the Willamette Greenway (WG) already exist in the Springfield Code; as an overlay zoning district (Section 3.3-300-Willamette Greenway Overlay District). Section 3.3-300 includes a purpose statement, applicability clause, use limitations, and development standards. Area included in the existing Overlay District is twofold an Overlay District Boundary and a Greenway Setback Line. 1. The Overlay District Boundary is a line 150 feet from the ordinary low water line of the Willamette River. The Boundary expands to include publicly owned property for park and recreation purposes. Regulations and requirements regarding the Willamette Greenway Overlay District apply to all land within this area. 2. The Greenway Setback Line is coincident with the Overlay District Boundary unless the Setback Line has been specifically established for a parcel or parcels by way of an approved land use application. (Criteria for approval of establishing a Greenway Setback Line are the standards found in Statewide Land Use Goal 15.) Permitted uses, including existing and/or non-conforming uses, and their continuation, expansion and/or modification, in the existing Overlay District are those permitted in the underlying base zone, EXCEPT for area within the Greenway Setback Line, where uses are limited to water-dependent or water-related uses. (Note: Unless the setback line has been separately established, thats everything within the 150-foot line.) Land use approval in the existing Overlay District includes Site Plan Review, when required by the underlying zone, and Discretionary Use Approval. Discretionary Use is a Type III process, including public notice and public hearing before the Planning Commission. Proposed Code In the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District, the Willamette Greenway receives its own code section Section 3.4-280-Willamette Greenway Development Standards. Specific characteristics of this code section, and how they compare to or differ from the existing Overlay District code, is as follows: Area included in this new code section is largely the same as in the existing Overlay District code, with one significant difference. Whereas in the existing code the Greenway Setback Line is coincident with the Greenway Overlay Boundary (150 feet from the ordinary low water line, unless modified through an approved land use application process), in the proposed code, the Setback Line is now specified as a line 75 feet from the top of bank (and concurrent with the existing 75 foot Riparian Setback Line specified in Section 4.3-115). To evaluate the significance of this, one would need to plot two pairs of lines one pair regarding the Greenway Overlay Boundary Line (low water Attachment 1 A-50
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 47 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 boundary. 2. The Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District shall be combined with at least one base zoning district and/or any other applicable overlay districts identified in this Code. C. Definitions. As used within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, except where the context otherwise requires, the following terms mean: Boardwalk. A floating or non-floating platform that either provides pedestrian access along a shoreline or within a riparian area; it may also act as a bridge between two bodies of land. Change of use. Making a different use of the land or water. Change of use includes changes which require construction or alteration to land or water outside of existing buildings, structures, or open storage areas and which substantially alters or affects land or water. It does not include: a change of use of a building or other structure which does not substantially alter or affect the land or water upon which it is located; the sale of property; or modifications of existing structures, as may be permitted by this Section. Development. Any activity within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District which would alter the elevation of the land; remove or destroy plant life; or cause structures of any kind to be installed, erected, or removed, or a change of any kind (See also Chapter 6 for other definitions of this term). Dock. An individual secured and stationary or floating structure designed for uses including, but not limited to, mooring boats and fishing. Enhancement. Increasing the net ecological functional values of the riparian buffer by any of the following: removal of impervious surfaces; restoring natural bank slopes; or increasing the cover and diversity of native vegetation. Greenway Setback Line. A line that divides the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District into two distinct areas. In the area between the ordinary low water line and 75 feet from the top of bank where only water-dependent, water-related uses may occur. In the area from the Greenway Setback Line to the WG Overlay District outer boundary, uses permitted in the base zone may be allowed in accordance with the standards and criteria of this Section. Intensification. Any addition which increases or expands the area or level of activity of an existing use; or any remodeling of the exterior of a structure which will substantially alter the appearance of the structure. For the purposes of this definition, intensification" does not include: maintenance and repair, usual and necessary for the continuance of an existing use; reasonable emergency procedures necessary for the safety or protection of property; or existing residential use of lands within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District that includes the practices and activities customarily related to the use and enjoyment of one’s home, such as, landscaping, construction of driveways, modification of existing structures or and 150 feet from low water) and the other pair the Greenway Setback Line (top of bank and 75 feet from top of bank) and review where and to what degree the 75 foot setback line is less intrusive onto property than is the 150 foot line. Overall, this is an improvement, with less private property encumbered with the setback. Permitted uses, including existing and/or non-conforming uses, and their continuation, expansion or modification, in the new code are also largely the same as the existing code. In the Overlay District area, uses are those permitted in the underlying base zone, EXCEPT for the area within the Greenway Setback Line where uses are limited to water-dependent or water-related. Regarding the latter, the Greenway Setback Line, the proposed code includes two clarifications. The first is a pair of definitions (for water-dependent uses and water-related-uses see section C in the adjacent column). The second is a list of for example water-dependent and water-related uses (see section D in the adjacent column). Of important note is the recreational and public access nature of these listed uses. New to requirements for land use within the greenway is a set of eight development standards. (See Section F in the adjacent column.) Of significance are standards 1 and 4. Standard 1 addresses area within the greenway Setback Line and includes specific requirements to preserve native vegetation and protect existing floodway and river hydraulics, each backed up by technical analyses and or reports by licensed professionals. Standard 4 addresses parking areas within the greenway area and includes some relaxation of standard parking lot development providing the flexibility to use alternative paving, curbing and landscape treatments (focusing on stormwater management, both the capturing and the treatment of runoff). Land Use approval is also largely the same requiring Site Plan Review where otherwise required by permitted uses, and a Type III Discretionary Use Application and approval process. The proposed code allows for concurrent processing of applications, which saves time and cost. Variances to the standards are permitted, subject to the existing standard variance application provisions in the code and can be applied for concurrently with other applications. A Development Issues Meeting is Required (as it is elsewhere in the proposed code). Criteria of approval are similar to that found in existing code regarding floodplain, greenway, site review and discretionary use, with the exception of an emphasis on recreation and public access. Recreational needs are to satisfy those of the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan includes a requirement for a linear park and multi-use path along the riverfront. This riverfront park and path is to Attachment 1 A-51
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 48 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 construction or placement of such subsidiary structures or facilities adjacent to the residence as are usual and necessary. Ordinary high water line. The line on the bank or shore to which the high water ordinarily rises annually in season. Ordinary low water Line. The line on the bank or shore to which the low water ordinarily recedes annually in season. Maximum extent practicable. Text drawn from Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15 (F.3.b.) intended to require a balancing of factors so that each of the identified Willamette Greenway criteria is met to the greatest extent possible without precluding the requested use. Riverbank. A land feature or constructed structure that serves to contain the waters of a river. It can be distinguished from upland areas by the presence of riparian vegetation in close proximity to flowing water. Usually, the riverbank represents the limits of seasonal high water and periodic flood waters. Top of Bank. See Chapter 6. Water-dependent use. A use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to a water body, because the use requires access to the water body for transportation, recreation, energy production, or source of water. Except as necessary for water-dependent uses or facilities, residences, parking lots, factories and trailer parks are not generally considered to be water-dependent uses. Water-related use. A use which is not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water-dependent use. Except where as necessary for water-dependent or water-related uses or facilities, highways, restaurants, businesses, factories, and trailer parks are not generally considered to be water-related uses. D. Establishment of the Greenway Setback Line and Permitted Uses. 1. Establishment of the Greenway Setback Line. In the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, the Greenway Setback Line shall be 75 feet upland from the top of the bank, concurrent with the existing 75 foot wide riparian setback as specified in Subsection 4.3-115A.1. The concurrency of these setbacks shall not lessen the significance of, or reasons for protecting the Willamette Greenway. 2. The Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District is divided into two distinct areas by the Greenway Setback Line: a. From the Greenway Setback Line to the river, only water-dependent or water-related uses shall be permitted. These uses include, but are not limited to: i. Public multi-use paths; ii. Access ways; iii. Pedestrian trails and walkways; iv. Boardwalks; occupy the 75 foot greenway setback area. Thus private property development plans will need to account not just for the 75 foot setback, but also for linear public access between their property and the river. Public Access requirements are to be as specified in this proposed code. Here, the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, in the open space chapter, requires property development/re-development to avoid restricting access to the riverfront linear park; and to minimize the obstruction of scenic views. While not requiring access to view preservation, these two criteria of approval will nonetheless need to be part of any development /re-development plan. Additionally, in the transportation chapter, a proposed policy (page 79) is to provide frequent, convenient, and direct public access points to the riverfront path. Observation While the proposed Greenway Development Standards section of the raft code are not overly different, or more encumbering than existing code, the provision for a continuous public riverfront path, with frequent pedestrian connections from McVay Highway, do pose additional encumbrance on property owners and development proposals for the area between McVay Highway and the river. Suggestion The riverfront path has long been an objective in the community. It has been included in a number of adopted plans (e.g., the 2002 Eugene/Springfield Transportation Plan, the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan). Property owners can best influence the riverfront park and pathway requirement by emphasizing the need for balance between property utilization and public access. Suggested code language additions are as follows: 3.4-280.L.4 a. Private property adjacent to the riverfront pathway and park and pedestrian connections between streets and the riverfront shall be protected from trespass to the maximum extent practicable. 3.4-280.L.8 a. Pedestrian access from McVay Highway shall be coordinated with and located at future local street intersections with McVay Highway. Attachment 1 A-52
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 49 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 v. Picnic areas; vi. Interpretive and educational displays; vii. Overlooks and view points, including benches and outdoor furniture; viii. Docks; ix. Boat shelters; x. Piers; xi. Boat ramps; xii. Bridges and their approaches: pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle; and xiii. Stormwater facilities. b. From the Greenway Setback Line to the outer boundary of the WG Overlay District, permitted uses shall be the same as those in the base zones. Additional limitations on the placement of permitted uses in this area may be required to facilitate on-site stormwater management as specified in the Springfield EDSPM. E. Non-Conforming Uses and Development. Any existing non-conforming building, structure and/or use within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District may continue, expand, or be modified as may be permitted in Sections 5.8-120, 5.8-125 and Subsection F. until they are either abandoned and/or redeveloped. EXCEPTION: Expansion of an existing building, structure, or use which is not water-related or water-dependent shall not be permitted within the Glenwood Greenway Setback Line. F. Development Standards. In addition to addressing the criteria of approval specified in Subsection M., the applicant shall address the following development standards: 1. Development within the area defined by the Glenwood Greenway Setback Line. a. Existing native vegetation and trees upon the site shall be preserved, conserved, and maintained to the maximum extent practicable as specified in Sections 4.3-115, 4.3-117 and 3.4-270. EXCEPTION: Disturbance necessary for construction or establishment of a water-related or water-dependent use, and measures necessary to reduce existing or potential bank erosion as specified in the Springfield EDSPM shall be permitted. b. The hydraulic and flood carrying capacity of the river and the hydraulic effect of the river on bank stability between the ordinary low water line of the river and the top-of-bank shall be considered, and steps shall be taken to ensure minimal adverse effects by and upon the proposed intensification, development or change in use. Proposed development shall require a concurrent Floodplain Overlay District application. c. If applicable, the applicant shall submit certification by a registered professional engineer that the standards specified in Subsections F.1.a and F.1.b have been met. Attachment 1 A-53
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 50 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Where necessary to properly evaluate a proposal, an applicant may be required to furnish further studies such as a soils survey and analysis, foundation study, or hydrologic study performed by licensed professionals. 2. Required landscaping on private property between the Greenway Setback Line and the outer boundary of the WG Overlay District shall be as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district or this Plan District. 3. Buildings and Structures. All buildings and structures shall comply with the design standards specified applicable in the base zone, additional overlay zone or this Plan District. 4. Off-Street Parking. a. Parking lots shall be designed to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater generated by any new or expanded impervious surface area as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone, this Plan District or the Springfield EDSPM. b. Parking lots shall use the required landscape area to manage stormwater from the new or redeveloped area, as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone, this Plan District or the Springfield EDSPM. c. Parking lots shall be screened from the Willamette River and from all abutting properties as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone or this Plan District. d. Parking lots may use alternative paving techniques as a mitigation measure to reduce the total amount of effective impervious surface area present on the site as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone, this Plan District or the Springfield EDSPM. e. Parking lot stormwater facilities shall be operated and maintained so as to avoid groundwater contamination, erosion and off-site sediment transport, landslide hazards, and other similar concerns in the base zone, additional overlay zone, this Plan District or the Springfield EDSPM. 5. Lighting. a. In addition to the standards specified applicable in the base zone, additional overlay zone, this Plan District or the Springfield EDSPM, lighting within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District shall not: i. Flash, if visible from the river; ii. Be focused on or oriented to the river surface. b. Lighting necessary for safety of pedestrians shall be as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district, this Plan District or the Springfield EDSPM. 6. Height Limitation. New development, alteration or enlargement of existing buildings and structures within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Attachment 1 A-54
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 51 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 Overlay District shall be as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone or this Plan District. 7. Public Access. Where public access is provided to and along the Willamette River, that access shall be provided by easement, dedicated right-of-way, or other appropriate legal means as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone or this Plan District. 8. Any additional development standards as specified in the base zone, additional overlay zone or this Plan District. G. Review. Any change or intensification of use, or construction, as defined in Subsection C., within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, shall be reviewed under Type III Discretionary Use procedure under criteria specified in: Subsection L.; the Site Plan Review process as specified in Section 5.17-100; the Land Division process specified in Section 5.12-100, as applicable; any additional reviews required by this Code; and the standards of this Section. EXCEPTION: Site Plan Review shall not be required for single-family or duplex dwellings; however, all other requirements of this Section shall still be met. 1. All applicable concurrent applications, regardless of their typical level of review shall be elevated to a Type III review procedure. 2. No development may occur within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District until the Approval Authority approves all applicable applications required in this Section. H. Exemptions. Within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, the following uses are exempt from Type III Discretionary Use procedure: 1. Scenic easements acquired under ORS 390.332 and the maintenance of scenic easements acquired under ORS 390.368. 2. Addition or modification of existing utility lines, wires, fixtures, equipment, circuits, appliances, and conductors by public or municipal utilities, except utility substations. 3. Reasonable emergency procedures necessary for the safety or protection of property, including flood emergency procedures and maintenance and repair of existing flood control facilities. 4. Placement of signs, markers, aids, etc., to serve the public by a public agency. 5. Landscaping with native or existing non-invasive vegetative materials only. 6. Alterations to the interior of a building where there are no exterior alterations that do not increase the size or alter the configuration of the building footprint. 7. Alterations to buildings or accessory structures which do not alter the configuration of the existing buildings or structures footprint. 8. Activities allowed within the base zone, which are usual and necessary for the use and enjoyment of an existing residence, including the modification of existing accessory structures or facilities on the Attachment 1 A-55
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 52 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 same property. 9. Normal maintenance and repair necessary for the continuance of an existing use. 10. Removal of hazardous trees as determined by a certified Arborist, and vegetation identified as nuisance or invasive non-native plants and consistent with erosion prevention and sediment control standards as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), this Code and/or the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. 11. Erosion control operations not requiring a permit from the Department of State Lands. 12. Activities to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain public recreation, scenic, historical and natural uses on public lands, or land with public easements. 13. Customary dredging and channel maintenance conducted under a permit from the State of Oregon. 14. Minor repairs or alterations to an existing structure for which no building permit is required. 15. Other activities similar to those listed in Subsections H.1 H.14 as specified in Section 5.11-100. I. Variances. There shall be no Variance to the size of the Greenway Setback Line or the WG Overlay District outer boundary. However, within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, when a Variance is requested, as specified in Section 5.21-100, that application shall be submitted concurrently with the application for development approval in the Greenway. Both the Variance criteria of approval as specified in Sections 5.21-125 or 5.21-130; and the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District criteria of approval as specified in Subsection L. shall be satisfied and approved by the Approval Authority. J. Application Submittal. 1. The required Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications shall comply with the submittal requirements of this Section and Section 5.17-120, as applicable. Where there is a conflict between the submittal requirements of this Section and the submittal requirements of other Sections of this Code, the submittal requirements of this Section shall prevail. 2. A prerequisite to the filing of a WG Overlay District permit in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be a Development Issues Meeting as specified in Subsection 5.1-120A., or a Pre-Application Report as specified Subsection 5.1-120B. Intensification, change of use or development in the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District shall require the following materials: 3. Written Materials. a. A narrative which explains the proposed development and addresses the development standards in Subsection J. and the criteria in Subsection L. b. A narrative stating the applicant has applied Attachment 1 A-56
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 53 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 for any applicable State or Federal permits. c. A narrative with drawings and/or photos of the proposed development, as it will appear when completed, as viewed from the river. 4. A survey prepared by a licensed Professional Land Surveyor or Engineer showing the location of the ordinary low water line, top of bank, the Greenway Setback Line and the outer boundary of the WG Overlay District. 5. Any additional information required by this Code or the Springfield EDSPM that may be necessary to demonstrate compliance with this Section. K. Additional Notice. In addition to the notice requirements specified in Section 5.2-115, notice shall be given to the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation by immediately forwarding a copy of the application by certified mail, return receipt requested. L. Criteria. In the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following criteria of approval: 1. Any development, change of use or intensification of use permitted in the base zone shall be oriented toward the river between the Willamette Greenway Setback Line and the Willamette Greenway outer boundary. EXCEPTION: Proposed water-dependent and water-related uses listed in Subsection D.2 shall be permitted within the Greenway Setback Line. 2. Between the Greenway Setback Line and the Willamette Greenway outer boundary, any development, change of use or intensification of use shall provide the maximum possible landscaped area/open space between the activity and the river. 3. Significant air, water and land resources including but not limited to natural and scenic areas, views, vistas, fish and wildlife habitats in and adjacent to the Greenway shall be protected, preserved, restored, or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable. 4. The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private property, especially from vandalism and trespass shall be provided for, to the maximum extent practicable. 5. The natural vegetative fringe along the river shall be enhanced, protected and maintained in order to assure scenic quality and view points, protection of wildlife, protection from erosion and screening of uses from the river. 6. Areas of annual flooding, floodplains and wetlands shall be preserved or restored in their natural state to the maximum possible extent to protect water retention, overflow and other natural functions specified in Section 3.3-400. 7. Recreational needs shall be satisfied as specified in the Glenwood Refinement Plan or this District. 8. Adequate public access shall be provided to and along the river by appropriate legal means for all development as specified in the applicable base Attachment 1 A-57
EXISTING ZONING - LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL COMPARISON ZONING - CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING - EMPLOYMENT MIXED-USE ANALYSIS WILDISH LAND COMPANY - Glenwood Property Page 54 of 54 Review of the Draft Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use District (SDC 3.4-200) October 14, 2011 zone, overlay district or this Plan District. 9. Areas of ecological, scientific, historical or archeological significance shall be protected, preserved, restored or enhanced to the maximum extent practicable. 10. Significant fish and wildlife habitats shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. 11. Significant natural and scenic areas, viewpoints and vistas shall be protected to the maximum extent practicable. 12. Any necessary tree felling shall comply with Section 5.19-100 and shall occur in a manner that shall ensure that wildlife habitat and the natural scenic qualities found in the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District shall be maintained and shall be restored by mitigation on-site. Only diseased trees or trees in danger of falling may be removed with an Arborists statement between the ordinary low water line and the Greenway Setback Line, however, snag retention shall be allowed. In the area between the Greenway Setback Line and the outer boundary of the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District, tree felling may be permitted to the extent necessary to accommodate those permitted uses as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district or this Plan District. M. Conditions. The Approval Authority may impose reasonable conditions of approval necessary to achieve compliance with the criteria specified in Subsection L. N. Notice of Decision. In addition to the notice requirements specified in Subsection 5.1-135B., notice shall also be provided to the Parks and Recreation Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation by certified mail, return receipt requested, within 5 calendar days of the final decision by the Approval Authority. O. Modifications to Approved Plans. 1. After the effective date of approval of final plans, modifications may be considered in accordance with the Type II review procedures. The Director shall decide whether to grant the requested modification based on the following criteria: a. The modification shall be consistent with the conditions of the original approval; and b. The modification shall not result in significant changes to the physical appearance of the development, the use of the site, and impact on the surrounding properties. 2. If determined to be consistent with the above criteria, the Director shall approve the request. 3. The applicant retains the ability to submit the requested modification as a new Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District application based on the Type III review procedures. Attachment 1 A-58
ATTACHMENT 1
Response to the Wildish Written Correspondence: the Randy Hledik Cover Letter and the Schirmer
Satre Group Analysis of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District dated October 14, 2011
Mr. Hledik
“We know from experience that redevelopment of the McVay corridor is challenging. The heavily
travelled state highway is constrained to mostly two lanes by the railroad trestle in the north and the
railroad overpass in the south. Except for the sanitary sewer line that we installed at our expense to
make our properties “shovel ready” for development, the rest of the properties in Subarea D rely on
septic systems. The water service is outdated, and there is no public stormwater system. While much
attention has been focused on planning for the redevelopment of properties along Franklin Boulevard,
considerably less attention has been given to the McVay corridor. It is true that the city’s Enterprise and
Urban Renewal Zones encompass this subarea, yet no public financial investments or physical
improvements have been made.”
Staff Response
Mr. Hledik is correct in his observation that potential developers who have shown interest in Glenwood
and the City’s planning efforts favor the Franklin Riverfront. However, the Glenwood Refinement Plan
(GRP), both Phase 1 and Phase 2, is intended to provide policy direction for development in Glenwood
for a 20 year period. One of the primary functions of the GRP is to guide the provision of public services.
Specifically, the GRP Transportation, Open Space, Public Facilities and Services, and Financing Public
Infrastructure Chapters directly address Mr. Hledik’s concerns regarding the lack of public infrastructure
in the McVay Riverfront by establishing objectives, policies and implementation strategies for the
provision of public infrastructure for all of Glenwood Phase 1. As development occurs in Glenwood,
funds will be generated to assist future developments by means of the Glenwood Urban Renewal
District and other funding mechanisms. Finally, the GRP will be reviewed for continued applicability of
the objectives, policies and strategies approximately every 5 years to address changes in market
conditions and/or the implementation of new regulations.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Mr. Hledik
“The owners of the Wildish companies support the city’s goals for improving the aesthetic quality and
functional attributes of Glenwood. But because we are fully aware of the reality that exists today, I have
been critical of many of the policies and zoning standards that have been proposed during the past
several months. The vision for Glenwood sets a high standard. Our concern is that the expected
outcomes may be too difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future due to financial or timing impositions
that will discourage redevelopment of even a moderate nature.”
Staff Response
Staff concurs with Mr. Hledik that “the vision for Glenwood sets a high standard”. Early in the process,
the 20 member Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) established the future vision for Glenwood Phase 1 by
endorsing 13 project goals, one of which is to: “Encourage aesthetically pleasing, sustainable buildings
and sites that are context‐sensitive and oriented to human activity.” The GRP multi‐modal, pedestrian
oriented objectives, policies and implementation actions, as well as the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use
Plan District development and building design standards apply to all of Glenwood Phase 1, both the
Attachment 1 B -1
Franklin and McVay Riverfronts. Subarea D Employment Mixed‐Use, where the Wildish property is
located, is intended to have building design standards similar to the City’s Campus Industrial zoning
district in the Gateway area of North Springfield. The success of this area is in no small measure a result
of the City’s unwavering commitment to a higher development standard, a standard which serves to
protect and enhance capital investments. Diluting these standards at the beginning of the plan time line
does not preserve investment nor does it provide an incentive to accept a higher standard in
subsequent years if surrounding development values are substantially lower. As stated above, the GRP
will be reviewed for continued applicability of policies and strategies approximately every 5 years to
address changes in market conditions and/or the implementation of new regulations. Additionally, any
person can submit an application to amend the GRP or the City Council can direct staff to amend the
GRP at any time.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Mr. Hledik
“The plan is based upon a high density, transit oriented development model. While we may have some
concerns regarding the specificity and degree to which the plan and implementing ordinance address
housing density, parking and design in the residential, commercial and office mixed‐use subareas, our
focus is on the application of the policies and standards as they apply specifically to the company’s
properties in Subarea D south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle. We are concerned that the planning
model applied to Franklin Boulevard will not work along McVay Highway, and have raised these concerns
throughout the planning process. To be fair, staff has been responsive to a number of our issues.
However, a number of issues remain.”
Staff Response
The rationale for the development and building design standards applicable to the Wildish property in
Subarea D is addressed above. However, as stated in staff’s response to Goal 9 Economic Development
(Attachment 1 Staff Report): “The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Land Use and Built Form
Chapter establishes, designates and zones four Subareas that will regulate permitted uses. All subareas
are subject to design standards that allow compatible secondary supporting uses….Subarea D,
Employment Mixed‐Use provides office employment use and light industrial manufacturing uses, as well
as siting for a possible future hospital…. The proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District
establishes public and private development standards (Section 3.4‐270), especially the landscaping
standards and (Section 3.4‐275) building design standards that will address use impacts on abutting
properties.” [Abutting uses in Subarea D are those generally listed above and specifically listed in Section
3.4‐250.] “The specific impacts will be addressed during the Master Plan Review and/or the Site Plan
Review process.” Mr. Hledik’s comment regarding staff’s responsiveness to previous Wildish issues is
correct. Staff has previously addressed a number of Mr. Hledik’s issues both through the CAC review
process and through separate meetings between staff and Mr. Hledik outside of the CAC process. The
issues that remain will be/have been addressed here and under staff’s response to the Schirmer Satre
Group Analysis, below.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Mr. Hledik
“Although we did not ask Mr. Satre to review the policies and implementation strategies found in the
refinement plan itself, during the course of his review it became clear that one matter of concern of ours
Attachment 1 B -2
did not surface during the meetings of the Citizen Advisory Committee. Therefore, we ask that
consideration be given to it at this time. The plan calls for public access points to the river, as well as a
linear park with a multipurpose path to be located along side of the riverfront. We don’t take issue with
these objectives, and in fact, have already agreed to provide an easement for the multipurpose path
across company property. However, the timing and security of providing public access through private
property does cause us concern. It is no secret that Glenwood has a problem with trespass, vandalism
and other illegal activity. Until such time as public safety is better addressed in the area, it would be
appropriate to add a policy and implementation strategy which acknowledges the need to protect
private property. We suggest wording similar to the following be added to the Open Space Linear Park
objective: ‘Protect private property adjacent to areas open to public access by providing security means
such as fencing, gating, lighting or policing, or by allowing public access only after connectivity between
significant destination points is established’. “
Staff Response
Staff concurs with Mr. Hledik’s Glenwood problems regarding the timing and security of providing public
access through private property. Staff stated in response to Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette
Greenway (Attachment 1 Staff Report), that Greenway regulations specific to all of Glenwood Phase 1
would be included in the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District (Section 3.4‐280). The criteria of
approval for development within the Willamette Greenway are found in Subsection 3.4‐280L.4. stating:
“The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private property, especially from
vandalism and trespass shall be provided for, to the maximum extent practicable.” Subsection 3.4‐280C.
defines ‘maximum extent practicable’ as follows: “Text drawn from Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15
(F.3.b.) intended to require a balancing of factors so that each of the identified Willamette Greenway
criteria is met to the greatest extent possible without precluding the requested use.”
Generally speaking, the City’s preferred approach for constructing the new riverfront path along the
Willamette River would be as one large project. However, the City expects Glenwood redevelopment to
occur in stages, and doesn’t expect that all of the owners of property where the new path will be
constructed will be ready to develop their properties at the same time. In recognition of the likelihood
that the path will also then be constructed in stages, the City will consider, during its review of land‐use
applications, whether a particular segment of the path will be required to be built concurrent with the
subject development proposal, or if construction that segment could be deferred until a time when the
new path segment would provide a logical and orderly path extension or connection.
Some of the factors that may be considered when evaluating path construction with a development may
include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following:
• The new segment abuts an existing segment or another deferred segment.
• Provision of permanent or temporary access through the development area for the public to
access the new path segment.
• Length of the new path segment.
• Proximity of the new path segment to other public or private amenities.
• Emergency accessibility.
• Maintenance accessibility to the path, riparian corridor, or stormwater management facilities.
For path segments where construction is deferred, the City will require some form of financial security
acceptable to the City to guarantee that the segment will be constructed at the appropriate time. The
actual form and amount of the financial security will be determined by the City during the land‐use
review process. Typical acceptable forms of financial security include:
• Performance Bonds; or
• Certificates of Deposit; or
Attachment 1 B -3
• Cash payment to the City.
Staff contends that Mr. Hledik’s proposed addition to the Open Space Linear Park objective is not
necessary because his concerns will be addressed in order to comply with the specific criterion of
approval cited previously. Staff would prefer to keep this topic open ended because each development
area is different and for the reasons stated above. This topic is also discussed under staff’s response to
the Schirmer Satre Group Analysis, below.
Planning Commission Action
None – see staff’s response to the Schirmer Satre Analysis of this topic beginning on Page 27.
Response to the Schirmer Satre Group Analysis of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District for
the Wildish Company submitted on October 14, 2011
Schirmer Satre Group
“Section 3.4‐205 Purpose. Suggestion: that the proposed mixed‐use goals be supplemented to address
the needs of employment businesses.”
Staff Response
Section 3.2‐405, referenced by the Schirmer Satre Group, refers to the purpose discussion for the
Campus Industrial zoning district. In the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District format
this description is not appropriate in Section 3.4‐205 because it is a general introduction. The proposed
zoning descriptions are found in Section 3.4‐245. Subarea D, the Employment Mixed‐Use District as
previously stated is similar to (building design /landscaping standard), but different from (pedestrian
oriented/multi‐modal) the Campus Industrial District.
However, staff has reviewed Section 3.4‐245 and has made some edits: In Subsection 1.a., staff was
concerned about the open‐ended density flexibility exception, there’s now a limitation to the first 3
development areas. Staff was also concerned about the ability of a developer to achieve the 50 dwelling
unit per net acre standard with the 28 dwelling unit standard. Staff has increased the standard to 35
dwelling units. Staff has also addressed the education as a primary use issue that is discussed on Page
12. Finally, staff has placed square footage limitations on first floor commercial uses (in Subareas A and
D) and retail uses in Subareas B and C of 10,000 square feet in each Subarea, in order to prevent
competition with Downtown Springfield.
1. Residential Mixed‐Use. Subarea A addresses the need for high‐density residential
development sites discussed in the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs
Analysis (RLHNA) and the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Springfield
2030 Refinement Plan adopted on June 20, 2011. This high‐density neighborhood is
intended to be pedestrian‐friendly and includes park blocks and a riverfront linear park
to incorporate public open space needs that are also discussed in the RLHNA and the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, and to provide for unique stormwater management.
Subarea A provides opportunities for high‐density housing above ground‐floor retail and
commercial uses that serve the neighborhood and provide for a unique destination with
riverfront views and points of access to the river. In Subarea A:
a. The primary permitted residential use is high‐density residential with a
minimum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre, either stand alone or in
mixed use buildings above commercial uses. Residential buildings at this density
Attachment 1 B -4
encourage development in a compact, urban form and are typically four to six
stories in height. For multi‐phase development projects, the density of a phase
may be reduced to 35 dwelling units per net acre when the approved Master
Plan includes a project phasing plan that demonstrates how the overall 50
dwelling unit per net acre minimum standard will be achieved by density
averaging within the development area;
b. Additionally, commercial uses, while not required, are permitted only within
mixed use buildings to provide some of the business‐related needs of this high
density residential neighborhood. These uses are: educational facilities; retail
services, including markets; eating and drinking establishments; professional,
scientific, and technical services; and personal service uses. No stand‐alone
commercial building is permitted.
c. To minimize the potential over‐supply of commercial land inventory in
proximity to commercial uses in Downtown Springfield or other commercial
districts in Springfield, and preserve the residential land supply: commercial
uses are limited to: The ground floor of mixed use buildings; not more than
10,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial uses other than a market,
which may be not more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area; and not
more than 50 percent of the total ground floor area of a shall be used for
commercial uses.
EXCEPTION: Multi‐floor commercial uses, other than retail service uses, are
permitted along Franklin Boulevard. In this case, at least 50 percent of the gross
floor area of the mixed use building shall be dedicated to high density
residential use.
2. Commercial Mixed‐Use. Subarea B provides for flexible mixed use development to
achieve a unique riverfront destination responding to developer interest and market
demand for housing, lodging, entertainment and meeting/conference uses and
office/employment uses. In Subarea B:
a. Primary commercial uses are permitted:
i. Hospitality services.
ii. Office employment uses and professional, scientific, and technical
services either as stand‐alone uses or within a mixed use building.
Within a primary use, accessory uses including, but not limited to child
care, indoor recreation centers, cafeterias, restaurants, or other
contracted services for the benefit of office employees and that do not
generally serve the public.
iii. Retail services; eating and drinking establishments; and personal
services within a commercial or residential mixed use building only.
b. Primary high density residential uses with a minimum density of 50 dwelling
units per net acre, either stand‐alone or within a mixed‐use building. To
preserve the employment land supply, no more than 50 percent of a
development area shall be dedicated to, high density residential use.
c. To minimize the potential over‐supply of commercial retail sites near
Downtown Springfield or other commercial districts in Springfield, and to
Attachment 1 B -5
preserve the employment land supply: retail service uses are limited to the
ground floor of a building; no more than 50 percent of the total ground floor
area of a development area shall be used for retail service uses; no more than
50 percent of the ground floor of a single building shall be used for retail service
uses; and no single retail service use shall occupy more than 10,000 square feet
of gross floor area. There is no maximum gross floor area limitation for any
other permitted primary use.
3. Office Mixed‐Use. Subarea C provides for office and commercial uses to help meet an
identified need for employment land in Springfield, with riverfront views and access
points to the river that complement the adjacent high density residential mixed‐use
neighborhood to the east on the north side of Franklin Boulevard, and the same uses
with the addition of civic uses on the south side of Franklin Boulevard. In Subarea C:
a. Primary uses are permitted:
i. Office employment uses; professional, scientific and technical
commercial service uses and educational facilities are permitted on any
floor of a building. Within a principal use, accessory uses including, but
not limited to child care, indoor recreation centers, cafeterias,
restaurants, or other contracted services for the benefit of office
employees and that do not generally serve the public.
ii. Hospitality uses, provided they are located southwest of the intersection
of Franklin and Glenwood Boulevards or fronting the proposed
roundabout at the northwest side of the intersection of Glenwood and
Franklin Boulevards.
iii. Civic uses, such as a fire station, provided they are located southwest of
the intersection of Franklin and Glenwood Boulevards.
iv. Retail service uses, eating and drinking establishments, and personal
service uses within a mixed use building only.
b. To minimize the potential over‐supply of commercial retail service sites near
Downtown Springfield or other commercial districts in Springfield, and to
preserve the employment land supply: retail service uses are limited to the
ground floor of a building; no more than 50 percent of the total ground floor of
a development area shall be used for retail service uses; no more than 50
percent of the ground floor area of a single building shall be used for retail
service uses; and no single retail service use shall occupy more than 10,000
square feet of gross floor area. There is no maximum gross floor area limitation
for any other permitted primary use.
c. No residential uses are permitted.
4. Employment Mixed‐Use. Subarea D provides for office employment and light
manufacturing employment uses with limited external impacts; that have riverfront
views and points of access to the river; and helps meet an identified need for
employment land in Springfield. In Subarea D:
a. Primary employment uses are permitted:
i. Office employment uses; professional, technical and scientific
commercial service uses; educational facilities; and production,
Attachment 1 B -6
assembly, testing, and packaging functions associated with light
manufacturing or technology uses and are permitted on any floor of a
building. Within a principal use, accessory uses including, but not
limited to child care, indoor recreation centers, cafeterias, restaurants,
or other contracted services for the benefit of office employees and that
do not generally serve the public.
ii. A hospital with supporting medical office buildings.
iii. Retail service uses, eating and drinking establishments, and personal
service uses within a mixed use building.
b. Secondary Uses. Warehousing and distribution functions associated with a
primary light manufacturing use located on the same lot/parcel or in the same
development area.
d. To minimize the potential over‐supply of commercial retail service sites near
Downtown Springfield or other commercial districts in Springfield, and to
preserve the employment land supply, for retail services, eating and drinking
establishments, or personal services: these uses are limited to the ground floor
of a building; no more than 50 percent of a development area shall be allocated
to these uses; no more than 50 percent of the ground floor area of a single
building shall be allocated to these uses; and none of these uses shall occupy
more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area.
e. No residential uses are permitted.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐245 as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“Section 3.4‐230 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District Modifications. One new provision which, in
our opinion, requires additional consideration is Subsection C. requiring Peer Review. Peer review is not
currently a requirement in Springfield. Peer review has been utilized a few times by Springfield, but the
city has facilitated the activity and paid for the cost. It is our opinion that peer review, whether required
or not, whether paid for by the applicant or the city, is completely unnecessary. It is overly burdensome
on the applicant, especially in terms of time and the uncertainty of the outcome. It is also overly
burdensome on the public as an unnecessary public expense. Further, it calls into question the expertise
of the applicant’s consultant team and their ability to adequately interpret the Glenwood Refinement
Plan and Springfield Development Code to apply identified requirements to the applicant’s proposal. It
the city has concerns with a specific development proposal, there multiple opportunities to express those
concerns. First, there is the required Development Issues Meeting; an excellent opportunity for the city to
put forth any and all concerns they may have for a particular proposal. Second, there is Site Review
and/or Master Plan. Site Review includes a Pre‐Submittal process where the city can provide
commentary regarding a proposal. Master Plan requires both a Pre‐Application and a Pre‐Submittal
process, two opportunities to review and comment on a proposal. Staff should strike Subsection C in its
entirety.”
Attachment 1 B -7
Staff Response
Springfield does not have a Design Review Committee consisting of Architects and/or other
professionals that address design/development standards that may be found in other Oregon
jurisdictions such as Tualitan and Hillsboro. The intent of the Peer Review process is to give the
Springfield Planning Commission either confirmation of, or an alternative opinion regarding a proposed
Major Modification. Examples of a Major Modification are: “a change of more than 20 percent to a
quantified building design standard or a change that requires a street, mid‐block connector, multi‐use
path or other transportation facility to be shifted, provided the change maintains the connectivity
requirements established by the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and
implementation strategies and that the shift does not impact the integrity of a Subarea.” The developer
would learn at the time of the Development Issues Meeting whether or not Peer Review would be
required. The Peer Review would be part of the application submittal package for consideration by staff
and the Planning Commission. As proposed, Peer Review is required for all Major Modifications. In
response to the Schirmer Satre Group’s concerns, staff proposes three options for Planning Commission
consideration:
1) Keep the Peer Review process applicable in all instances with no changes, as proposed;
2) Modify Section 3.4‐230 as proposed:
C. Major Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District Plan modifications shall include a peer
review when either staff cannot support the proposed modification, and/or the proposed
modification involves technical issues outside the area of staff’s expertise. Peer review is a
process used for evaluating modifications proposed by the design team specified in Subsection
3.4‐275B and will be used to supplement the record of the Major Modification public hearing.
Peer review is performed by firms employing architects, engineers and planners and shall be at
the applicant’s expense. However, the Director shall choose the peer review firm based upon
the following criteria:
3) delete the Peer Review process.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for either option 1), 2), or 3) as proposed to the City Council and
Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“Section 3.4‐235 Design Standards Alternatives/Exemptions From Design Standards. For the same
reasons stated previously, Mr. Hledik requested staff to delete the Peer Review process required in this
Section.”
Staff Response
The same staff explanation discussed for Major Modification applies to proposed Alternatives/
Exemptions From Design Standards.
1) Keep the Peer Review process applicable in all instances with no changes, as proposed;
2) Modify Section 3.4‐235 as proposed:
Attachment 1 B -8
B. The developer shall submit a request in writing to the Director for a development/design
exemption or alternative development/design proposal at the time of application for a
Development Issues Meeting or Pre‐Application Report, as specified in Subsections 5.1‐120A.
and B. The request shall be revised as necessary and submitted with the Pre‐Submittal Meeting
application, as specified in Subsection 5.1‐120C. to allow the City sufficient time for review and
consideration. If the applicant desires to proceed with the development/design exemption or
alternative development/design proposal, at the Pre‐Submittal Meeting the Director shall
reclassify the Site Plan Review or Master Plan application from a Type II procedure to a Type III
review procedure as specified in Section 5.1‐130. It shall be the developer’s responsibility to
make the case for a development/design exemption or alternative development/design
proposal as part of the formal Site Plan Review and/or Master Plan application submittal. The
development/design exemption or alternative development/design proposal shall include a
peer review, at the applicant’s expense, as specified in Section 3.4‐230B. when either staff
cannot support the proposed modification, and/or the proposed modification involves technical
issues outside the area of staff’s expertise.
3) delete the Peer Review process.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for either option 1), 2), or 3) as proposed to the City Council and
Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“Section 3.4‐250 Schedule of Use Categories. Three observations.
First is concerning the third listed use in the Employment category. Light Manufacturing. It appears as
though company vehicles must be stored indoors. We doubt that that is the intention.
Change Light Manufacturing uses to read: storage of materials occurs entirely indoors.
Second is the manner in which Educational Facilities are described. Specifying classroom facilities is
limiting in the context of labs, gyms, libraries and other facilities associated with education. Note (1)
seems to draw an arbitrary distinction between P and S uses.
Change Educational Facilities to read:
Public/private educational facilities for primary and secondary education. P
Public/private educational facilities that include vocational rehabilitation. P
Third is concerning the two listed uses in the Hospitality category. Conference/Visitor Centers and Hotels
are not permitted in the Employment Mixed‐Use zone. Our recollection is that there has been interest in
the property fronting the river, immediately south of the Springfield Bridge. If the conversation regarding
that particular location has moved on, then the proposed code language herein is fine. If that particular
location is still considered a possible Hotel/Conference center location, then the proposed code language
might want to be re‐visited.
Suggestion Change Hospitality to read:
Conference/Visitor Center to include conference/exposition centers. P”
Attachment 1 B -9
Staff Response
Note: regarding the permitted use list issues discussed below: “P” = Primary Use; “S” = Secondary Use;
and “N” = Not Permitted.
First: Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s recommendation to delete the storage of company
vehicles from this description. Staff will address this topic in Section 3.4‐270G, Table 3.4‐1 Note (2)
under vehicle parking standards.
Staff proposes to amend Section 3.4‐250 as follows: Light Manufacturing uses engaged in the
manufacture (predominantly from previously prepared materials) of finished products or parts including
processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, testing, and packaging of these products that are not
potentially dangerous or environmentally incompatible with office employment uses and all
manufacturing and storage of materials and company vehicles occurs entirely indoors.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐245 as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Second: Both School District 19 and 4J have stated that additional primary/secondary public schools will
not be necessary in Glenwood because both districts have declining student populations and existing
facilities in each district can accommodate Glenwood students at the proposed residential density of 50
dwelling units per net acre. However, both public and private primary and secondary educational
facilities will remain permitted in Subarea A as a “P” use.
Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to raise the “higher educational facilities, etc.
as a primary use only in Subareas C and D.
Staff also concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to delete the term “classroom” because
the term “facilities” as defined in “Note (1) is more specific. Staff proposes to amend Section 3.4‐250 as
follows:
Educational facilities (1) Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C Subarea D
Public/Private educational facilities for primary and
secondary education P N N N
Public/Private educational facilities that include, but
are not limited to higher education, business,
professional, and vocational schools and job training
and vocational rehabilitation services. N N P P
(1) Educational facilities include, but are not limited to: classrooms, labs, gyms and libraries.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐245 as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Third: There has been no recent interest in siting a hotel or conference/visitor center in the Employment
Mixed‐Use zone immediately south of the Springfield Bridge. Hotels and conference/visitor center are
“P” uses in Subarea B and hotels are an “S” use in Subarea C.
Staff recommends no change to the siting of hotels and conference/visitor centers.
Attachment 1 B -10
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Schirmer Satre Group
“Section 3.4‐255 Prohibited Uses.
Observation
While the proposed list of prohibited uses mirrors existing lists of prohibited uses, one might question the
prohibition of a service station/gas station. If the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use District is to be a
dense, user friendly, convenient place to live or work, indeed if the Franklin Blvd. area is to be attractive
for conference/visitor/hotel complex, then the lack of a convenient, walkable location to service one’s
vehicle seems short‐sighted. It seems a service station (well‐designed of course) could at least be a
Discretionary Use on the interior (south) side of Franklin Blvd. and on the interior (west) side of McVay
Highway. Secondly, and for similar reasoning, a prohibition on drive through coffee/espresso facilities
seems a bit harsh. These facilities are extremely popular, are profitable for the developer/land owner,
and appreciated by nearby residents and employees. It seems that these could be Discretionary or
Secondary Uses.
Suggestion
Change 3.4‐255 Prohibited Uses to delete the following uses from the list: ‘Drive through facilities
including, but not limited to banks and restaurants” and “Service stations and gas stations’.”
Staff Response
The proposed prohibited use list in Section 3.4‐255 is virtually identical to the list currently applicable in
the Campus Industrial Zoning District and the 50 acre Glenwood Riverfront Plan District. However, the
proposed list will be applicable to the entire 268.28 acre Glenwood Phase 1 area. While the Franklin
Riverfront and the area along the McVay Riverfront north of the Union Pacific railroad trestle are within
a node* which emphasizes multi‐modal development (cars, bikes and walking), the proposed Glenwood
Refinement Plan (GRP) Transportation Chapter, completed with the cooperation of ODOT, also
emphasizes multi‐modal development in the McVay Riverfront with specific objectives, policies and
implementation strategies (see the GRP Pages 74‐77).
* Nodal Development is the integration of land use (high density residential and mixed use
commercial/employment) and transportation planning that seeks to increase the use of alternative
modes of transportation, reduce per‐person vehicle miles of travel and reduce demand for automobile‐
related transportation facilities.
In staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, and the Transportation Planning
Rule**, as stated on Pages 57‐58 of the Staff Report (Attachment 1): “It is important to understand that
even though existing and proposed zoning are treated the same for this analysis, existing zoning allows
for auto centric types of land uses such as drive through restaurants and gas stations. The proposed
commercial zoning specifically prohibits such auto centric land uses (proposed Glenwood Riverfront
Mixed‐Use Plan District, Section 3.4‐255).”
** The intent of the TPR is to “…promote the development of safe, convenient and economic
transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile…”
The GRP Transportation Chapter P. 55 states: “This Chapter acknowledges that automobiles and trucks
are likely to continue as primary transportation modes during the Plan period.” The Plan’s intent is not
to eliminate automobiles and trucks, but to establish efficient and successful land use patterns and
Attachment 1 B -11
building orientation that can thrive in a multi‐modal environment. If someone needs gas or tires, that
person has numerous choices available elsewhere in Eugene and Springfield. The same is true for banks
and restaurants with drive through windows.
It is important to remember that all comprehensive plans establish a preferred outcome based on the
successful implementation of the plan’s vision, policies and standards. While this formula is consistent
throughout the City, each refinement plan is unique to that area’s history, location, and potential; what
may be effective in northwest Springfield may be less successful Downtown. Glenwood, and
particularly the Franklin and McVay corridors, is consistently recognized as the gateway entrance to the
larger community of Springfield. The significance of such an honorific was not lost on the CAC when
they considered how this expectation should be memorialized:
“The unique amenities provided by the Willamette River as it flows through Glenwood are unsurpassed
in the state. In addition, Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway serve as major thoroughfares
connecting Springfield and Eugene and set the stage for Glenwood as a gateway to both cities. The new
I‐5 Willamette River Bridge and associated riparian restoration and multi‐use path enhancement
projects further highlight this entryway to the region. The presence of a bus rapid transit line along
Franklin Boulevard and one planned along McVay Highway enhances the possibilities for transit‐
oriented development in the Glenwood Riverfront. Glenwood’s proximity to the University of Oregon
and Lane Community College, I‐5, and two rail lines also positions it well for successful, mixed‐use
residential, commercial, and employment development along the Franklin and McVay corridors. Prior
planning and urban design efforts, as well as visioning with the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee
for this project, affirm that the community wants Glenwood to continue to be a unique place with a
distinct identify that takes advantage of Glenwood’s existing strengths and seizes the opportunity to set
the stage for the making of a place that will have a lasting legacy. Ensuring that this vision is
implemented depends on the proper arrangement, appearance, and functionality of land uses,
infrastructure, and open spaces. (GRP, Community Vision, Page 18)
It’s clear from this passage that the Wildish property represents an important partner in the successful
redevelopment of Glenwood. However, recognition of the presence and importance of this relationship
should not be confused with an expectation that the Plan’s vision is mutable. The gateway entrance to
Springfield and the enduring purpose of legacy decisions are values that are rarely served by expediency.
For these reasons, staff does not support the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to allow drive through
facilities in Glenwood Phase 1.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐260 Interpretations.
Observation
The code as proposed is a little ambiguous. It says that interpretations made under this Section are
subject to LUBA Appeals in the same manner as a limited land use decision. It seems that it would be
clearer that this proposed process be handled as a Type I process.
Suggestion
Revise Section A.4 to read:
Attachment 1 B -12
4. Use interpretations made under this Section are to be processed under the provisions found in SDC 5.1‐
125 Type I Applications and are subject to the jurisdiction of the Land Use Board of Appeals in the same
manner as a limited land use decision.”
Staff Response
Staff’s intent was that the proposed “new” interpretation process would be processed under a Type I
review procedure. Therefore, staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion. However, only
Subsection 3.4‐260A. will require amendment.
Staff proposes to amend Subsection 3.4‐260 as follows:
A. The use categories listed in Section 3.4‐250 include examples that illustrate permitted uses
within the particular category. A specific use not identified within a category will be permitted
by the Director as a Type I procedure if:
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐260 as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐265 Base Zone Development Standards.
Observation
It is curious that the Solar standards are proposed to apply only in the Greenway Overlay District, the
first 150 feet from the ordinary low water line, and are intended to protect vegetation within the
Greenway Setback and the Riverfront Park. Riparian and wetland vegetation does just fine regardless of
receiving sunshine or not.
Suggestion
Change 3.4‐265 Base Zone Development standards Subarea D to delete from the standards: Solar
Standards: (4) SDC 3.2‐225
(4) Solar standards shall apply only within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District in order to protect
the riparian/wetland vegetation within the Greenway Setback Line and the riverfront linear park.”
Staff Response
At the request of a CAC member, staff previously amended Subsection 3.2‐475D.3.i. regarding building
height which referred to “solar access protection” to read: “to minimize shadow impacts and reduce the
scale of the building as perceived along the street.” The proposed building density and height standards
will preclude solar protection in many areas of Glenwood Phase 1, especially in the Franklin Riverfront.
The riparian/wetland vegetation will be protected to a certain extent by the 3 story building height
maximum applicable to the Willamette Greenway. For this reason staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre
Group’s suggestion to delete Note (4) and renumber notes (5), (6) and (7):
(4) Solar standards shall apply only within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District in order to protect the
riparian/wetland vegetation within the Greenway Setback Line and the riverfront linear park.
(4) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above grade structure, except
a fence, may be built upon or over that easement.
Attachment 1 B -13
(6) When additional right‐of‐way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including
the TransPlan), or the City’s Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on future right‐of‐way locations.
Right‐of‐way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of any building permit that proposes parking spaces.
(6) Architectural extensions including but not limited to, cornices, eave overhangs, porches and balconies
extending beyond an exterior wall of a building may protrude into any 5‐foot or larger setback area or build‐to
line by not more than 2 feet.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐265 as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270A. Public and Private Development Standards –Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks.
Observation
It is a bit unclear what is intended by the McVay local street network reference to subsection A.2.b is
meant to accomplish. A.2.b refers to the Franklin local street network. It is not clear how the Franklin
local street network standards are to be applied to the McVay local street network. The provision of
shared driveways is wise to include.
Suggestion
Ask staff for clarification regarding the reference to A.2.b.”
Staff Response
In Subsection A.2.b., the Franklin Riverfront local street network requires a grid street pattern to
implement the nodal development rationale discussed in staff’s response to Section 3.4‐255, above.
In Subsection A.2.f., the local street network will be accomplished by east‐west streets in the vicinity of
East 19th Avenue, Nugget Way, and the south end of Glenwood. For the north‐south connections of the
local street network, the Springfield Development Code will give the developer an option of using either
streets or shared private driveways because of the narrow depth of land on the east side of McVay
Highway. The reference to Subsection A.2.b. requires the McVay local street network to be “in a grid
pattern similar to the Franklin Riverfront”.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270B. Public and Private Development Standards –Street Trees and Curbside Planter Strips.
Observation
It is not clear why, if street trees are regulated by EDSPM, the proposed code contains narrative
regarding such regulatory language as tree selection, design considerations and continuity. If these are
intended to be requirements in addition to EDSPM, then the code should say so.
Suggestion
Ask staff for a clarification regarding the above.”
Attachment 1 B -14
Staff Response
The proposed amendment of the Springfield Engineering Design and Procedures Manual regarding
street trees and planter strips applies City‐wide. Tall street trees that provide shade and continuity of
species within a block are specific attributes applicable to the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan
District. Other future Plan Districts may have similar or different standards.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270C. Public and Private Development Standards –Lighting Standards.
Observation
Subsection C.2.d references pedestrian lighting and states that pedestrian lighting should be distinct
from street lighting. It should be clarified that where street lighting is provided, additional pedestrian
lighting is not required for street‐side sidewalks.
References in the proposed code to subsection G.9.e may be in error. G.9.e is in regards to parking
limitations in setbacks. It appears as though this reference should be to G.9.d.
Suggestion
Change subsection C.2.d to read: Provide pedestrian level lighting, whether free standing or attached to
a building. Pedestrian level lighting is distinct from street lights because it is intended to light sidewalks
and the pedestrian right of way rather than streets. Where sidewalks are adjacent to streets, street
lighting shall meet the pedestrian lighting need. Where sidewalks are not associated with streets,
pedestrian lighting shall be provided. Where poles are used they are typically shorter and placed at more
frequent intervals than street lights.”
Staff Response
Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion regarding revising Subsection C.2.d. as
proposed; and will amend the incorrect G.9.e. reference to G.9.d. Staff proposes to amend Subsections
3.4‐270C.2.a., d., and e. as follows:
2. Private on‐site lighting shall comply with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America recommended practices and shall:
a. Be the minimum illumination necessary for a given application, including
parking areas, as specified in Subsection G.9.d.
d. Provide private on‐site pedestrian level lighting, whether free standing or
attached to a building. Private property pedestrian level lighting is distinct from
public street lights because it is intended to light internal sidewalks rather than
public streets. Where private sidewalks are adjacent to streets, street lighting
shall meet the public street lighting standard. Where private sidewalks are not
adjacent to public streets, pedestrian lighting shall be provided. Where poles
are used for pedestrian level lighting, they are typically shorter and placed at
more frequent intervals than public street lights.
e. Be as specified in Subsection G.9.d for parking lot lighting.
Attachment 1 B -15
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270C.2. as proposed to the
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270D. Public and Private Development Standards –Bicycle Facilities.
Observation
Subsection D.4 references Table 3.4‐2. It is not clear, at this location in the draft code, where Table 3.4‐2
is located.
Suggestion
Change subsection D.4 to read: 4. Bicycle parking shall be as in Table 3.4‐2 in subsection G.13.”
Staff Response
This is a Springfield Development Code formatting issue. All Tables referenced in the SDC are referenced
by the “Table Number”, not the Subsection.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270E. Public and Private Development Standards –Multi‐Use Path.
Observation
Proposed code states that the path may be located inside or outside the 75‐foot Greenway Setback Line.
Suggestion
Add subsection E.4 as follows: 4. The multi‐use path shall be located inside the 75‐foot
Greenway Setback Line wherever possible, and shall in no case be located outside the 150‐foot Greenway
Overlay District. The path shall be inside the Greenway Setback Line unless permission is granted by the
adjacent property owner.”
Staff Response
Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to amend the proposed text. Since the
proposed multi‐use path will be entirely on private property, it is a given that the specific location will
need to be negotiated with the property owner. However, instead of adding Subsection E.4., staff
proposes to amend Subsection 3.4‐270E. for clarification purposes as follows:
E. Multi‐use Path. The multi‐use path shall be part of the riverfront linear park along the entire
length of the Willamette River in the Glenwood Riverfront. The multi‐use path shall include, but
not be limited to opportunities for walking, jogging, running, cycling, and inline skating. The
intent is that the multi‐use path shall be located inside the 75 foot‐wide Greenway Setback
Line/Riparian Setback, unless there are features, including but not limited to trees and riparian
vegetation within the 75 foot setback that preclude construction of the multi‐use path, and/or
there are clusters of trees and/or riparian vegetation outside of the 75 foot setback, and/or to
provide for a curvilinear multi‐use path design.
Attachment 1 B -16
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270E. as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270F. Public and Private Development Standards –Private Property Landscape Standards.
Observations
It is not clear whether these landscape standards supplement or are in lieu of standard landscape
provision in the Springfield code (4.4‐105).
The L2 screening requirement for parking lots requires a 4‐foot hedge (4.b.i(a)). 4‐foot hedges along
front right‐of‐way have been found to be a hindrance to safety, visibility, natural light and air circulation.
(Indeed subsection 4.b.i states that for safety considerations, visibility into an area
is more important than a total screen.)
L2 also requires a 10 to 20 foot setback from the front property line and 7 foot setback from side and
rear property line. These distances have been found to be excessive in one case and unmanageable in the
other. Further, a 20‐foot landscape setback from the street is not exactly compact, urban development.
Throughout the landscape standards, credit is provided for preserving existing mature trees and healthy
vegetation.
Suggestions
Change subsection F.2.a to read: a. The landscaping standards of this Subsection shall
replace the landscape standards of section 4.4‐105 and shall apply to all private property (property
located outside of public right‐of‐way) in the Glenwood Riverfront as follows:
Change subsection F.4.b. EXCEPTION to read:
EXCEPTION: In Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the nodal
development area, if a developer desires additional parking along the frontage of McVay Highway than
permitted in Subsection G.5.b.iii., the required landscape setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet along the
entire frontage of the parking lot.
Change subsection F.4.b.i to read: i. Separation of uses. The L2 standard screening shall be set back 7
feet along the front property line and 3 feet along side and rear property lines.
Change subsection F.4.b.i(a) to read: (a) Enough evergreen shrubs to form a continuous screen
3 feet high within 3 years of planting along public right‐of‐way and 4 feet high within 3 years of planning
elsewhere.”
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection F.2.a., all of the development standards in the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use
Plan District including the landscape standards in Subsection 3.4‐270F. are specific to the Glenwood
Riverfront. One intent of the Plan District is to have as many development standards as possible
applicable to the Glenwood Riverfront in one location with limited reference to other SDC Sections to
aid the developer to submit a land use application. Staff contends a reference to landscaping standard
applicable elsewhere in Springfield is not necessary in this Subsection.
Attachment 1 B -17
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection F.4.b. EXCEPTION:, the exception is in response to a previous request from Mr.
Hledik regarding the limitation of parking along the frontage of McVay Highway. However, staff has
reconsidered the need for a 20 foot landscaped setback along the frontage of McVay Highway where
parking may be permitted along the side of a building and will propose reducing this setback from 20 to
10 feet as suggested by the Schirmer Satre Group, in order to establish a uniform 10 foot landscaped
setback along the entire frontage of McVay Highway. Thus, no exception is now necessary.
Staff proposes to delete the Exception to Subsection 3.4‐270F.4.b.:
b. The L2 standard is a landscape treatment to screen different abutting uses and
parking lots, utilities, and trash dumpsters and recycling areas. The L2 standard
shall be applied as specified in Subsection F.4.b.i . along public streets and
private driveway frontages where parking lots are permitted, specifically in
Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the nodal
development area; common property lines and/or rear property lines; or at the
interface of the linear park where there are no property lines. The L2 standard
shall be applied as specified in Subsection F.4.b.ii. for screening trash containers
and recycling facilities. The L2 standard shall comply with the vision clearance
standards specified in Section 4.2‐130. The prescribed heights of required
fences, walls or landscaping shall be measured from the actual adjoining level of
finished grade.
EXCEPTION: In Subarea D, south of the Union Pacific railroad trestle and outside of the nodal
development area, if a developer desires additional parking along the frontage of McVay
Highway than permitted in Subsection G.5.b.iii., the required landscape setback shall be
increased to 20 feet along the entire frontage of the parking lot.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270F.4.b.. as proposed to the
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection F.4.b.i., In response to the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to amend the
landscaped setbacks: staff does not support the suggestion to reduce the 10 foot setback to 7 feet
because of the rationale discussed above for a consistent 10 foot landscaped setback along the entire
McVay Highway frontage; staff does not support the suggestion to reduce the side or rear setback from
7 to 3 feet because the 3 foot setback is too narrow for trees and larger shrubs. Staff recommends
keeping the landscape setbacks in Subsection 3.4‐270F.4.b.i. as proposed, with no change.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Regarding Subsection F.4.b.i(a) and (d), After further research, staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre
Group’s suggestion to reduce the height of landscaping and walls from 4 to 3 feet in the interests of
safety and visibility. Staff proposes to amend Subsection 3.4‐270F.4.b.i. (a) and (d) as follows:
Attachment 1 B -18
i. Separation of uses. The L2 standard shall be designed to separate and
mitigate the impact of abutting uses; and separate parking lots from
public rights‐of‐way and private common driveways to allow
surveillance of the lot from the street or driveway, where visibility into
areas is more important than a total visual screen. The intent is to
partially conceal parked vehicles from public view. The L2 standard
screening shall be set back 10 feet along the front property line and 7
feet along side and rear property lines, and driveways, where
applicable. In this case, the L2 standard shall require:
(a) Enough evergreen shrubs to form a continuous screen 3 feet
high within 2 years of planting. The shrubs shall be properly
maintained and shall be replaced with new shrubs when the
screen ceases to serve the purpose of obscuring the view. For
security, the screen may be combined with a decorative
wrought iron fence along the property line fronting a street,
common private driveway; or a black coated chain link fence
along any side or rear property line that does not front the
Willamette River. Permitted fences shall not exceed 6 feet in
height. Other chain link fences, slats, wood fences, electrified
fences and fences with barbed wire or razor wire shall be
prohibited.
(d) Walls.
(1) A 3‐foot high decorative wall at least 6 inches thick may
be substituted for the shrubs specified in Subsection
F.4.b.i.a, but the trees and ground cover plants shall still
be required. A decorative wall may be constructed of
materials including, but not limited to: stone, rock,
textured concrete masonry, pre‐cast or site‐cast
concrete, brick, or a combination of these materials and
shall include a cap.; or may consist of materials that
complement the facade of the building.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270F.4.b.i.(a) and (d), as
proposed to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4‐270G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards.
Suggestions
Change subsection G.5.b.iii to read:
iii. Along any street frontage. However, not more than 50 percent of the lot/parcel frontage on the front
side of a building shall be utilized for parking.
EXCEPTION: The percentage of the lot/parcel frontage on the front side of a building may be
increased as specified in F.4.b. (Note: F.4.b is modified as suggested above.)
Attachment 1 B -19
Change subsection G.5.b.ii to read:
ii. Behind buildings, internal to the development or to the side of a building to the greatest degree
practicable; and/or
Change G.6 Table 3.4-1 as follows:
Use Standard
Hospital 1/150 sf or 1.75/bed
Change G.6(2) to read:
(2) The U.S. Department of Transportation establishes commercial truck classifications based on the
vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating. Classes 1, 2 and 3 are "Light Duty"; Classes 4, 5 and 6 are "Medium
Duty"; and Classes 7 and 8 are "Heavy Duty". Trucks classified as medium and heavy duty that are used
as part of a commercial or light manufacturing use shall be located either:
(a) Within an enclosed building; or
(b) Outside of a building when the following standards are met:
(i) Be prohibited in front and street-side yards;
(ii) Meet building setback standards specified in this section;
(ii) Be screened as specified in Section 3.2-445.
Light duty trucks and automobiles used as company vehicles may utilize parking lots.
Change G.8 to read:
8. Additional Vehicle Parking. A request for parking that exceeds the maximum parking standards
specified in Table 3.4-1 shall be permitted only within:
a. A parking structure that accommodates parking for more than one use. The parking structure may be
privately owned, or in-lieu-of-fees may be paid to the City for an appropriately sized public parking
structure upon establishment of a parking district serving portions of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use
Plan District.
b. A shared surface parking lot located behind the building, screened, landscaped and meeting applicable
parking lot design standards as specified in this section.
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection G.5.b.iii., staff disagrees with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to allow
parking in the front of a building. Staff’s intent was to limit the amount of parking along the frontage of
McVay Highway and not allow parking directly in front of a building, only along the side of a building in
conformance with the Glenwood vision discussed on Page 2. This will allow pedestrian access from
McVay Highway directly to a building without having to cross a parking lot. There are numerous
industrial sites elsewhere in Springfield and in Glenwood Phase 2 in particular where parking in front of
the building is appropriate. The exception is no longer necessary, since the landscape setback along
McVay Highway is proposed to be 10 feet for the entire frontage as discussed above. However, staff
proposes two options for Planning Commission consideration:
1) Keep the 25 percent standard for parking along the side of a building along the frontage of McVay
Highway; or
iii. Along any street frontage. However, not more than 25 percent of the
lot/parcel frontage to the side of a building shall be utilized for parking.
EXCEPTION: The percentage of the lot/parcel frontage to the side of a
building may be increased as specified in F.4.b.
2) Amend the percentage as proposed by the Schirmer Satre Group, but restrict it to the side of the
building.
iii. Along any street frontage. However, not more than 40 percent of the
lot/parcel frontage to the side of a building shall be utilized for parking.
Attachment 1 B -20
EXCEPTION: The percentage of the lot/parcel frontage to the side of a
building may be increased as specified in F.4.b.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270G.5.b.iii. for either
option 1) or 2), as proposed to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection G.5.b.ii., the parking along the side of a building as proposed by staff is addressed
above. Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion for additional on‐site parking options.
Staff proposes the following text for Planning Commission consideration:
ii. Within a courtyard, internal to the development so that parking cannot be seen from the street or the
Willamette River; and/or
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270G.5.b.ii., as proposed to
the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff Response
Regarding Table 3.4‐1 Hospital Parking Standards. Transportation staff re‐evaluated the hospital
parking standard and is willing to change the per bed standard to 1.5, but is not willing to change the
gross floor area standard, which is consistent with the cities of Spokane, Santa Clarita and Portland.
Employment Hospital 1 per each 200 square feet of gross floor area or 1. 5
per bed
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Table 3.4‐1 Hospital Parking Standards,
as proposed to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff Response
Regarding Table 3.4‐1, Note (2); staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to amend the
proposed text in order to provide more options for parking medium and heavy duty trucks. Staff
proposes the following text for Planning Commission consideration:
(2) The U.S. Department of Transportation establishes commercial truck classifications based on the
vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating. Classes 1, 2 and 3 are "Light Duty"; Classes 4, 5 and 6 are "Medium
Duty"; and Classes 7 and 8 are "Heavy Duty". Trucks classified as medium and heavy duty that are used
as part of a commercial or light manufacturing use shall be located either:
(a) Within an enclosed building; or
(b) Outside of a building when:
i. Screened by a masonry or concrete wall or other permanent fully opaque screen that extends from
the building and complements the façade of the building. The wall shall have a minimum height of 8
feet. The screen shall totally conceal trucks from McVay Highway and the Willamette River and shall
meet the building setback standard specified in Subsection 3.4‐275H.2.b.; or
Attachment 1 B -21
ii. Within a courtyard surrounded by buildings in a manner that medium and heavy duty truck parking
cannot be seen from McVay Highway or the Willamette River.
(c) Medium and heavy duty truck parking shall be prohibited in front and street side yards.
Light duty trucks and automobiles used as company vehicles may utilize parking lots.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Table 3.4‐1, Note (2), as proposed to the
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection 3.4‐270G.8.: Staff contends that the reference to shared parking as specified in
Subsection 7.b.1. is sufficient and that there is no need to amend this Subsection.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4-270M. Light Manufacturing Operational Performance Standards.
Observation
In subsection M.3, the EXCEPTION narrative reflects what is believed to be an appropriate requirement
for trucks. This narrative, as presented herein, contrasts with the narrative in subsection 3.4-270.G.6(2)
above, wherein it is proposed that trucks be required to be entirely inside a building.
Suggestion
Ask staff if these two truck references couldn’t be coordinated. The narrative in this subsection mirrors
existing CI requirements is practicable and acceptable.”
Staff Response
Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion. The two different standards have been
combined as proposed in Table 3.4‐1, Note (2), above. Staff proposes to modify the text as follows:
3 The storage of raw materials and/or finished products shall occur entirely within
enclosed buildings. The parking of medium duty and heavy duty trucks as defined in G.6
Table 3.4‐1 Note (2) necessary for the operation of the facility shall also occur within
enclosed buildings.
EXCEPTION: Medium and heavy duty trucks necessary for the operation of the facility
may be screened by a masonry or concrete wall or other permanent fully opaque screen
that extends from the building and complements the façade of the building. The wall
shall have a minimum height of 8 feet. The screen shall totally conceal trucks from the
public street level view on the Glenwood Riverfront and shall meet the setback
requirements of 3.4‐275H.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Subsection 3.4‐270M.3., as proposed to
the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Attachment 1 B -22
Schirmer Satre Group
“3.4-275G. Orientation/Entrances.
Suggestions
Change subsection G.1.b.ii to read:
ii. The location of stairs, elevators, and other upper story building access points shall be located in
coordination with corner building entrances and maintain the opportunity for sidewalk-level building retail
opportunities to occur at corners.
Change subsection G.1.b.iii to read:
iii. Where such occurs, parking and automobile access located at or near building entrance corners, shall
be located and designed in coordination with corner building entrance requirements.”
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection 3.4‐270G.1.b.ii., staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion for this
Subsection because it allows more flexibility to the developer. Staff proposes the following text for
Planning Commission consideration:
ii. The location of stairs, elevators, and other upper story building access
points shall be located in coordination with corner building entrances
and maintain the opportunity for sidewalk‐level building retail
opportunities to occur at corners.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Subsection 3.4‐275G.1.b.ii., as proposed
to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff Response
Regarding Subsection 3.4‐27G.1.b.iii., staff has determined, after further review, that a corner entry
does not impact parking access to the rear of a building. Therefore, no additional parking standard is
necessary in this Subsection. Staff proposes the deletion of the following text for Planning Commission
consideration:
iii. Parking and automobile access shall be located away from corners.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the deletion of Subsection 3.4‐275G.1.b.iii., as proposed to
the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
“Suggestions
Change subsection H.2.d to read:
d. In Subareas A, B and C, no parking shall be permitted within any building setback.
Add subsection H.2.e:
e. In Subarea D, parking may be permitted in front of the building so long as the setback and other
provisions of H.2.b are met.
Attachment 1 B -23
Staff Response
Staff does not support the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to amend Subsection 3.4‐27H.2.d. and to
add Subsection 3.4‐27H.2.e. regarding parking in the front of a building along McVay Highway for
reasons discussed on Page 23. Staff requests that the Planning Commissions approve the Subsection
H.2.d. as staff proposed:
d. In all Subareas, no parking shall be permitted within any building setback.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for Subsection 3.4‐275H.2.d., as proposed to the City Council and
Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
Suggestions
Add the following subsection to I. Pedestrian Amenities:
3. The above 80‐foot spacing may be flexed, and pedestrian amenities may be grouped or placed closer
than the 80‐foot standard as long as the quantity of amenities meets the minimum and the spacing
averages 80‐feet along the street frontage.
Staff Response
Staff concurs with the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion for Subsection I. because it allows more
flexibility for the developer. Staff requests that the Planning Commissions approve Subsection I.3. as
modified by staff:
3. The 80 foot spacing standard in Subsection 2., above may be flexed, and pedestrian amenities
may be grouped or placed closer than this standard as long as the quantity of amenities meets
the minimum and the spacing averages 80 feet along the street frontage.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for Subsection 3.4‐275I.3., as proposed to the City Council and
Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Schirmer Satre Group
Suggestion
The riverfront path has long been an objective in the community. It has been included in a number of
adopted plans (e.g., the 2002 Eugene/Springfield Transportation Plan, the 2007 Regional Transportation
Plan). Property owners can best influence the riverfront park and pathway requirement by emphasizing
the need for balance between property utilization and public access.
Suggested code language additions are as follows:
3.4‐280.L.4
a. Private property adjacent to the riverfront pathway and park and pedestrian connections between
streets and the riverfront shall be protected from trespass to the maximum extent practicable.
Attachment 1 B -24
25
4. The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private property,
especially from vandalism and trespass shall be provided for, to the maximum extent
practicable.
3.4‐280.L.8
a. Pedestrian access from McVay Highway shall be coordinated with and located at future local street
intersections with McVay Highway.
8. Adequate public access shall be provided to and along the river by appropriate legal
means for all development as specified in the applicable base zone, overlay district or
this Plan District.
Staff Response
Staff does not support the Schirmer Satre Group’s suggestion to amend Subsections 4. and 8. as
proposed. Note: the proposed text amendments are the Subsection a. statements, there are no text
amendments proposed for criteria in Subsections 3.4‐280L.4. and L.8. Both criteria of approval in
Subsections 3.4‐280L.4. and L.8. are taken directly from Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette
Greenway. These criteria apply along both the Franklin and McVay Riverfronts. Other jurisdictions
researched by staff to establish Subsection 3.4‐280 contain the same text as proposed by staff.
Regarding Subsection 3.4‐280L.4. and L.8., staff has addressed Mr. Hledik’s concern for an amendment
to the GRP as requested on Page 3 of this Attachment. In that discussion, staff stated the public safety
and protection of public and private property issues as well as the piecemeal construction of the
proposed multi‐use path raised by Mr. Hledik will be addressed during the application review process in
order to comply with the specific criterion of approval cited above. Staff would prefer to keep this open
ended because each development area is different.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 1 B -25
From: Zack Pardo [mailto:airmailforzack@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 4:34 PM
To: KARP Gary
Subject: Re: Glenwood Phase 1
To CAC, Planning Dept. staff & City of Springfield,
Regarding Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase 1
In the recent vote to approve Phase 1 of the Glenwood Refinement Plan I voted to block. I would like to give
a brief explaination.
The first reason I voted to block is because I do not own property within the Phase 1 area and therefore have
no standing as I see it, except in as much as there be any negative impact to the area as a whole.
I agree with the concept of high density development in some urban areas. My reasons for opposing this
plan pertain to the specific conditions of the area and the idea of best use in terms of the natural resources.
The Glenwood riverfront area is a flood plain with deep alluvial soil. I believe the soil itself is a unique and
valuable resource. There are less densely developed alternatives which could take advantage of this resource
and still be economically viable. Aside from aesthetics, I can see no particular advantage to locating intensive
development in this area.
High density development would mean a great increase in traffic to and thru the area. Lane County's air
quality is already the worst in the state and the Glenwood area is low elevation and subject to inversions in air
flow. Even with the expansion of Franklin Blvd. the increased traffic congestion would be problematic, in my
opinion.
The earlier drafts of this plan contained a sizable park which became smaller with each succeeding draft. I
disagree with the notion that the vast majority of the area needs to be densely developed. A substantial park
would greatly enhance the value of the area to the local development and the greater region.
I see nothing to prevent the types of development proposed (residential, commercial, office and
light/medium industrial) but in a less intensive fashion.
I do notice in the proposals the park and open space designation seems to be completely eliminated. I also
think the planned roadways for the area north of Franklin are more than needed and too close to the river.
The area west of McVay Hwy which is currently zoned low density residential is to be designated as
office/industrial mixed use. There would seem to me to be an advantage in terms of employment to locate
housing for those employed and for the existing residents also. If the goal is to reduce reliance on motor vehicle
usage, then low to medium density housing would certainly be appropriate. I don't see a lack of office/industrial
land in that area. The area east of McVay Hwy. is quite extensive.
Sustainable development is not limited to the lack or mitigation of negative consequences. Use of the local
ecology and resources to augment the impact and positive results of development will be increasingly important
as population increases, along with the cost of energy and the impact of air and water pollution.
All this being said, I think the CAC and city staff did a thorough and careful job of devising the plan. The
proposal to restore and maintain the riparian zone is especially promising.
I hope the above will clarify my vote to oppose the current draft plan.
I would like to thank Molly Markarian and all those who participated and hope that my contribution has
been useful to the process.
Respectfully,
Zack Pardo Attachment 2 A -1
ATTACHMENT 2
Response to the Zack Pardo Correspondence Dated October 16, 2011
Zack Pardo
“In the recent vote to approve Phase 1 of the Glenwood Refinement Plan I voted to block. I would like to
give a brief explanation.
The first reason I voted to block is because I do not own property within the Phase 1 area and therefore
have no standing as I see it, except in as much as there be any negative impact to the area as a whole.
I agree with the concept of high density development in some urban areas. My reasons for opposing this
plan pertain to the specific conditions of the area and the idea of best use in terms of the natural
resources.
The Glenwood riverfront area is a flood plain with deep alluvial soil. I believe the soil itself is a unique and
valuable resource. There are less densely developed alternatives which could take advantage of this
resource and still be economically viable. Aside from aesthetics, I can see no particular advantage to
locating intensive development in this area.”
Staff Response
Flood Plains
Under the auspices of the National Flood Insurance Program, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) publishes maps depicting flood hazard areas. These maps commonly referred to as
Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRMS were originally published for Springfield in 1983 and were reissued
in a digital format in 1999.
The 2009 Existing Conditions Report for the Glenwood Refinement Plan provides the following
discussion of flooding hazards in Glenwood:
“One of the most significant natural features that has shaped Glenwood is the Willamette River. The
river, which the northern and eastern boundaries of Glenwood produced annual flooding that had a
major impact on development until the 1950’s when dams were built on the upper Willamette River.
While these dams have prevented annual flooding of Glenwood, much of Glenwood is still in a flood
hazard area and there still is the potential of flooding during a major flood. In fact, according to the
2004 Multi‐Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area, Glenwood is listed as a
repetitive flood site.
Development within flood hazard areas is regulated the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), which is then adopted into local ordinances. The purpose of regulating development within the
flood hazard area is twofold: 1) to minimize the potential danger to life and property in the flood prone
area; and 2) to ensure that development in the floodplain does not result in an increased flood level on
properties upstream. By restricting development in the flood hazard area, losses and insurance rates can
be minimized. The policy basis supporting regulations within the flood hazard area is set by the Metro
Plan’s Environmental Resources Element, which follows the requirements of FEMA. SDC Section 3.3‐400,
Attachment 2 B -1
Floodplain Overlay District, establishes standards that implement both FEMA regulations and Metro Plan
policies for development within Springfield and Glenwood. Essentially, new construction is severely
limited in the floodway, although development can occur in the flood hazard area outside the floodway if
the floor elevation is constructed one foot above the base flood elevation.
A major flood is considered a 100‐year flood that has a one percent chance of occurring within any given
year. The river frontage in Glenwood is designated as a Zone A‐1 Special Flood Hazard Area. In 2008,
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, representing Wildish Land Company, submitted a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) application to FEMA. That proposal included updated mapping of the floodway and
floodplain boundaries, and the 100‐year base flood elevations along the portion of the Willamette River
located between the Union Pacific Railroad bridge on the north and the confluence of the Coast and
Middle Forks of the Willamette River on the south and east. FEMA tentatively approved the LOMR on
March 29, 2009. Unless appealed with a request for reconsideration on the basis of technical
information, the LOMR becomes effective on July 27, 2009. The LOMR has determined that the floodway
has generally narrowed in some areas and expanded in others, and the base flood elevations have been
calculated to be generally higher, with a maximum increase of approximately two feet at and near the
Coast and Middle Fork confluence. This outcome will result in additional developable land in this part of
Glenwood. A similar application to FEMA for the remaining Glenwood river frontage from the Union
Pacific Railroad to the I‐5 Bridge will occur in late 2009.”
Subsequent to the Existing Condition Report (ECR), a few other items have occurred concerning flood
plains in Glenwood:
• The LOMR submitted on behalf of the Wildish Land Company referenced in the ECR was
completed and became effective on July 27, 2009.
• The cities of Eugene and Springfield adopted the Eugene/Springfield Multi‐Jurisdictional Natural
Hazards Mitigation Plan in 2009. The Plan provides a discussion of the risks and vulnerabilities
to both cities from flooding, as well as measures for mitigating those risks and vulnerabilities.
The Plan is available on the web at: http://www.springfield‐or.gov/documents/NHMP09.pdf
• City staff has deferred preparing the studies for a LOMR application for the remaining Glenwood
river frontage from the Union Pacific Railroad to the I‐5 Bridge (Whilamut Passage Bridge). The
reasons for deferring this application include:
o Limited staff and financial resources;
o Potential for significant scope expansion downstream into Eugene to evaluate the
cumulative effects of flood plain fill that has occurred;
o FEMA Region X has a map update project underway for the Willamette River system;
o FEMA Region X has suspended its map update projects in our area until new mapping
rules are developed to address areas protected by flood control levees. Staff anticipates
proceeding with flood plain study for the remainder of the Glenwood riverfront after
the new levee rules are issued as these new rules may change the results of the study.
Attachment 2 B -2
Development Density
Glenwood Phase 1 properties abutting the Willamette River have been planned and zoned for intensive
urban development and use prior to Metro Plan acknowledgement in 1982. Currently, these properties
are developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses, many of which have no formal
drainage system for treatment of storm water. Several uses are developed up to the top of bank, with
little apparent setback. Adoption of Glenwood Phase 1 will require new and redevelopment sites to
meet all required riparian and wetland setbacks.
The level of density proposed for Glenwood Phase 1, both residential and commercial/employment is
based upon the following:
The following statements are taken form staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, that
can be found in Attachment 1 of the October 18th Glenwood Phase 1 packet:
“Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to encourage
the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels
commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon Administrative Rule 660
Division 8 defines standards for compliance with Goal 10. ‘Sufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in
the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of
buildable land in each residential plan designation.’”
“In 2007, the Oregon Legislature required Eugene and Springfield to establish separate urban growth
boundaries (UGB) that included separate 20 year residential lands inventories for each city. In response
to House Bill 3337, Springfield conducted a study to determine the City’s housing needs for 2010‐2030
and to evaluate the sufficiency of land available for residential uses within Springfield’s UGB. The
Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) was adopted by the City Council by
Resolution 09‐54 on December 7, 2009. The RLHNA along with the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan’s
Residential Land Use and Housing Element was adopted by City Council Ordinance 6268 on June 20,
2011 and by Lane County Board of Commissioners Ordinance PA1274 on June 6, 2011.
The RLHNA states: “The last step in the analysis is to add in public and semi‐public land needs. Table S‐5
shows the reconciliation of land need and supply. The results show that Springfield has an overall surplus
of residential land, but has deficits in the High‐Density Residential and Parks and Open Space categories.
Table S‐5. Reconciliation of land need and supply, Springfield UGB, 2010
Source: ECONorthwest”
Plan Designation
Residential
Land
Surplus/Deficit
(From Table S-4)
Public/Semi-
Public Land
Need
Total Surplus/
Deficit
Low Density Residential 455 77 378
Medium Density Residential 93 17 76
High Density Residential -21 7 -28
Parks and Open Space 300 -300
Government/Employment 62 Met through land need in EOA
Total 527 463 126
Attachment 2 B -3
“The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Housing and Economic Development Chapter, Introduction,
discusses the High Density Residential and parks and open space deficits by stating: ‘As described in the
Land Use Chapter, the adopted Springfield RLHNA identified a deficit of 28 gross acres for high‐density
residential uses and associated public/semi‐public land intended to provide public open space for the
higher density development, as well as any needed supporting public facilities. To address this deficit,
Implementation Action 2.1 in the Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element directs the
City Council to re‐designate at least 28 additional gross buildable acres as part of Glenwood Phase I
(seven acres of which are intended to provide public open space for the higher density development, as
well as any needed supporting public facilities). Implementation Action 2.2 directs Springfield to support
development of additional high‐density residential uses adjacent to commercial and employment areas.
The Land Use Chapter therefore directs the designation of 33.26 gross acres with a minimum density of
50 net dwelling units per acre in the Glenwood Riverfront as Residential Mixed‐Use to provide housing
choice for Springfield residents and ensure that Springfield’s high‐density housing needs can be met
through annexation and redevelopment, consistent with Springfield’s adopted housing policies. The
Housing Section of this Chapter contains additional policies intended to: enhance the progress of high‐
density residential development; facilitate the development neighborhood where residents from a range
of economic levels, household sizes, and ages can choose to live; address the impact of redevelopment on
existing manufactured home park residents; and support the preservation, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of existing housing to safe and sanitary standards over the Plan period.’”
The following statements are taken form staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 9, Economic
Development, that can be found in Attachment 1 of the October 18th Glenwood Phase 1 packet:
“Springfield locally adopted the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory,
Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies
in January 2010. The final decision on adoption of the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable
Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis shall be made by the Springfield City Council and
the Lane County Board of Commissioners as this document is incorporated into the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan, a refinement plan of the Eugene‐Springfield Metro Plan.
The Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities
Analysis contains the most current and best data available to inform the update of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan as it addresses land needed for employment for the planning period 2010‐2030.
The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Housing and Economic Development Chapter states:
‘Springfield is a business‐oriented city. The City is undergoing revitalization, with on‐going
redevelopment efforts in Downtown and Glenwood, and the recent opening of the hospital at RiverBend.
The City’s vision for economic growth over the next 20 years, as articulated in the adopted Springfield
Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory, Economic Opportunities Analysis, and Economic
Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies (CIBL), combines sustaining existing businesses
and helping them expand and embracing a broad variety of new opportunities for growth.’”
“The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Housing and Economic Development Chapter states:
‘CIBL also articulates the types of industries that Springfield wants to attract as having the following
attributes: high‐wage, stable jobs with benefits; jobs requiring skilled and unskilled labor; employers in a
range of industries that will contribute to a diverse economy; and industries that are comparable with
Attachment 2 B -4
Springfield’s community values. Springfield’s ‘target industries’ include: medical services; services for
seniors; small scale manufacturing; call centers; back‐office functions; tourism; specialty food processing;
high‐tech; professional and technical services; green businesses; corporate headquarters; and services
for residents. Springfield’s attributes that may attract these types of firms are: proximity to Interstate‐5,
high quality of life, proximity to the University of Oregon, the presence of the RiverBend campus, positive
business climate, availability of skilled and semi‐skilled labor, and proximity to indoor and outdoor
recreational opportunities.’
The CIBL added that ‘consistent with City Council policies, the areas that are expected to have the most
redevelopment in the plan period are in Glenwood, especially along the Willamette Riverfront and
Franklin/McVay corridor, and the Downtown Urban Renewal District.“
“CIBL states: ‘Springfield will be able to meet employment needs on sites 5 acres and smaller within the
existing UGB, through redevelopment, infill development and employment uses on non‐employment land
(e.g., home occupations). One of the City’s economic development strategies is to encourage
redevelopment, especially in Downtown and Glenwood.’ Upon adoption, Glenwood Phase 1 will contain
234.02 acres of commercial/employment land. “
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Zack Pardo
“High density development would mean a great increase in traffic to and thru the area. Lane County's air
quality is already the worst in the state and the Glenwood area is low elevation and subject to inversions
in air flow. Even with the expansion of Franklin Blvd. the increased traffic congestion would be
problematic, in my opinion.”
Staff Response
The traffic generation analysis discussed in staff’s response to Transportation Goal 12 “shows that
proposed plan designations and zoning in Glenwood Phase 1 would have no significant effect on the
performance of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway during the 20 year Plan period. This
determination has been coordinated with ODOT for state facilities. This determination has been
coordinated with Lane County for County facilities to the extent that urban transition agreements and
the proposed Glenwood Phase 1 implementation acknowledge that upon annexation, urbanization and
redevelopment, remnant county local access roads will either be vacated in favor of the proposed street
grid or improved to urban standards and transferred to City jurisdiction.”
Regarding air quality, The Glenwood Refinement Plan, Transportation Chapter states: “The Glenwood
Refinement Plan update comes at a time of a significant change in State policies that affect land use and
transportation planning. While much of the initiative for this change results from the legislated need to
reduce the levels of gases emitted into the atmosphere from automobiles and light‐duty trucks
(“greenhouse gases, or GHG”), the changes involve other fundamental factors influencing how Oregon
cities may grow and prosper. In 2007, the State’s Legislative Assembly enacted requirements for
substantial reductions in the quantities of these GHG, setting a 10 percent reduction target for 2020 and
a 75 percent reduction target for 2035. The 2009 and 2010 sessions of the Legislative Assembly
Attachment 2 B -5
approved legislation requiring the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to work with
Eugene and Springfield to engage in a “scenario planning” process to address how to achieve these GHG
reductions.
A joint effort of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, the State’s seven Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and a variety of
citizen and industry interest groups is developing guidelines and methodologies for scenario planning.
This State agency work program is occurring concurrently with the Springfield’s update of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan; therefore, it is not possible to say with certainty how GHG scenario planning
requirements, or other follow‐up measures, will affect planning for future development in Glenwood. It
is clear, however, that State agencies will expect Springfield to develop one or more possible alternative
outcomes of how development that reduces GHG might occur Springfield‐wide. Their focus will be on
ascertaining which alternatives most efficiently use existing and future transportation and land
resources while simultaneously reducing emissions from autos and light trucks. Leaving aside this
specific direction from the Legislative Assembly, it is clear that finite public resources require that in
planning for the future, Springfield will need to proceed under goals and policies that recognize that
maximizing efficiency includes maximizing the variety of transportation alternatives available to its
citizens. Many of the policies and implementation actions in this Plan, with respect to transportation
and land use, respond to the demands and expectations of a possible future required land use model
that must address this issue of reduced GHG.”
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Zack Pardo
“The earlier drafts of this plan contained a sizable park which became smaller with each succeeding
draft. I disagree with the notion that the vast majority of the area needs to be densely developed. A
substantial park would greatly enhance the value of the area to the local development and the greater
region.”
Staff Response
The original presentation by Crandall Arambula at CAC Meeting 5 on September 2, 2009 in addition to
the park blocks concept showed a festival park north and west of the Springfield Bridges and a
recreational park between the Springfield Bridges and the Southern Pacific Railroad trestle. However,
during the course of the review process, staff was made aware of demand for hospitality (hotels,
convention center, etc.). The area north and west of the Springfield Bridges became Subarea B,
Commercial Mixed‐Use. There was little CAC support for the festival park because it took up prime real
estate and would be in direct competition with Island Park across the river. The area between the
Springfield Bridges and the Southern Pacific Railroad trestle became part of Subarea D, Employment
Mixed‐Use. Crandall Arambula presented a revised development scenario at CAC Meeting 6 on
November 18, 2009. That scenario regarding open space was similar to staff’s proposed open space, the
park blocks and the multi‐use path, with no additional parks. At this CAC meeting only two persons
stated there was too little open space. See the discussion above regarding the intensity of development.
Attachment 2 B -6
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Zack Pardo
“I see nothing to prevent the types of development proposed (residential, commercial, office and
light/medium industrial) but in a less intensive fashion.”
Staff Response
See the discussion above regarding the intensity of development.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Zack Pardo
“I do notice in the proposals the park and open space designation seems to be completely eliminated. I
also think the planned roadways for the area north of Franklin are more than needed and too close to
the river.”
Staff Response
See the discussion above regarding parks and open space.
Additionally, the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter, Local Street Network Section
states: “The desired street functions and design components that allow for land use adaptability to
social and market changes are outlined in the objective, policies, and implementation strategies below.
At the time of development, street designs must comply with Springfield’s EDSPM.
Objective:
Establish a grid block pattern of streets to support redevelopment of the Franklin Riverfront that
provides multi‐modal internal circulation, disperses traffic, facilitates walking and biking, orients
development to a public realm, and enables clear and direct physical and visual routes between Franklin
Boulevard and the riverfront.”
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Zack Pardo
“The area west of McVay Hwy which is currently zoned low density residential is to be designated as
office/industrial mixed use. There would seem to me to be an advantage in terms of employment to
locate housing for those employed and for the existing residents also. If the goal is to reduce reliance on
Attachment 2 B -7
motor vehicle usage, then low to medium density housing would certainly be appropriate. I don't see a
lack of office/industrial land in that area. The area east of McVay Hwy. is quite extensive.”
Staff Response
The area of Mr. Pardo’s concern is located just south of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on the west
side of McVay Highway. These properties are currently zoned Low Density Residential and contain
mobile home parks. This area is proposed to be zoned and designated Employment Mixed‐Use based
upon the need for employment land as stated in the CIBL study referenced above. In addition, the
RLHNA shows a surplus of property zoned and designated LDR. Finally, the railroad tracks are a barrier
separating the Glenwood core area on the south side of Franklin Boulevard (Glenwood Phase 2) from
the area of Mr. Pardo’s concern.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Zack Pardo
“Sustainable development is not limited to the lack or mitigation of negative consequences. Use of the
local ecology and resources to augment the impact and positive results of development will be
increasingly important as population increases, along with the cost of energy and the impact of air and
water pollution.
All this being said, I think the CAC and city staff did a thorough and careful job of devising the plan. The
proposal to restore and maintain the riparian zone is especially promising.
I hope the above will clarify my vote to oppose the current draft plan.
I would like to thank Molly Markarian and all those who participated and hope that my contribution has
been useful to the process.”
Staff Response
The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan, Land Use & Built Form Chapter has Subsection that discusses
sustainability. “Sustainability, broadly speaking, is the capacity to hold up or to endure without external
influences. In ecology, it describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time,
such as long‐lived and healthy wetlands. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long‐term
maintenance of our wellbeing, which, in turn, depends on the health of the natural world and the
responsible use of natural resources.
Sustainability has come to be used in the development context as balancing economic, social, and
environmental interests by managing the environment and human use of resources. With sustainable
development, communities strive to improve the quality of human life in the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The benefits of environmentally responsible development, sometimes referred to as ‘green
development’, extend well beyond the quantifiable energy, water, and financial efficiencies to
consumers and governments. Green building and neighborhood development generates jobs, reduces
Attachment 2 B -8
9
strain on public infrastructure and resources, creates and maintains healthier indoor and outdoor
environments, and inspires growth and innovation in the local economy. Over the course of the
development of Glenwood Phase 1, several citizen and technical advisory committee members,
neighborhood representatives, and potential developers alike acknowledged the positive and of EmX
stops with frequent transit service and will be within a quarter mile of a future bicycle network. Further,
future development in the Glenwood Riverfront will reduce the need for an Urban Growth Boundary
expansion for residential development and therefore will not affect prime agricultural land. Policy
direction in Glenwood Phase I, as well as existing local, state, and Federal policies, will also ensure that
future development in the Glenwood Riverfront will comply with other prerequisites of the LEED ND
rating system, such as compliance with restoration and/or protection measures associated with
floodplains, wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes, threatened species, and riparian ecology.
As encouragement to respect the principles embodied in LEED ND, whether or not certification is
sought, the land use, circulation, and open space concepts put forth in Glenwood Phase 1 take into
consideration many of the core principles of the LEED ND rating system that are most applicable and
appropriate in Glenwood. For instance, the proposed block sizes, densities, street connections, and
provisions for reduced parking conform to several of the performance measures used in the LEED ND
program. Whether the LEED ND continues to exist in its current form or whether other tools for
encouraging neighborhood‐level sustainability emerge, such as EcoDistricts, implementing these core
principles is critical for supporting sustainable development and redevelopment in the Glenwood
Riverfront. The LEED ND program also offers opportunities for Springfield to consider studying additional
strategies in the future to incentivize green development in Glenwood and in Springfield in general, such
as requiring private development projects receiving financial support from the Springfield
Economic Development Agency to achieve (or be able to achieve) LEED certification, or the development
of a program with density bonuses offered for, among other outcomes, LEED ND project certification.”
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 2 B -9
Attachment 3 A -1
Attachment 3 A -2
ATTACHMENT 3
Response to the Chris Ramey Correspondence Dated October 17, 2011
Chris Ramey
“The University of Oregon is the owner of property located at 3233 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene. This
property is located within the general area referred to as ‘Glenwood’. This area is subject to changes
proposed in the Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the
Springfield Development Code and the Springfield Zoning Map. These documents are to receive a public
hearing set for October 18, 2011.
In response to the proposed changes are the following comments.
The University of Oregon acquired the property in December 2010 from the State of Oregon Department
of Administrative Services. The property consists of 4.17 acres containing a 6,213 square foot structure
currently being utilized for the operation of a motor pool with 221 parking spaces on site. The property
was purchased with the Light Medium Industrial Zone.
Proposed Zoning: Office Mixed‐Use
o Non‐Permitted Uses
High‐density housing including dormitories and apartments
Research and scientific laboratories
Recycling facilities
Warehousing and distribution
Hospitality facilities
Auto/truck sales/rental/service
Car and truck washes
Mini‐Warehouse storage
Moving and storage facilities
The university desires the most flexible zoning possible to accommodate the future needs of the
institution. Future uses by the university may include dormitories, apartments, storage, motor pool
facilities and general education and research related facilities. The university respectfully requests that
these uses be considered as part of the permitted uses in the future plan.
Staff Response
The property located at 3233 Franklin Boulevard is in proposed Subarea C, Office Mixed‐Use. The best
way to address the Mr. Ramey’s concerns is to attach Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District
Sections 3.4‐250, Schedule of Use Categories, and 3.4‐255, Prohibited Uses. The primary and secondary
uses applicable to Subarea C are highlighted in yellow. Staff will then address the individual uses Mr.
Ramey has listed above.
3.4‐250 Schedule of Use Categories
Attachment 3 B -1
In Subareas A, B, C and D, the following uses shall be permitted in the base zoning districts as indicated,
subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not
specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 3.4‐260. Prohibited uses are listed in Section 3.4‐
255.
“P” = PRIMARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Primary uses are defined in Chapter 6 as “the
principal use approved in accordance with this Code which usually occupies greater than 50% of the
gross floor area of a building or greater than 50% of a development area.
"S" = SECONDARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Secondary uses are defined in Chapter 6
as “Any approved use of land or a structure which is incidental and subordinate to the primary use, and
located on the same development area as the primary use…Secondary uses shall not occur in the
absence of primary uses.”
“N” = NOT PERMITTED
SITE PLAN REVIEW SHAL BE REQUIRED for all development proposals within Subareas A, B, C and D.L
Categories/Uses
Residential
Mixed‐Use
Subarea A
Commercial
Mixed‐Use
Subarea B
Office
Mixed‐Use
Subarea C
Employment
Mixed‐Use
Subarea D
Accessory Uses
A use or uses within a primary commercial, office
and/or employment building that is for the
employees’ benefit and which does not generally
serve the public; including, but not limited to:
building maintenance facilities, central mail rooms,
child care, conference rooms; employee restaurants
and cafeterias, indoor recreation areas and indoor
recycling collection centers.
N
P
P
P
Commercial/Retail
Eating and drinking establishments whose principal
activity involves the sale and/or service of prepared
foods and beverages directly to consumers including,
but not limited to, bakeries, cafes, delicatessens,
restaurants, coffee shops, brew pubs, and wine bars.
P
P
P
S
Personal services whose principal activity involves the
care of a person or a person’s apparel including, but
not limited to, fitness centers, spas, barber shops,
shoe repair, dry cleaners, tailors, and daycare.
P
P
P
S
Professional, scientific, research and technical services
are small‐scale commercial office enterprises whose
principal activity involves providing a specialized
service to others. These activities can be housed in
office storefronts, office buildings, or in residential or
live/work units where such residential use is
permitted by this Code and include, but are not
Attachment 3 B -2
Categories/Uses
Residential Commercial Office Employment
Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use
Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C
Subarea D
limited to, legal advice and representation,
accounting, banking, architecture, engineering, design
and marketing, real estate, insurance, physicians, and
counselors.
P P
P P
Retail Sales and Services commercial enterprises
whose principal activity involves the sale and/or
servicing of merchandise (new or reused), directly to
consumers. Examples include, but are not limited to,
bookstores, grocers, pharmacies, art galleries, florists,
and apparel shops.
P
P
P
S
Educational facilities
Public/Private educational classroom facilities for
primary and secondary education P N N N
Public/Private educational classroom facilities that
include, but are not limited to higher education,
business, professional, and vocational schools and job
training and vocational rehabilitation services. N N P P
Employment
Business Parks N N P P
Hospitals N N N P
Light Manufacturing uses engaged in the manufacture
(predominantly from previously prepared materials)
of finished products or parts including processing,
fabrication, assembly, treatment, testing, and
packaging of these products that are not potentially
dangerous or environmentally incompatible with
office employment uses and all manufacturing and
storage of materials and company vehicles occurs
entirely indoors. These uses include, but are not
limited to, manufacture of electronic instruments,
preparation of food products, pharmaceutical
manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories,
and businesses that recycle manufactured materials
for sale to the public within a building.
N
N
N
P
Office Employment uses are typically housed in office
buildings where there is limited interaction between
the public and the proprietor, are associated with the
performance of a range of administrative, medical,
high tech, nanotechnology, green technology,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology, information
technology, information management, and research
and development functions. These uses include, but
are not limited to, call centers, corporate or regional
headquarters, physicians’ clinics, software
development, media production, data processing
services, and technical support centers.
N
P
P
P
Recycling facilities that occur completely within
Attachment 3 B -3
Categories/Uses
Residential Commercial Office Employment
Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use
Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C
Subarea D
buildings and located only on the west side of McVay
Highway. N N
N P
Warehousing and distribution ‐ Warehousing and
distribution are for the storage and regional wholesale
distribution of manufactured products and for
products used in testing, design, technical training or
experimental product research and development
permitted in conjunction with business headquarters.
N
N
N
S
Hospitality
Conference/Visitor Center include, but are not limited
to conference hotels, museums, and
conference/exposition centers.
N
P
N
N
Hotels include, but are not limited to, inns, bed and
breakfasts, guesthouses, extended stay hotels or
apartment hotels, limited service hotels, full service
hotels. Hotels may be converted to apartments where
such residential use is permitted by this Code and the
Oregon Structural Specialty Code, related building
codes, fire codes and referenced standards in effect at
the time of application for a building permit.
N
P
P
N
Housing (high density), including, but not limited to:
Apartments P P N N
Condominiums P P N N
Dormitories P P N N
Lofts P P N N
Row Houses P P N N
Senior/Congregate Care Facilities P P N N
Townhouses P P N N
Live/Work Units P P N N
Parking
Public or private parking structures P P P P
Public Open Space
Riverfront Linear Park/Multi‐Use Path P P P P
Park Blocks to include recreational facilities and
stormwater management P N
N N
Public Utilities and Other Public Uses
Low Impact Facilities Any public or semi‐public facility
that is permitted subject to the design standards of
this Code, including, but not limited to: wastewater,
stormwater management, electricity and water to
serve individual homes and businesses and other
utilities that have minimal olfactory, visual or auditory
impacts; street lights; and fire hydrants.
P
P
P
P
Public uses including, but not limited to fire and police
stations. N N P N
Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities. Only
Attachment 3 B -4
Categories/Uses
Residential Commercial Office Employment
Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use
Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C
Subarea D
flush mounting the entire antenna on a building shall
be permitted if: the connecting cables cannot be
seen; they are color matched to the building; and they
match the façade of the building. If conditions do not
favor flush mounted antennas, a stand‐alone
monopole antenna not more than 15 feet high,
measured from the place of attachment on the roof,
shall be permitted if the antenna is set back so that it
cannot be seen from street.
P
P
P
P
3.4‐255 Prohibited Uses
The following uses shall be prohibited within the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District:
PROHIBITED USES
Agricultural machinery rental/sales/service
Auto parts, tires, batteries, and accessories
Auto/truck sales/rental/service
Warehouse Commercial Retail Sales (Big box stores)(1)
Car and truck washes
Drive through facilities including, but not limited to banks and restaurants
Equipment, heavy, rental/sales/service
Exterior display and storage of merchandise (a)
Free‐standing wireless communication towers
Key/card lock fuel facilities
Light manufacturing use that cannot meet the operational performance standards specified in
Section 3.4‐270
Manufactured dwelling sales/service/repair
Mini‐warehouse storage facilities
Motels
Motor freight terminals
Moving and storage facilities
Recreational vehicle and heavy truck, sales/rental/service
Service stations and gas stations
Tires, sales/service
Transit park and ride facility
Truck and auto repair and painting facilities
Attachment 3 B -5
(1) A “big‐box store” (also supercenter, superstore, or megastore) is a physically large retail establishment,
usually part of a chain, generally more than 50,000 square feet in size. The term sometimes also refers, by
extension, to the company that operates the store. Examples include large department stores and specialty
retailers such as Wal‐Mart, Target, Best Buy and Ikea and/or home improvement centers such as Lowes or
Home Depot.
EXCEPTION: Outdoor seating for restaurants and pedestrian‐oriented accessory uses, including flower,
food, or drink stands shall be permitted. Temporary public gatherings including, but not limited to open‐air
markets and festivals shall also be permitted as specified in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997.
In response to the specific uses listed by Mr. Ramey:
High‐density housing including dormitories and apartments
These uses are not permitted in Subarea C, but are permitted as a primary Use in Subarea A and a
secondary use in Subarea B,
Research and scientific laboratories
These uses are permitted in Subareas C and D as primary uses.
Recycling facilities
Warehousing and distribution
These uses are not permitted in Subarea C. Recycling facilities are permitted as a primary use in
Subarea D; warehousing and distribution facilities are permitted as a secondary use in Subarea D.
Hospitality facilities
Hospitality facilities are permitted as a secondary use in specific areas of Subarea C – located
southwest of the intersection of Franklin and Glenwood Boulevards or fronting the proposed
roundabout at the northwest side of the intersection of Glenwood and Franklin Boulevards;
Auto/truck sales/rental/service
Car and truck washes
Mini‐Warehouse storage
Moving and storage facilities
Prohibited Uses
The above uses are on the prohibited use list and are not permitted in any proposed Glenwood Phase 1
Subarea. The proposed prohibited use list in Section 3.4‐255 is virtually identical to the list currently
applicable in the Campus Industrial Zoning District and the 50 acre Glenwood Riverfront Plan District.
However, the proposed list will be applicable to the entire 268.28 acre Glenwood Phase 1 area. While
the Franklin Riverfront and the area along the McVay Riverfront north of the Union Pacific railroad
trestle are within a node* which emphasizes multi‐modal development (cars, bikes and walking, transit),
the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) Transportation Chapter, completed with the
cooperation of ODOT, also emphasizes multi‐modal development in the McVay Riverfront with specific
objectives, policies and implementation strategies (see the GRP pages 74‐77).
Attachment 3 B -6
* Nodal Development is the integration of land use (high density residential and mixed use
commercial/employment) and transportation planning that seeks to increase the use of alternative
modes of transportation, reduce per‐person vehicle miles of travel and reduce demand for automobile‐
related transportation facilities.
In staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, and the Transportation Planning
Rule**, as stated on pages 57‐58 of the Staff Report, Attachment 1, “It is important to understand that
even though existing and proposed CC zoning are treated the same for this analysis, existing CC zoning
allows for auto centric types of land uses such as drive through restaurants and gas stations. The
proposed commercial zoning specifically prohibits such auto centric land uses (proposed Glenwood
Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District, Section 3.4‐255).”
** The intent of the TPR is to “…promote the development of safe, convenient and economic
transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile…”
The GRP Transportation Chapter P. 55 states: “This Chapter acknowledges that automobiles and trucks
are likely to continue as primary transportation modes during the Plan period.” The Plan’s intent is not
to eliminate automobiles and trucks, but to establish efficient and successful land use patterns and
building orientation that can thrive in a multi‐modal environment. If someone needs gas or tires there
are numerous choices available elsewhere in Eugene and Springfield.
It is important to remember that all comprehensive plans establish a preferred outcome based on the
successful implementation of the plan’s vision, policies and standards. While this formula is consistent
throughout the city, each refinement plan is unique to that area’s history, location, and potential; what
may be effective in northwest Springfield may be less successful Downtown. Glenwood, and
particularly the Franklin and McVay corridors, is consistently recognized as the gateway entrance to the
larger community of Springfield. The significance of such an honorific was not lost on the CAC when
they considered how this expectation should be memorialized:
“The unique amenities provided by the Willamette River as it flows through Glenwood
are unsurpassed in the state. In addition, Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway
serve as major thoroughfares connecting Springfield and Eugene and set the stage
for Glenwood as a gateway to both cities. The new I-5 Willamette River Bridge
and associated riparian restoration and multi-use path enhancement projects further
highlight this entryway to the region. The presence of a bus rapid transit line along
Franklin Boulevard and one planned along McVay Highway enhances the possibilities
for transit-oriented development in the Glenwood Riverfront. Glenwood’s proximity
to the University of Oregon and Lane Community College, I-5, and two rail lines also
positions it well for successful, mixed-use residential, commercial, and employment
development along the Franklin and McVay corridors. Prior planning and urban
design efforts, as well as visioning with the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee
for this project, affirm that the community wants Glenwood to continue to be a unique
place with a distinct identify that takes advantage of Glenwood’s existing strengths and
seizes the opportunity to set the stage for the making of a place that will have a lasting
legacy. Ensuring that this vision is implemented depends on the proper arrangement,
appearance, and functionality of land uses, infrastructure, and open spaces. (GRP, Community
Vision, page 18)
It’s clear from this passage that the University of Oregon represents an important partner in the
successful redevelopment of Glenwood. However, recognition of the presence and importance
of this relationship should not be confused with an expectation that the Plan’s vision is mutable.
Attachment 3 B -7
8
The gateway entrance to Springfield and the enduring purpose of legacy decisions are values
that are rarely served by expediency.
Non‐Conforming Uses
Upon adoption of Glenwood Phase 1 and the Office Mixed‐Use designation and zoning proposed for
Subarea C, the motor pool will be considered a pre‐existing, non‐conforming use because the existing
use is not permitted in Subarea C. The Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP), both Phase 1 and Phase 2, is
intended to provide policy direction for development in Glenwood for a 20 year planning period. Staff’s
expectation is that during the planning period there will be a number of pre‐existing non‐conforming
uses that will remain in place until such time the property owner either chooses to develop the property
or sells the property to a developer. The non‐conforming use status is addressed in the Springfield
Development Code, Section 5.8‐100, Non‐Conforming Uses‐ Determination, Continuance, Expansion or
Modification. Specifically Section 5.8‐120 states: “A non‐conforming building, structure or use may
continue as long as it remains otherwise lawful…[and] may continue until abandoned….” Specifically,
Section 5.8‐125 states: “An expansion or modification of a non‐conforming use and/or the expansion of
a non‐conforming building or structure resulting in an increased impact upon adjacent properties is
considered an expansion of a non‐conforming use. Approval may be granted only when the Director
determines that there will be no significant impact of the expansion upon adjacent properties. The
Director may require approval conditions to mitigate a significant impact.”
The proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District specifically addresses non‐conforming uses
as follows:
“3.4‐220 Non‐Conforming Uses
Any existing non‐conforming building, structure and/or use may continue, expand, or be modified as
may be permitted in Sections 5.8‐120, 5.8‐125 and 3.4‐280 until they are either abandoned, as defined
in Section 5.8‐130, and/or redeveloped as defined in Section 6.1‐110.”
Note: The reference to Section 3.4‐280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards does not apply to
this property because it is not within the Willamette Greenway.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 3 B -8
Received 10.18.2011
To: The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions.
From: John Oldham
RE: Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase 1
I would like to recognize the Springfield planning staff for the many hours of work they
have put into the proposal, as well as the citizen advisory committee members who have
invested many hours assisting in the process. My comments regarding the proposal are
not intended to be criticisms of the individuals involved in the process.
Unfortunately, the citizens involved in the process had no choice in whether or not High
Density Residential was coming to Glenwood. The City of Springfield planners had
made the decision that Glenwood, in areas of Phase 1, was going to be High Density
Residential. Apparently this is to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 10. The input
from consultant Crandall Arambula became the blueprint of the area with little room for
citizen input.
As a third generation owner of properties and businesses in the Phase 1 area of
Glenwood, I realize that the area will change in the future. How far in the future none of
us know, especially in light of the prolonged economic situation we are in. While the
current use of the properties that I and other business owners rely upon to be productive
members of society, is allowed, our days will be numbered. Any change in the use of our
property will be nonconforming unless, of course, it meets the lofty goals of the new
Glenwood Refinement Plan. High Density Residential is not going to come to Glenwood
for quite some time. There are no provisions in the Plan for interim uses of the property.
I believe this is a flaw that should have been addressed. Other shortcomings include the
unusually high number of dwelling units per acre, vehicular access, parking and the large
tracts of open space.
As a member of the citizen advisory committee I had the desire to be involved in a
collaborative process. However, I found myself at odds with the direction the planning
staff was headed. I believe all involved stayed respectful but, the results are a
disappointment. As a representative of the Glenwood business community and property
owners I do not support the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase 1.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Attachment 4 A --1
ATTACHMENT 4
Response to the John Oldham Correspondence Dated October 18, 2011
Mr. Oldham
“I would like to recognize the Springfield planning staff for the many hours of work they have put
into the proposal, as well as the citizen advisory committee members who have invested many hours
assisting in the process. My comments regarding the proposal are not intended to be criticisms of
the individuals involved in the process.
Unfortunately, the citizens involved in the process had no choice in whether or not High Density
Residential was coming to Glenwood. The City of Springfield planners had made the decision that
Glenwood, in areas of Phase 1, was going to be High Density Residential. Apparently this is to comply
with Statewide Planning Goal 10. The input from consultant Crandall Arambula became the blueprint of
the area with little room for citizen input.”
Staff Response
There are two topics that will be addressed in staff’s response to Mr. Oldham:
1) The Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) Land Use Review Process
The CAC met 18 times over the course of Glenwood Phase 1. There were at least six meetings where
the topic of land use was discussed.
09/02/09 CAC Meeting 5 ‐ Approve Goal Statements with changes and the Crandall
Arambula Presentation & CAC/TAC Work Session to discuss and provide
feedback regarding land use and circulation possibilities.
11/18/09 CAC Meeting 6 ‐ Crandall Arambula presentation & CAC/TAC work session to
discuss and provide feedback regarding refined land use and circulation
possibilities.
12/16/09 CAC Meeting 7 – Brief project update and continued discussion of the revised
land use and circulation concepts presented on November 18th.
06/30/10 CAC Meeting 9 ‐ Land Use Chapter discussion regarding proposed Plan
designations, subareas and land uses.
08/25/10 CAC Meeting 10 ‐ Brief project update and continued discussion of the Land Use
Chapter including group discussions (table top dialogues) and feedback.
10/20/10 CAC Meeting 11 ‐ Response to CAC feedback; provide recommendation
regarding proposed land use type, mix and location.
Crandall Arambula was hired to provide staff a starting point for Glenwood redevelopment. Their
proposal discussed 100 dwelling units per net acre in Subarea A, Mixed‐Use Residential. After review
and study by staff, the CAC was presented the current 50 dwelling unit per net acre standard. The CAC
voted to forward the Land Use Chapter to the Planning Commissions. However, the CAC had concerns
regarding the density threshold. Staff was aware that there would be differences of opinion between
individual CAC members and staff and that there would be opportunities to address these differences
prior to and during the public process to adopt Glenwood Phase 1. At CAC Meeting 18 on September
21, 2011, staff presented the option of allowing a lower density threshold during the initial development
as long as the 50 dwelling unit per net acre standard was met for the entire development area upon
Attachment 4 B -1
Master Plan approval. A number of CAC members supported this option and the CAC voted to forward
the amended Glenwood Phase 1 package to the Planning Commissions on October 18, 2011 for their
review. This topic was also discussed at the public hearing in staff’s response to Lane County Planning
Commissioner John Sullivan’s question regarding residential density.
2) The Rational for High Density Residential Mixed‐Use in Subarea A
Background
The Glenwood Riverfront (50 acres) had been planned for mixed uses and multifamily housing since
2005. At that time, the approved residential land use allocation was 30‐60 percent, with an overall
net density of at least 12 dwelling units per net acre, based on the definition of a node contained in
the Metro Plan.
The Glenwood Riverfront had been planned for mixed use nodal development since 2005, as part of
the City’s implementation of the Nodal Development Strategy required by TransPlan.
The City conducted a public planning process for the Residential Lands Study (RLS) from 2006‐2011.
The RLS identified the need to designate additional land in Springfield for High Density Residential
uses. The Glenwood Riverfront was identified early in the process as having greater potential for
higher density mixed use development than elsewhere in Springfield given its proximity to
downtown and the University of Oregon, the natural amenity of the river and its location on the
EmX transit line.
As part of the RLS, the City studied various Land Use Efficiency Measures, as required by Oregon
Statewide Planning Goals and Rules. The City conducted public workshops, surveys, open houses
and public hearings to inform the City Council’s prioritization of the Land Use Efficiency Measures
and regarding suitable locations for high density residential uses and mixed use development. (See
the attached Residential Land Study Summary of Planning Process)
Staff Report References
The following statements are taken form staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, that
can be found in Attachment 1 of the October 18th Glenwood Phase 1 packet:
“Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to encourage
the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels
commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon Administrative Rule 660
Division 8 defines standards for compliance with Goal 10. ‘Sufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in
the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of
buildable land in each residential plan designation.’”
“In 2007, the Oregon Legislature required Eugene and Springfield to establish separate urban growth
boundaries (UGB) that included separate 20 year residential lands inventories for each city. In response
to House Bill 3337, Springfield conducted a study to determine the City’s housing needs for 2010‐2030
and to evaluate the sufficiency of land available for residential uses within Springfield’s UGB. The
Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) was adopted by the City Council by
Resolution 09‐54 on December 7, 2009. The RLHNA along with the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan’s
Residential Land Use and Housing Element was adopted by City Council Ordinance 6268 on June 20,
2011 and by Lane County Board of Commissioners Ordinance PA1274 on June 6, 2011.
Attachment 4 B -2
The RLHNA states: “The last step in the analysis is to add in public and semi‐public land needs. Table S‐5
shows the reconciliation of land need and supply. The results show that Springfield has an overall surplus
of residential land, but has deficits in the High‐Density Residential and Parks and Open Space categories.
Table S‐5. Reconciliation of land need and supply, Springfield UGB, 2010
Source: ECONorthwest”
Plan Designation
Residential
Land
Surplus/Deficit
(From Table S-4)
Public/Semi-
Public Land
Need
Total Surplus/
Deficit
Low Density Residential 455 77 378
Medium Density Residential 93 17 76
High Density Residential -21 7 -28
Parks and Open Space 300 -300
Government/Employment 62 Met through land need in EOA
Total 527 463 126
“The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Housing and Economic Development Chapter, Introduction,
discusses the High Density Residential and parks and open space deficits by stating: ‘As described in the
Land Use Chapter, the adopted Springfield RLHNA identified a deficit of 28 gross acres for high‐density
residential uses and associated public/semi‐public land intended to provide public open space for the
higher density development, as well as any needed supporting public facilities. To address this deficit,
Implementation Action 2.1 in the Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element directs the
City Council to re‐designate at least 28 additional gross buildable acres as part of Glenwood Phase I
(seven acres of which are intended to provide public open space for the higher density development, as
well as any needed supporting public facilities). Implementation Action 2.2 directs Springfield to support
development of additional high‐density residential uses adjacent to commercial and employment areas.
The Land Use Chapter therefore directs the designation of 33.26 gross acres with a minimum density of
50 net dwelling units per acre in the Glenwood Riverfront as Residential Mixed‐Use to provide housing
choice for Springfield residents and ensure that Springfield’s high‐density housing needs can be met
through annexation and redevelopment, consistent with Springfield’s adopted housing policies. The
Housing Section of this Chapter contains additional policies intended to: enhance the progress of high‐
density residential development; facilitate the development neighborhood where residents from a range
of economic levels, household sizes, and ages can choose to live; address the impact of redevelopment on
existing manufactured home park residents; and support the preservation, rehabilitation, and
maintenance of existing housing to safe and sanitary standards over the Plan period.’”
Thus the rationale for the proposed designated and zoned High Density Mixed‐Use in Subarea A is the
need for such a designation and zone based upon the RLHNA and the Springfield 2030 Residential Land
Use and Housing Element and City Council direction, not Crandall Arambula or Planning staff alone.
Mr. Oldham
“As a third generation owner of properties and businesses in the Phase 1 area of Glenwood, I realize that
the area will change in the future. How far in the future none of us know, especially in light of the
prolonged economic situation we are in. While the current use of the properties that I and other business
owners rely upon to be productive members of society, is allowed, our days will be numbered. Any
change in the use of our property will be nonconforming unless, of course, it meets the lofty goals of the
new Glenwood Refinement Plan. High Density Residential is not going to come to Glenwood for quite
some time. There are no provisions in the Plan for interim uses of the property. I believe this is a flaw that
Attachment 4 B -3
should have been addressed. Other shortcomings include the unusually high number of dwelling units per
acre, vehicular access, parking and the large tracts of open space.
As a member of the citizen advisory committee I had the desire to be involved in a collaborative process.
However, I found myself at odds with the direction the planning staff was headed. I believe all involved
stayed respectful but, the results are a disappointment. As a representative of the Glenwood business
community and property owners I do not support the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase 1.
Thank you for your time and consideration.”
Staff Response
The Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP), both Phase 1 and Phase 2, is intended to provide policy direction
for development in Glenwood for a 20 year planning period. The designations and zoning proposed:
Subarea A, Residential Mixed‐Use; Subarea B, Commercial Mixed‐Use; Subarea C, Office Mixed‐Use; and
Subarea D Employment Mixed‐Use will be in place upon the adoption of Glenwood Phase 1. Staff’s
expectation is that during the planning period development in Glenwood Phase 1 will be piecemeal,
which means that there will be a number of pre‐existing non‐conforming uses that will remain in place
until such time the property owner either chooses to develop the property or sells the property to a
developer. The non‐conforming use status is addressed in the Springfield Development Code, Section
5.8‐100, Non‐Conforming Uses‐ Determination, Continuance, Expansion or Modification. Specifically
Section 5.8‐120 states: “A non‐conforming building, structure or use may continue as long as it remains
otherwise lawful…[and] may continue until abandoned….” Specifically, Section 5.8‐125 states: “An
expansion or modification of a non‐conforming use and/or the expansion of a non‐conforming building
or structure resulting in an increased impact upon adjacent properties is considered an expansion of a
non‐conforming use. Approval may be granted only when the Director determines that there will be no
significant impact of the expansion upon adjacent properties. The Director may require approval
conditions to mitigate a significant impact.”
The proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District specifically addresses non‐conforming uses
as follows:
“3.4‐220 Non‐Conforming Uses
Any existing non‐conforming building, structure and/or use may continue, expand, or be modified as
may be permitted in Sections 5.8‐120, 5.8‐125 and 3.4‐280 until they are either abandoned, as defined
in Section 5.8‐130, and/or redeveloped as defined in Section 6.1‐110.”
Note: Section 3.4‐280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards, also discusses non‐conforming
uses and development as follows:
“E. Non‐Conforming Uses and Development. Any existing non‐conforming building, structure
and/or use within the Glenwood Riverfront portion of the WG Overlay District may continue,
expand, or be modified as may be permitted in Sections 5.8‐120, 5.8‐125 and Subsection F. until
they are either abandoned and/or redeveloped.
EXCEPTION: Expansion of an existing building, structure, or use which is not water‐related or
water‐dependent shall not be permitted within the Glenwood Greenway Setback Line.”
Attachment 4 B -4
Subsection F., referenced above, contains the standards for developing within the Willamette
Greenway.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 4 B -5
Tasks Target
Dates
Task
Completed
Task 1: Residential Buildable Lands Inventory (Work conducted internally by City Staff)
City Council directed DSD staff to begin an inventory and
analysis of Springfield’s residential land. (Goal Setting
Session)
December 5, 2005 PROJECT
INITIATION
Citizen Involvement Plan presented to CCI March 2, 2006 YES
Review work program with Planning Commission and
City Council March 6, 2006 YES
RLS Stakeholder Committee recruitment March 30, 2006 YES
Stakeholder Committee meetings #1‐2 to review the
definitions/assumptions for “vacant, underutilized, and
redevelopable,” and to define constraints that would
make land “unbuildable.”
May 11th, 2006 YES
Review definitions and assumptions with Planning
Commission June , 2006 YES
Review definitions and assumptions with City Council June 12, 2006 YES
Conduct initial inventory work:
Identify vacant, underutilized, and redevelopable
land
Identify environmentally constrained lands
Identify land with public facility constraints
May 2006 –
December 2006
YES
ECONorthwest hired in October 2006 to begin Phase 2 (see below) Housing Needs Analysis
Task 2: Residential Land & Housing Needs Analysis (Work conducted by City’s consultant
ECONorthwest and City staff)
Coordinate with City Staff to determine the actual
density/mix of housing
October 2006 –
December 2006 YES
Stakeholder Committee meeting #3 to review the
population definitions/assumptions for population
projections and anticipated housing trends
January 18th, 2007 YES
Conduct a Housing Needs Analysis January 2007 –
August 2009 YES
Springfield Residential Lands Study
Summary of Planning Process
Attachment 4 B -6
Stakeholder Committee meeting #4 to review the initial
housing inventory & needs findings. March 8, 2007 YES
Compare the needed housing density and mix with the
actual density and mix.
January 2007 –
March 2007 YES
Stakeholders Committee Meeting #5 to review the Draft
Report. April 16, 2007 YES
Present RLS Draft Technical Memorandum to City Council
for review. Includes modifications made in the draft
report between April 07 and October 07 due to project
delay from HB 3337; and new spatially adjusted GIS data
which impacted the inventory numbers.)
October 22, 2007 YES
Present RLS Draft Technical Memorandum to Planning
Commission for review November 6, 2007 YES
Present Land Use Efficiency Measures work program December 11,
2007 YES
Send Land Use Efficiency Measures info packet to
Stakeholder Committee, conduct on‐line survey and post
potential measures on planning website
January 7‐21, 2008 YES
Stakeholder Committee meeting #6 to review survey
results January 31, 2008 YES
Review Land Use Efficiency Measures survey results with
Planning Commission February 20, 2008 YES
Stakeholder Committee meeting #7 to review survey
results and finalize committee recommendations February 28, 2008 YES
Identify and evaluate potential measures to increase the
likelihood that needed residential development will occur
(Land Use Efficiency Measures). Present Stakeholder
recommendation to Planning Commission and City
Council
March 18, 2008
(PC)
April 13, 2008 (CC)
YES
Task 3: Verification and Updating of Inventory (staff & ECO Northwest)
Inventory recalculation due to project hold
Two new inventory recalculations were
completed during this time as new inventory
maps were produced to verify accuracy of
spreadsheet information.
August 2007
August 2008 YES
Attachment 4 B -7
One additional inventory recalculation has been
completed to include steep slopes & floodplain
(per direction from DLCD)
Inventory was updated to July 2008
Coordinate adoption of Springfield population projection
with Lane County 2007‐ October
2009
YES
Task 4: Revised Residential Land & Housing Needs Analysis, Integration of RLS with CIBL /
Goal 14 Analysis & Preliminary Policy Development
Public open houses to present the revised findings of the
RLS and preliminary determination of need and to get
input on proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures
including increasing density in mixed‐use nodes and
transit corridors.
April 2, 2009
May 14 & 20, 2009
YES
Produce revised inventory map
April 2009
YES
Recalculate Needs Analysis in response to updated
inventory & population projection.
May‐June 2009
YES
Present RLS findings to Planning Commission for review
and get input on proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures
April 16 & June 2,
2009 YES
Present RLS findings to City Council for review and get
input on proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures April 13, 2009 YES
Incorporate RLS findings into Goal 14 Alternatives
Analysis
April – June 2009 YES
Present revised RLS findings and preliminary UGB
concepts at CIBL Stakeholder Meeting June 11, 2009 YES
Planning Commission Work Session – Present revised RLS
findings and get input on Land Use Efficiency Measures to
provide needed housing density & mix
June 2, 2009
YES
Present draft RLS findings, proposed Land Use Efficiency
Measures and preliminary UGB concepts at public open
July 16, 2009 YES
Attachment 4 B -8
houses August 12, 2009
Reconvene Stakeholder Committee and multifamily
housing developers at Planning Commission work session
to review the housing inventory & needs findings and
gather input on proposed Land Use Efficiency Measures
implementation actions including increasing density in
mixed‐use nodes and transit corridors. Consensus to
recommend increasing density in Glenwood Riverfront
District, Downtown and Gateway.
July 21, 2009 YES
Staff verified inventory to account for PAPAs not
documented in LCOG data August ‐ October YES
Send Residential Land & Housing Needs Analysis to
DLCD for review (45‐Day Notice of Proposed Adoption) September 3, 2009 YES
Prepare addendum to RLS report if necessary to correct
the inventory October 12, 2009 YES
Planning Commission Public Hearing for
review/adoption of Residential Land & Housing Needs
Analysis – first reading
October 20, 2009 YES
City Council conducts Public Hearing for
review/adoption – second reading
November 16,
2009 YES
City Council conducts Public Hearing for
review/adoption – Nov. 16th hearing was continued to
allow additional time for consideration of refinements
to constraints data.
December 7, 2009 YES
City Council adopts draft Springfield Residential Land &
Housing Needs Analysis by resolution: A RESOLUTION
OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING THE 2009 PRELIMINARY
SPRINGFIELD RESIDENTIAL LAND AND HOUSING NEEDS
ANALYSIS, FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO
"COMPLETE" THE PRELIMINARY INVENTORY, ANALYSIS
AND DETERMINATION BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2010.
December 7, 2009 YES
9 Milestone: Completed City’s obligation to make the determination of buildable land
sufficiency by December 31, 2009. Through adoption of the draft Springfield
Residential Land & Housing Needs Analysis the City determined the number and type
(e.g. single family and multi‐family) of housing units needed to house the projected
population residing within Springfield's jurisdictional share of the area subject to the
Attachment 4 B -9
Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area, consistent with requirements of HB 3337, Goal
14, ORS 197.296, and OAR 660‐008.
Task 5: Prepare Metro Plan Amendment – Draft
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land &
Housing Element Policy Development
December 31,
2009 YES
Prepare Draft Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Residential Element (plan policies). Oct‐Dec 2009 YES
Prepare Draft Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Diagram
(plan designations and overlays) and UGB map. October 30, 2009 YES
Submit Draft Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Metro
Plan amendment to DLCD including Springfield
Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis and
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land and
Housing Element policies.
December 31,
2009 YES
Task 6: Refine Springfield 2030 Plan policies and
determine the effect of implementation of new policies
and designations on the land supply and UGB
Alternatives Analysis
December 2009 –
February 2011 YES
Mail and publish notice and conduct public open houses
on Draft Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan including
Springfield Residential Land & Housing Needs Analysis,
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land and
Housing Element policies and Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary tax lot specific map.
February 3 and 4,
2010 YES
Conduct public hearings (Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commissions,) on adoption of Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan including Springfield Residential Land
& Housing Needs Analysis, Springfield 2030 Refinement
Plan Residential Land and Housing Element policies and
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary tax lot specific map.
February – May
2010 YES
Revise Springfield Residential Land & Housing Needs
Analysis, Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential
Land and Housing Element policies to address and
respond to testimony.
May 2010‐ January
2011 YES
Conduct work sessions with City Council and Board of February 7, 2011 YES
Attachment 4 B -10
Commissioners February 22, 2011
Send revised Notice of Amendment to DLCD February 18, 2011 YES
Mail and publish notice to parties of record and conduct
public open house March 16, 2011 YES
City Council and Board of Commissioners conduct public
hearing(s) on adoption of Springfield Residential Land &
Housing Needs Analysis, Springfield 2030 Refinement
Plan Residential Land and Housing Element policies and
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary tax lot specific map.
April 4, 2011,
May 16, 2011
YES
City adopts ordinance June 20, 2011 YES
County adopts ordinance July 6, 2011 YES
11
Attachment 4 B -11
18 October 2011
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Roxi J. Thoren
R
e: Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District
For the past two years, Steve Ramseur and I have been the co‐chairs of the Glenwood Citizens’ Advisory Committee
(CAC), working with the City of Springfield Development Services Department on changes to the Glenwood Refinement
Plan and the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District. While the recommendations of the CAC have been
forwarded to the Planning Commission, and are available in detail, the CAC also wanted the co‐chairs to submit a letter
of support on behalf of the entire CAC for both proposals as they move forward.
Committee Composition and Process
Over the course of nearly two years, the CAC has had public meetings approximately monthly. The CAC consists of
residents, property owners, employees, and neighbors of the Glenwood area, as well as local urban planning and
development experts, and other interested citizens. Citizens joined the CAC through an open application process, and
the CAC sought to represent all communities impacted by this significant land use decision process.
Our meetings progressed through several major stages:
‐Review of the Refinement Plan process and need for updates
‐Existing conditions analysis
‐Developing a community vision
‐Reviewing proposed documents prepared by city staff
In addition to the full CAC meetings, we also held smaller meetings of members with expertise or interest in a particular
topic, to review first draft documents prior to full CAC discussion. These meetings were open to all members of the CAC,
and the group reported back to the full CAC the content of the discussion and recommended edits, prior to discussions
of the revised draft documents.
Discussions were open and lively. The many voices of the community were present and heard, and the process identified
shared goals, resolved most concerns, and identified areas where it was clear that citizens alone would not reach
consensus. Of note was the strong and common belief that the Willamette River and its linked functions – stormwater
management, wildlife habitat, recreational open space – were valuable resources that must be protected and made
visible and accessible to the community.
Committee Recommendations
The CAC had majority approvals for all but one of the proposals included in the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan and
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District.
The only area where the proposed plan did not receive majority support was in the Land Use and Built Form chapter,
where all members opposed to the proposal felt the minimum density (50 DUA) was too high.
All other proposals, of 30 total (including the Land Use proposal), relating to Transportation, Open Space, Housing &
Economic Development, Public Facilities & Services, Financing Public Infrastructure, Urban Transition and Annexation,
Historic & Cultural Resources, and moving the plan to the Planning Commission, received majority support. Of those 29
approved, 14 were unanimous votes of support, and 7 had only one vote against.
This is a testament to the openness of the process, as not all members of the committee initially agreed with all aspects
of draft documents. The CAC and Springfield city staff worked together diligently and productively to create a document
that the CAC feels best resolves the many demands on this neighborhood, which is an important community resource.
We look forward to seeing the best aspects of Glenwood strengthened, and seeing development occur in a way that
improves Springfield for all its citizens.
Sincerely,
Roxi Thoren
Attachment 5 A -1
1
ATTACHMENT 5
Response to Roxie Thoren Correspondence Dated October 18, 2011
Roxie Thoren
“18 October 2011
To: Springfield Planning Commission
From: Roxi J. Thoren
Re: Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District
For the past two years, Steve Ramseur and I have been the co‐chairs of the Glenwood Citizens’ Advisory
Committee (CAC), working with the City of Springfield Development Services Department on changes to
the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District. While the
recommendations of the CAC have been forwarded to the Planning Commission, and are available in
detail, the CAC also wanted the co‐chairs to submit a letter of support on behalf of the entire CAC for
both proposals as they move forward.
Committee Composition and Process
Over the course of nearly two years, the CAC has had public meetings approximately monthly. The CAC
consists of residents, property owners, employees, and neighbors of the Glenwood area, as well as local
urban planning and development experts, and other interested citizens. Citizens joined the CAC through
an open application process, and the CAC sought to represent all communities impacted by this
significant land use decision process.
Our meetings progressed through several major stages:
‐Review of the Refinement Plan process and need for updates
‐Existing conditions analysis
‐Developing a community vision
‐Reviewing proposed documents prepared by city staff
In addition to the full CAC meetings, we also held smaller meetings of members with expertise or interest
in a particular topic, to review first draft documents prior to full CAC discussion. These meetings were
open to all members of the CAC, and the group reported back to the full CAC the content of the
discussion and recommended edits, prior to discussions of the revised draft documents.
Discussions were open and lively. The many voices of the community were present and heard, and the
process identified shared goals, resolved most concerns, and identified areas where it was clear that
citizens alone would not reach consensus. Of note was the strong and common belief that the Willamette
River and its linked functions – stormwater management, wildlife habitat, recreational open space –
were valuable resources that must be protected and made visible and accessible to the community.
Committee Recommendations
The CAC had majority approvals for all but one of the proposals included in the Phase I Glenwood
Refinement Plan and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District.
The only area where the proposed plan did not receive majority support was in the Land Use and Built
Form chapter, where all members opposed to the proposal felt the minimum density (50 DUA) was too
high.
All other proposals, of 30 total (including the Land Use proposal), relating to Transportation, Open Space,
Housing & Economic Development, Public Facilities & Services, Financing Public Infrastructure, Urban
Attachment 5 B -1
2
Transition and Annexation, Historic & Cultural Resources, and moving the plan to the Planning
Commission, received majority support. Of those 29 approved, 14 were unanimous votes of support, and
7 had only one vote against.
This is a testament to the openness of the process, as not all members of the committee initially agreed
with all aspects of draft documents. The CAC and Springfield city staff worked together diligently and
productively to create a document that the CAC feels best resolves the many demands on this
neighborhood, which is an important community resource. We look forward to seeing the best aspects of
Glenwood strengthened, and seeing development occur in a way that improves Springfield for all its
citizens.
Sincerely,
Roxi Thoren”
Staff Response
With regard to the CAC vote on the Land Use and Built Form Chapter please refer to Attachment 7, Page
1. The 6‐8 vote is deceiving because while the CAC did agree to forward the Chapter to the PC, there
were a number of CAC members who had concerns about the proposed minimum density of 50 dwelling
units per net acre in Subareas A and B. Staff stated that this issue would be forwarded to the Planning
Commission at their public hearing. Since that time, at the suggestion of a developer who reviewed the
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District, staff modified the minimum density standard to a
reduction in the 50 dwelling unit per net are standard if the total average density of 50 dwelling units
per net acre for the minimum 5 acre or larger development area is a condition of either Site Plan Review
or Master Plan approval. Note: Staff has revised this standard as discussed in Attachment 1, Page 5.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed here, but there is a proposed amendment to the
reduction of the 50 dwelling unit per net acre standard discussed in Attachment 1, Page 5.
Attachment 5 B -2
1
ATTACHMENT 6
Response to Questions Raised by Lane County Planning Commissioner Lisa Arkin on October 18, 2011
Commissioner Arkin
1. Is the proposed concurrent 75 foot riparian/Willamette Greenway wide enough?
2. How does the Glenwood Refinement Plan accommodate wildlife?
3. Commissioner Arkin requested a Soils Map
Staff Response
As part of the Glenwood Refinement Plan Update, LCOG and the consulting firm, Pacific Habitat
Services, completed inventory work in February 2010. Three new riparian and sites in Glenwood were
added to the NRI; and updated information for existing Glenwood wetland and riparian sites were
adopted in February 2011 (LRP2010‐00002). There were no changes to the established NRS setbacks
discussed below and they apply to the new wetlands and riparian area modifications. Compliance with
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660‐016‐0005 and 660‐023‐0040 Economic, Social, Environmental
and Energy (ESEE) consequences and the amount of inventoried vacant land affected by the additional
wetlands and riparian modifications were addressed in the staff report in the above referenced
application. In order for the City to incorporate the identified riparian areas identified into the City’s
existing Natural Resource Inventory (NRI), it was determined that an additional wildlife assessment was
required See Pages 7‐10). This assessment was prepared and adopted concurrently with the updated
NRI.
Riparian Corridors
The Springfield Development Code (SDC), Chapter 6, defines riparian areas as: “a zone of transition from
an aquatic to a terrestrial system, dependent upon surface or subsurface water that reveals through the
zones existing or potential soil‐vegetation complex the influence of the surface or sub‐surface water. A
riparian area may be located adjacent to a lake, reservoir, estuary, spring, bog, wet meadow, slough, or
ephemeral, intermittent or perennial stream. Riparian areas protected under this Code are limited to
those along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) map”. This
definition is consistent with the “Riparian Area” definition in Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660‐023‐
090.
In 2002, as part of the Stormwater Management Program, the City amended the SDC to address the
protection and enhancement of river corridor and waterway environments for endangered fish and
water quality under Statewide Planning Goal 6 in order to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act, the
Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The applicable riparian setbacks in Springfield
in general, and in Glenwood specifically, are 75 feet measured from the top of bank along the
Willamette River frontage (as part of Glenwood Phase 1, staff is proposing to make the riparian setback
and the Willamette Greenway Setback Line coincident), and 50 feet measured from the top of bank
along the four Glenwood watercourses shown on the WQLW Map referenced in SDC Section 4.3‐115.
These watercourses are: Glenwood North; Glenwood Slough; East 19th Avenue Channel; and
Riverview‐Augusta Channel. The 2002 SDC amendments did not implement Goal 5. The regulations
included only measures required to maintain and improve water quality implementing Goal 6 and
responding to the federal laws listed above. To the extent that implementation of Goal 6 necessarily
affects areas that are included in the Goal 5 natural resources inventory that was adopted and
acknowledged as part of the 1983 Metropolitan Area General Plan “working papers,” the SDC
amendments conformed to and complied with all Goal 5 requirements.
Attachment 6-1
Locally significant riparian areas identified on the Springfield Inventory of Natural Resource Sites (SINRS)
that are not shown on the WQLW Map are protected by a 25‐foot wide setback, also measured from the
top of bank. Compliance with these standards is required at the time of development or redevelopment
as specified in SDC Section 4.3‐115 and 4.3‐117. These riparian regulations also limit the type of
development and require the planting of native species within the required setback. No substantive
changes are proposed to the riparian corridor standards currently contained in the SDC as part of
Glenwood Phase 1. Since the riparian corridor regulations were implemented after the current
Glenwood Refinement Plan was adopted by Springfield in 1999, there is no mention of these regulations
in the existing document. However, the regulated riparian setbacks adopted in 2002 are now discussed
in the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Open Space Chapter and in the proposed Glenwood
Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District (SDC Section 3.4‐280). The maps below show that riparian area S‐26
adds 1.56 acres requiring a 50 foot setback and riparian areas S‐27 and S‐28 add a total of 1.06 acres
requiring a 25 foot setback. Only .73 acres of riparian area are being added to the total amount of
acreage in Glenwood Phase 1. A total of 2.62 acres of riparian acres have been added to the existing 186
acres of riparian acre in all of Glenwood. All new development/ redevelopment in Glenwood Phase 1, as
well as the rest of Glenwood will require compliance with the riparian policies and implementation
actions in the updated Glenwood Refinement Plan and the current and amended standards contained in
the SDC. Currently, Springfield does not have adopted standards regarding new/ replacement riparian
landscaping. However, the intent is to adopt these standards in the Springfield Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures manual by resolution either concurrent with or shortly after the Glenwood
Phase 1 adoption.
Glenwood Riparian Sites (from the 2010 Pacific Habitat Study)
Site ID
S‐25
(Formerly E‐39)
12.30 Acres
Setback
Protection
Existing
50‐ft. setback
1 9 T H
22NDGLENWOOD BLVDNUGGETBROOKLYNNEW
MANMISSISSIPPIHENDERSONCONCORDSENECALEXINGTON16THI-518TH
I-5 OFFRAMP CONCORD18TH
HENDERSON17TH
14TH
I-5 OFFRAMP17THI-521ST
FRANKLIN BLVD.
S-26(RGS-2)
S-26(RGS-2)
S-26(RGS-2)
S-25
(RGS-3)
S-25
(RGS-4)
S-25
(RGS-5)S-25
(RGS-7)
S-27(RGS-9)
S-25
(RGS-1)
Judkins Rd.
Willamette River
2
Other Riparian AreasS-25 SetbackS-25Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
Attachment 6-2
Site ID
S‐26 (New)
1.56 Acres
Setback
Protection
Existing
50‐ft. setback
Site ID
S‐27 (New)
.33 Acres
Recommended
25‐ft. setback
3
19 TH
22NDGLENWOOD BLVDLAUREL HILLNUGGET24TH
NEW
MA
NMISSISSIPPIHENDERSON16TH
25TH
I
-518TH
I-5 OFFRAMP CONCORD18TH
HENDERSON17TH
I-5 OFFRAMP17TH
25TH
21ST
S-26
(RGS-2)
S-26(RGS-2)
S-26(RGS-2)
S-25(RGS-3)
S-25(RGS-4)
S-25(RGS-5)S-25(RGS-7)
S-27
(RGS-9)
Judkins Rd.
Other Riparian AreasS-27 Setback
S-27Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Fee
22NDGLENWOOD BLVDMISSISSIPPIHENDERSONSENECALEXINGTON16TH
I
-518TH
I-5 OFFRAMP
18TH
HENDERSON17TH
14TH
I
-5 OFFRAMP17THI-C521ST
FRANKLIN BLVD.
S-26(RGS-2)
S-26(RGS-2)
S-26
(RGS-2)
S-25
(RGS-3)
S-25(RGS-4)
S-25(RGS-5)S-25
(RGS-7)
S-27(RGS-9)
S-25(RGS-1)
Judkins Rd.
Willamette
Other Riparian AreasS-26 SetbackS-26Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Fee
Attachment 6-3
Site ID
S‐28 (New)
.73 Acres
Recommended
25‐ft. setback
4
Wetland Areas
Springfield Development Code (SDC), Chapter 6. defines wetlands as “Areas inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances to support, a prevalence of hydophitic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands include swamps, marches, bogs, and similar areas excluding those constructed
as water quality or quantity control facilities.” This definition is consistent with the “Wetlands”
definition in OAR 660‐023‐200.
In 2005, the City adopted regulations amending the Springfield Development Code regarding the
protection of riparian areas not protected under the riparian regulations discussed above and for
wetlands that included Glenwood. An ESEE Analysis was conducted as part of that work which was an
element of the Metro Plan Periodic Review Work Program begun in 2002. The protective setback for
both wetlands and riparian areas that are not shown on Springfield’s Water Quality Limited Waterways
(WQLW) Map is 25 feet, measured from the top of bank. Compliance with these standards is required at
the time of development/redevelopment. Except for limited expansion of existing uses, all new
development/redevelopment in Glenwood will require annexation to the City. All new
development/redevelopment will require compliance with the riparian standards contained in the SDC.
The regulated wetlands setbacks adopted in 2002 are discussed in the Open Space Chapter of the
amended Glenwood Refinement Plan and in the amended Glenwood Riverfront Plan District (SDC
Section 3.4‐200). The maps below show that wetland areas W‐21 adds .47 acres, W‐22 adds 2.53 acres
and W‐23 adds .87 acres requiring a 50 foot setback and riparian areas and W‐24 adds .51 acres
requiring a 25 foot setback. All new development/redevelopment in Glenwood Phase 1, as well as the
rest of Glenwood will require compliance with the wetland policies and implementation actions in the
updated Glenwood Refinement Plan and the current and amended standards contained in the SDC.
The diagrams below show the location of the Glenwood wetland sites that were included in the Natural
Resource Inventory, Wetland Inventory and the Natural Resource Study by these amendments.
Glenwood Riparian Sites HARBOR4TH
INLANDDORRIS
McVey Hwy.I-5Willamette RiverS-28R-WR-6
Other Riparian AreasS-28 Setback
S-28Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
Attachment 6-4
5
Site ID
‐20
cres
Setback
Protections
xisting
back
W
3.73 A
E
50‐ft. set
Site ID
‐21
s
Setback
Protections
xisting
back
W
(New)
.47 Acre
E
50‐ft. set
W-22(GS-2)
W-21(GS-1)
W-23(GS-4)
E 19th AveGlenwood BlvdJudkins R
d
E22ndAve
E 17th Ave
E 14th Ave
Ave
E 21st Ave
E 15
Franklin Blvd
I-5W-20
(GS-3)
W-20
(GS-3)
Willamette Riv er
Other Significant WetlandsW-20 SetbackW-20Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
W-22(GS-2)
W-21
(GS-1)
W-23
(GS-4)Glenwood BlvdSylvan StJudkins R
d
E 17th Ave
E 14th Ave
E 16th Ave
I-5 Onramp
Fr anklin Blvd
I-5W-20(GS-3)
W-20
(GS-3)
Willamet te River
Other Significant Wetlands
W-21 Setback
W-21
Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
Attachment 6-5
Site ID
W‐22
(New)
2.53 Acres
Setback
Protections
Existing
50‐ft. setback
Site ID
W‐23
(New)
.87 Acres
Setback
Protection
Existing
50‐ft. setback
6
W-22
(GS-2)
W-21(GS-1)
W-23
(GS-4)
E 19th AveGlenwood BlvdJudkins R
d
E22ndAve
E 17th Ave
E 14th Ave
Ave
E 21st Ave
E 15
Franklin Blvd
I
-5W-20(GS-3)
W-20(GS-3)
Willamette Riv e r
Other Significant WetlandsW-23 SetbackW-23Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
W-22
(GS-2)
W-21(GS-1)
W-23(GS-4)
E 19th AveGlenwood BlvdJudkins R
d
E 17th Ave
E 14th Ave
E 21st Ave
E 15th
Franklin Blv d
I
-5W-20(GS-3)
W-20
(GS-3)
W illam ette River
Other Significant Wetlands
W-22 SetbackW-22
Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
Attachment 6-6
Site ID
W‐24
(New)
.51 Acres
Recommended
25‐ft. setback
Dorris SDorris St
7
Wildlife Habitat
In 2004, Salix Associates prepared a report for Springfield regarding the location of a Greenway Setback
Line for the full reach of Willamette River frontage in Glenwood from the I‐5 Bridge to the southern tip
of Glenwood. This report listed the significant native fish, wildlife and vegetation in this area of
Glenwood.
As part of the 2010 LCOG wetland and riparian inventory for Glenwood, Pacific Habitat Service
determined additional work was required In order for Springfield to incorporate the identified riparian
areas into the City’s existing Natural Resource Inventory (NRI). The additional work was performed by
City staff using Wildlife Habitat Inventory Methodology and Inventory Requirements listed in the
Springfield Natural Resource Study Report 2005. Glenwood has some identified wildlife habitats, the
Willamette River and sloughs with salmonids and other fish species protected by the riparian regulations
discussed above and areas of prominent and plentiful vegetation on Glenwood's south hills, along the
sloughs and to a lesser extent along the Willamette River.
A required step of Statewide Land Use Goal 5 is to determine if a site is significant or not significant.
Springfield chose to adopt a two‐tiered approach for determining the significance of sites. Tier 1 and
Tier 2 criteria are described in detail in the report. However, the two tables and a map are included
below. The 2010 wildlife assessment performed by the City was adopted concurrently with the updated
NRI (LRP2010‐00002).
PHS Tier 1 Significance Criteria Existing Comment McVay HwyI-5 W-24
(W-R7)Harbor DrInland WayI
-5 Onr
ampWillamette RiverOther Significant WetlandsW-24 SetbackW-24Taxlots
300 0 300 600 Feet
Attachment 6-7
Riparian
Site
Name
Inventory
NRI
1
NWI
2
LWI
3
Fish
4
UDNA
5 TES‐
P
6 TES‐
A
7
Other
R‐GS‐1 X X E39 T2 needed east
section
R‐GS‐2 X X T2 – split system
R‐GS‐3 X X E39 Existing protection
R‐GS‐4 X X E39 Existing protection
R‐GS‐5 X T2
R‐GS‐6 X T2
R‐GS‐7 X E39 T2 needed SE
section
R‐GS‐8 Did not meet T1
R‐GS‐9 ? X ESD staff bumped
to T2
R‐WR‐1 X X WA/WB Existing protection
R‐WR‐2 X X WA/WB Existing protection
R‐WR‐3 X X WA/WB Existing protection
R‐WR‐4 X X WA/WB Existing protection
R‐WR‐5 X X WA/WB Existing protection
R‐WR‐6 X T2
Table 1 – Tier 1 Significance Criteria Evaluation Table
Results
The seven riparian areas identified as Tier 2 Wildlife Habitat include some areas with existing protection
from the Springfield Natural Resource boundaries of E39. Therefore, these areas were not subject to
reevaluation.
Site areas adjoining E39 were evaluated and compared to the existing E39 site descriptions and habitat.
Some of the adjoining sites were split into separate evaluation areas based on their proximity. For
example: R‐GS‐7 has existing protection in the middle of the riparian area from E‐39 but the west and
east ends required an evaluation for T2 criteria. Therefore R‐GS‐7 was split into evaluation areas “A”
8
Attachment 6-8
9
and “B”. All of the adjoining sites were similar in nature and can be easily absorbed into the existing
protection of E39.
Sites not adjoining any existing resource area were subject to a full walk through, with the exception of
R‐WR‐6, which could not be accessed, although this site was easily visible from the public right‐of‐way.
Results are listed in Table 2 below. It is recommended that three additional resource sites be added to
Springfield’s Natural Resource Inventory, and that three adjoining sites be incorporated into the existing
E39 boundaries. One site did not meet T2 criteria and needs no action taken.
It is also recommended that the existing E39 boundaries and Water Quality Limited Waterway layers
have been updated and shifted, new aerial photos are available and property has been developed,
which leave some current boundaries unclear and not well defined.
Table 2 – Tier 2 Significance Criteria Score Table Results
Site WHA
Score
T2 criteria
met
Comments
R‐GS‐1 22 Yes Incorporate into existing E39 protection
R‐GS‐2A 57 Yes New riparian resource area
R‐GS‐2B 17 Yes Restoration work will improve area and allow it to be incorporated
into E39
R‐GS‐5 34 Yes Incorporate into existing E39 protection
R‐GS‐6 15 No
R‐GS‐7E 61 Yes Incorporate into existing E39 protection
R‐GS‐7W 42 Yes Incorporate into existing E39 protection
R‐GS‐9 45 Yes ESD staff bumped this site to T2 evaluation level; site is highly
disturbed on the top of bank on the south end, the riparian area
appears to be in its natural state, has continuity with a water
feature and mixture of native and non native veg. This area did pass
the T2 significance criteria. – New riparian resource area
R‐WR‐6 61 Yes New riparian resource area
Attachment 6-9
10
Attachment 6-10
Soils
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
maintains mapping of the various types and classes of soils around the country and within Lane County.
Within the Glenwood area, the NRCS has identified 17 soil types as depicted on the following map:
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
11
Attachment 6-11
ATTACHMENT 7
Response to Citizen Comments James Yarnell October 18, 2001
James Yarnell ‐ Dam Safety
Staff Response
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates thirteen Willamette Valley dams for flood damage
reduction. The Corps conducts safety inspections of the dams and has indicated that all of their
Willamette Valley dams meet seismic standards and flood standards, with a resulting low probability of
dam failure. The cities of Eugene and Springfield adopted the Eugene/Springfield Multi‐Jurisdictional
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan in 2009. The Plan provides a discussion of the risks and vulnerabilities
to both cities from the upstream dams, as well as measures for mitigating those risks and vulnerabilities.
The Plan is available on the web at: http://www.springfield‐or.gov/documents/NHMP09.pdf
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 7-1
Minutes approved by:
Springfield Planning Commission:
Lane County Planning Commission:
M I N U T E S
L
Joint Meeting
ane
Spr
County Planning Commission
ingfie mission
Harris Hall—125 East 8th Avenue
ld Planning Com
Eugene, Oregon
18, 2011
October
7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: pringfield Planning Commissioners Johnny Kirschenmann, Chair, Denise Bean, Greg James,
S
Steve Moe, Stacey Salladay.
Springfield Staff: Greg Mott, Courtney Griesel, Mary Bridget Smith,.
Lane County Planning Commissioners Tony McCown, Chair; John Sullivan, Vice Chair; George
Goldstein, Lisa Arkin, Nancy Nichols, Ryan Sisson and Dennis Sandow.
er, Deanna Wright, Stephen Vorhes,.
Lane County Staff: Mark Rust, Kent Howe, Kier Mill
BSENT: le
ob
s
A Lane County Planning Commissioner Robert N
Springfield Planning Commissioner Frank Cros
Springfield Planning Commissioner Bob Brew
ane County Planning Commission Chair Tony McCown opened the Public Hearing for the Glenwood L
Refinement Plan.
pringfield Planning Commission Chair Johnny Kirschenmann opened the Public Hearing for the Glenwood
efinement Plan.
S
R
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None
SPRINGFIELD APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
• July 19, 2011 Joint Planning commission with Lane County and City of Eugene
• August 16.2011 Joint Planning Commission with Lane County and City of Eugene
Commissioner Bean motioned to approve then July 19 and August 16, 2011 minutes as written; Seconded by
Commissioner James. 5:0:2 absent
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING:
a. Amendment of: Eugene‐Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) diagram
(TYP411‐00009/PA 11‐5489); Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram and Text (TYP411‐00005/PA
1‐5489); Springfield Zoning Map (TYP311‐00001/PA11‐5489); and Springfield Development
ode Text (TYP411‐00007/PA11‐5489)
1
C
Attachment 8-1
Springfield Planner Gary Karp explained that the applications will: amend the Metropolitan Area Plan Diagram
to designate 122.9 acres of land to Mixed‐Use Nodal Development and 144.28 acres of land to Mixed‐Use;
amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram to designate 33.26 acres of land to Residential Mixed‐Use, 14.5
acres of land to Commercial Mixed‐Use, 46.33 acres of land to Office Mixed‐Use, 133.60 acres of land to
Employment Mixed‐Use and amend Plan Text; amend the Springfield Zoning Map to zone the same numbers of
acres and the same mixed use zoning because the zoning and Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram are going to
be the same; and amend the Springfield Development Code sections 3.4‐200 to 280, the Glenwood Riverfront
ixed‐Use Plan District, and several other sections of the Springfield Development Code that need to be M
adopted either as housekeeping or in relation to this proposal.
ary Karp asked that the Planning Commissioners direct their questions to staff, and proceed with the Public G
Hearing.
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann opened the public hearing, and asked for the staff report. Gary
entered the Staff report, all 524 pages, into the public record, as well as written correspondence from citizens.
Springfield Planning Manager Greg Mott explained that staff will need additional time to evaluate the written
orrespondence. Gary Karp reminded the Commissioners that they will need to decide when the Lane County c
and Springfield Planning Commissions can meet again to review staff’s comments.
Lane County Commissioner McCown asked what process the Commissioners wanted to follow: do they want to
llow 3 minutes for testimony and allow for questions and responses from the Commissioners? With the a
Legislative Hearing there is some flexibility in what they may choose to allow.
Greg Mott explained that the normal procedures for legislative hearings in Springfield is to provide 3 minutes
for testimony and if the Planning Commission members have questions, that time does not count against the
citizens’ 3 minutes. If there are many citizens who want to testify, then we would ask those wanting to speak if
they represent a certain point of view and if that point of view has been expressed previously, they can come
to the podium and say that they support comments that were presented earlier. Greg Mott commented that
his is not the case tonight, only 6 citizens have filled out to speak cards, so normal operating procedures will t
be sufficient for tonight.
Lane County Planner Mark Rust explained that the Lane County Planning Application File number, PA11‐5489,
ncludes all of the Springfield file numbers associated with this project and Lane County is relying on i
Springfield’s record that includes the submitted staff report and findings.
Greg Mott added that for those who were not in attendance at the earlier work session, the Planning
Commissions’ role in these proceedings is to develop a record on the proposals, listen to testimony, consider
the testimony and then when finished, forward a recommendation to the Lane County Board of Commissioners
and Springfield City Council. These two bodies will conduct another joint public hearing at some future date,
and will listen to any additional testimony that citizens want to provide. If you do not get the opportunity to
testify at this time you can do it at that time, or if you want to introduce new evidence you can also do it at that
ime. Staff will notify anyone who signed speaker card of any subsequent hearings by direct mail, otherwise t
you will need to follow the newspapers to see when the next hearings will be conducted.
Also, given the significance and importance of these proposals, staff has received written testimony with
respect to a number of provisions that are included in the packet before the Planning Commissions. Staff
cannot respond to this testimony tonight, nor have the Planning Commissions had the opportunity to review
this written testimony and generate their own questions. The Planning Commissions will not be finished with
Attachment 8-2
this proceeding tonight. Greg Mott added that he is not sure that staff can provide a date tonight of when the
Planning Commissions will reconvene, provide a date or how long the Planning Commissions will chose to keep
the record open, or even continue this public hearing. Greg Mott assured the audience that the Planning
ommissions will not be making a decision tonight we will have to wait and see how the testimony unfolds to
igure out where we go from here.
C
f
TESTIMONY FOR AND AGAINST:
• Roxi Thoren: 2984 Capital Drive; Eugene, Oregon 97401; Written Testimony Submitted
Ms. Thoren stated she is here representing the Glenwood Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) as one of the
co‐chairs, along with Steve Ramser. Ms. Thoren reminded the Commissioners that they have her written
testimony in front of them. Ms. Thoren read a portion of her letter to the Commissioners and audience, to
have it as part of the conversation tonight and asked if the Commissioners wanted to respond. Ms. Thoren
thanked Springfield staff and the members of the Glenwood CAC for what she believes has been 2 ½ years
roductive work.
of p
Ms. Thoren stated that the Glenwood CAC had majority approvals for all but one of the proposals included
in the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District. The only area
where the proposed Plan did not receive majority support was in the Land Use and Built Form Chapter,
where the eight members who were opposed to the proposal felt that the minimum density of 50 dwelling
units per net acre was too high. All other proposals, 29 out of 30 total received majority support; of those
14 were unanimous votes of support, and 7 only had 1 vote against.
Ms. Thoren stated that this was a tribute to how diligently staff and the CAC worked together; it was an
open process. While not all CAC members may have agreed to a first draft, the CAC worked through
multiple drafts and chapters. The CAC and staff worked very hard together and productively to produce a
document that the CAC feels best reflects the many demands on this neighborhood, which everyone agrees
is a very important resource.
•Rick Satre: 1326 Wimbledon Place; Springfield, Oregon 97477 541 .686.4540
Mr. Satre stated he was speaking for himself tonight. He said he has been both a Springfield resident and
has been practicing Land Use Planning and Landscape architecture for the last 30 years. Mr. Satre went on
to say that he has been a long time fan of Springfield ‐ and of Glenwood, which has been referred to as a
“Diamond in the Rough”. Mr. Satre added that Glenwood is a real sleeper, for those who have courage and
vision particularly along the Franklin Boulevard Riverfront, its a dynamite place. There really is nothing in
the Eugene/Springfield Metro area that is more centrally located and contains as many attributes.
Glenwood has a lot of history, employment, places to live, culture, and also is a connection point of many
avenues of transportation. You can think back long and far enough to river transportation and remember
he Briggs Ferry crossing into Springfield. t
Mr. Satre stated that he is speaking in favor of the proposals before the Planning Commissions that includes
the draft Plan and all the associated materials, as seen in the work session tonight. Mr. Satre said there have
been a number of previous planning efforts for Glenwood, as one who has been monitoring and
occasionally getting involved in a number of these processes through the years. Mr. Satre stated that the
proposals before the Commissions tonight really are the best ones so far. Staff is to be commended and the
AC is to be thanked for the two plus years of diligently sticking with the project. C
Attachment 8-3
Mr. Satre stated that, as good as the Glenwood Refinement Plan is, the proposed Springfield Development
Code amendments are also very well crafted, but, he has three points, 1) To first recognize that the Franklin
Riverfront and the McVay Riverfronts are different. Obviously Franklin Boulevard is a direct link from
Downtown Eugene to Downtown Springfield. It has great potential for the proposed uses that are
suggested in the Plan. McVay Highway, on the other hand, is around the corner; if Franklin Boulevard is the
front door, then McVay Highway is the side door to the community, no less important, but nonetheless it’s
around the corner, especially the area south of the railroad trestle. This area is great for Industrial uses, a
mix of Industrial and Employment uses; 2) Reading the proposed Springfield Development Code one week
ago, and reading the package of materials that was distributed the last few days, Mr. Satre stated he would
encourage the Commissioners to accept the recommended changes that they have received from staff
because it explained clearly the flexibility regarding residential density. Mr. Satre added that 50 dwelling
units per net acre is not a high number. Mr. Satre stated that the Commissions have examples in the draft
Plan, examples in the hand‐out materials, and have seen examples tonight. Mr. Satre said as a planner and
designer all you have to do is pay attention to the details and use the many examples in the Eugene
Springfield community of even higher density that are great places to live and wonderful additions to the
community; 3) Mr. Satre stated that he would like the Commissions to consider recommendations for the
McVay Highway portion of the Plan, Subarea D; he wanted the Commissions to consider additional
flexibility with respect to the site standards and the building standards that are in the proposals. In
particular, Mr. Satre appreciated the fact that there where examples on the screen tonight of wonderful
buildings in Springfield’s Gateway Campus Industrial area. If the Commissions will note, every one of those
uses has parking in front of the building; staff is proposing no parking in the front of buildingsin Subarea D,
which is proposed to be Employment Mixed‐Use. Mr. Satre stated again, if you pay attention to the details,
esign, adequate setbacks, adequate landscape, adequate pedestrian consideration, there is nothing wrong d
with parking in front of the business.
Mr. Satre said that in the end, it’s all about success, finding a balance; flexibility as well as certainty is what
orks in the market place; a little more flexibility in some of the Springfield Development Code standards, w
along with certainty in terms of what is permitted and what he proposes.
ane County Commissioner Sullivan asked Mr. Satre if his presentation will be in written form and L
delivered to staff. Mr. Satre stated he agreed to have it to staff by the next working day.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan asked what the response was by the CAC or the TAC to Mr. Satre’s
suggestions. Mr. Satre responded that he doesn’t believe that his suggestions tonight have been made to
the CAC. Lane County Commissioner Sullivan asked if Mr. Satre’s suggestions are new found concerns. Mr.
Satre responded that he is speaking tonight as a planner and designer and he wanted to share with the
Commissions his professional opinion of what he is reading in the materials.
Joanie Armstead: 4017 E. 16th Avenue; Eugene, Oregon 97403 541.726.2158
Ms. Armstead stated that she has been a Glenwood resident for the last 16 years, and is a member of the
Glenwood CAC and a few other committees. Ms. Armstead said likes the Plan, is not a developer, doesn’t
write code, but lives in Glenwood, and would like to see a nice place where her property will be worth
more, can build, and feel like she can keep it a nice place. Ms. Armstead said she wants to be on the
Residential CAC (Glenwood Phase 2). Ms. Armstead likes the Plan because it will give Glenwood residents a
place they can shop, to socialize, and enjoy nature. Ms. Armstead concluded, if there is ever a question,
always give more credence to following the lay of the land in allowing places for birds to fly, people to ride
bicycles, walk, because as this world gets bigger, we are getting less of that.
•
Attachment 8-4
• James Yarnell: 632 W. “D” Street; Springfield, Oregon 97477 541.746.2278
Mr. Yarnell stated that he is 74 years old, has lived in this area for 70 years and is currently a member of the
Downtown CAC, which was originally DURAC. Mr. Yarnell said that he has seen a lot of things happen
including floods that devastated Glenwood and his concern is with the flood plain. Mr. Yarnell believes the
floodplain is under control with the dams that are in place. However, should something happen to the
dams by nature or at the hands of man it will release water that would be devastating to Glenwood, such
like the tsunami we are acquainted with now. Mr. Yarnell said there are agencies and individuals that can
respond to this type of weather. As the water comes cascading down, it comes through a channel and then
hits flat land. With proper preparation there could be berms that are designated as flood control areas that
have a tendency to spread the water over a large area and slow the velocity before it gets to Glenwood.
Certainly, that would be a major safety concern of the citizens of Glenwood, and a concern for the safety of
investments that are being made here. Mr. Yarnell stated that forewarned is forearmed; if there is a way to
end a recommendation to the proper agencies and individuals concerned with this topic, he strongly urges s
that the most appropriate language the Commissions can come up with to preplan for that event.
Lane County Commissioner Arkin asked, when looking at the map on the wall, she noticed that there is
lready a lot of open space along the McVay Highway side; does Mr. Yarnell think open space would be a
helpful to control floodwater and does Mr. Yarnell know if the land is arable land is good agricultural soils?
Mr. Yarnell responded that he doubts it, the history is that the entire green area that Commissioner Arkin is
looking at, was submerged by natural floodplain before the dams were built. The water also came into
Springfield and would flood downtown Springfield ‐ just from Mother Nature in her natural release of
snowmelt, water and continued rain. But we are not talking about that, we are talking about all those things
happening at once. It doesn’t matter what kind of ground it is, the water will not care. There is only one
rotection, and that is to try to do our best to divert that flow into other areas. People in these areas will p
have to understand that they are in a disaster zone and it is being used to protect lives.
Lane County Commissioner Goldstein asked staff if there is master flood plan for this area.
Ken Vogeney, Springfield City Engineer, responded that there is no master flood plan for the Glenwood area
related to failure of the dams. Mr. Vogeney referred the Commissioners to Linda Cook who is the Lane
County Emergency Manager for the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. For overall flood planning in
Springfield, staff looks at areas and opportunities to help mitigate hazards. For flood planning work, the
City s relies upon maps that were referred to earlier that are published through Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and the Corp of Engineers. These are the Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRM
Maps, and Floodplain studies. These Federal agencies prepare these maps for staff’s use. Springfield,
Eugene and Lane County all abide by these maps for their land‐use planning.
ane County Commissioner Goldstein suggested that staff utilizes due diligence in the construction of the L
Glenwood Plan.
Mr. Yarnell commended the work staff has done on the Glenwood Plan. Mr. Yarnell stated that he loves
every aspect of the Plan. Mr. Yarnell said that anything of any concern will receive due process and will be
taken care of to everybody’s satisfaction. Mr. Yarnell stated we can’t solve everything at once; it does take
time. Mr. Yarnell concluded by stating that he thoroughly endorses the work that has been done.
Attachment 8-5
• l Randy Hledik – on beha f of Wildish – PO Box 40310; Eugene, Oregon 97404 541.485.1700; Written
Testimony Submitted
Mr. Hledik stated that the Wildish Company owns more than 50 acres of property located on both the east
and west sides of McVay Highway, south of the Union Pacific Railroad trestle, in what is being designated as
Subarea D and planned for Employment Mixed‐Use Zoning. Since the early 1980’s Wildish has been
looking for uses that compliment the river frontage and enhance the McVay corridor in this important
gateway to Springfield. Wildish’s patience paid off a while ago when Franz Bakery relocated to the
ompany’s industrial park and for a while they were hopeful that McKenzie Willamette Hospital might c
relocate on their riverfront property.
Mr. Hledik stated that the Wildish Company knows from experience the redevelopment of the McVay
corridor is challenging. While much attention had been focused on planning for the redevelopment of
roperties along Franklin Boulevard, considerably less attention has been given to the McVay corridor. No p
public financial investments or physical improvements have been made here.
Mr. Hledik stated that the vision for Glenwood sets a high standard and their concern is that the expected
outcomes may be too difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. To assist Wildish in articulating these
concerns and suggesting how they might be addressed, they asked Rick Satre of the Shermer Satre group to
review the provisions of the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use District, and compare them to both
Springfield’s Light Medium Industrial zoning standards that currently apply, as well as to the standards of
he Campus Industrial zone that are representative of the type of development intended for these t
properties.
Mr. Hledik stated that Mr. Satre’s commentary, observation and suggestions have been provided to the
Planning staff and that Mr. Hledik submitted his own written comments to Planning staff. Mr. Hledik
equested that Mr. Satre’s suggestions be implemented, and that both Mr. Hledik and Mr. Satre are available r
to discuss them with Planning staff.
Mr. Hledik stated that additionally, until such time as public safety is better addressed in the area, it would
be appropriate to add a policy and implementation strategy to the Refinement Plan which acknowledges
the need to protect private property adjacent to area’s open to public access by providing security means
uch as fencing, gating, lighting or policing or by allowing public access only after connectivity between s
significant destination points is established.
Mr. Hledik and Wildish does support the improvement of McVay Highway as a Bus Rapid Transit Route.
his connection between Lane Community College and all points east and west along the Franklin T
Boulevard portion of the Emx system could be the catalyst for the redevelopment of the McVay corridor.
r. Hledik added that he hopes the Commissions receives his suggestions as constructive and appreciates M
the Planning Commissions consideration.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan asked if Mr. Hledik could clarify if the Commissioners have seen the
document provided tonight. Gary Karp responded that the Commissioners have not seen the materials
submitted.
Attachment 8-6
• Roger White – 24001 Balsam Court; Auburn, California 541.709.3677 (Rolf Family);
Written Testimony Submitted
r. White stated that he is a Land Development Consultant representing several property owners north of M
Franklin Boulevard and east of Roaring Rapids Pizza.
Mr. White said that he is in the process of assembling a team of professionals which includes architects,
land planners, engineers, and marketing staff that will evaluate how the land owners can analyze and
respond to the road network, the road sections, the park blocks, the public spaces, etc. Mr. White stated
hat he has been in communication with several staff members, who are delightful to work with and he t
believes that they have worked long and hard creating the vision.
Mr. White communicated that he has been in the land use business for 35 years. He started his career in
facilities and master planning, and knows how hard it is to, so to say, herd cats. Mr. White applauded staff’s
efforts since he understands how long it takes to work a process like this. Mr. White thinks that staff is also
anxious to do a test drive on the new model and see if it works as well. That is why he is here. Mr. White
stated that he is starting to evaluate the road sections and the road network. He is looking in particular to
etermine the amount of net developable land, obviously there are public spaces and then spaces that pay d
for the public spaces.
Mr. White added that one of the things his group is evaluating is if there is a way to phase this project. Mr.
White said he is working with land from the Roth properties east to the river but is not representing all of
those land owners. There are about 30 acres of land and about 20 land owners. He has enough interested
parties and those that are assisting them in funding for consulting work. Mr. White said that he
understands that the Commissions will not be voting tonight but would like to request time to allow his
team to work cooperatively with Gary Karp and several others on staff to start pricing the process. His
group is ready to put this Plan to a test. Then they would be in the position of coming back to the
ommissions to say, here is our analysis, here is what the cost will be , and here are some ideas of could this C
be phased in such a way to where they don’t have to rob bank to make it work.
Lane County Commissioner McCown asked Mr. White to specify the area on the wall map.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan stated that he cannot get a sense from the discussion, how much time
r. White needs. Commissioner Sullivan asked Mr. White how much time he thinks he needs. Mr. White M
responded that he and his group would need less than 4 weeks, maybe only 2 or 3 weeks.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan asked if staff anticipates that their schedule would allow Mr. White to
interface in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Mr. White clarified that he is going to analyze the area he described with
is team and that he thinks the tools he creates can be used generally for at least Subareas A and B, because h
he is looking at both the residential and a purer commercial aspect to some of the zoning issues.
Gary Karp responded that having met with Mr. White previously, he believes that they really needs to have
a tool to see how all of this will work in real life. Since, there isn’t a major rush to get the project done, he
would like to give Mr. White at least four weeks to complete the work. In the meantime, staff will focus is
addressing any questions Mr. White may have and also address all the issues that have arisen in the oral
and written testimony tonight., Then staff can bring back all the new information to the Commissioners at
the next meeting. Gary Karp stated it may mean we may need to tweak some things in the plan districts or
maybe even in the Refinement Plan, but to have this information ready before someone comes in to
develop, will save developers a lot of time, so it is well worth the effort to go through this exercise.
Attachment 8-7
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann asked if Mr. White’s work is something that needs to be entered
into the record when it’s completed. Gary Karp responded that since there will most likely be a
continuation of the public hearing, this issue can be addressed at that time, and Mr. White can come in with
ny documentation he needs. Meanwhile, if there are any proposed amendments to the work that has been a
done, staff will submit that information to the Commissions as well.
Mr. White added that his intent is to be cooperative and partnering, that he loves the concepts, it is a great
area, there is a lot of excitement about what a new Glenwood can be, so he is very optimistic that they can
be productive.
Lane Commissioner Arkin appreciated that Mr. White is willing to look at the cost of building infrastructure
and parks/open space that does not generally pay for itself. Commissioner Arkin wondered if Mr. White
could give the Commissions a sense of how the developers will try to be true to the Refinement Plan where
it designates open space because according to some testimony the Commissions have received, the amount
of proposed parks have diminished as the Plan has moved forward. Mr. White responded that this is a
sensitive subject, because from a development point of view, if you have something that sets you apart from
other places you increase the remaining value, if you do something really well in the area of the riverfront
area, some of the park concepts could be further embellished, and some of the ideas will come through as
the end users are drawn into this part of Glenwood. New ideas come in and everyone is looking for success
so this is collaborative process. As an example, there is a cost to roads, water, sewer, storm drainage,
setbacks, park areas, other public spaces. They don’t pay taxes as a rule, so the remaining land will carry
the burden outside city‐wide mitigation fees and things along that line that can be messaged to make some
of the rest work. In the case that ‘X’ number of acres that are going to non‐taxable future uses, if you go to a
tax exempt bond program to finance infrastructure you go to the market place and they will ask, who is
going to pay this back? There is some pretty heavy math necessary to make sure everyone is comfortable
with how the bond ratings go. This is part of the process to evaluate what looks great now and will it work
5, 10, 15, 20 years out. The money that is borrowed will be able to create those wonderful attractive
spaces, but how does it get paid back?
Mark Rust asked Springfield staff if the area that Mr. White is referring to is primarily Subnarea B and what
is it zoned today under the existing Refinement Plan? Gary Karp responded that there are multiple zones;
he Glenwood Refinement Plan included mixed uses but there was no official mixed use zoning districts at t
that time, so the zoning is a mix of Commercial, Industrial and Residential uses.
Mark Rust then asked Mr. White if the tool he is talking about developing for the area he referred to will be
looking at the value added from the proposed Plan compared to the existing Plan today. Mr. White
responded that he will not start with the current MAI appraised value. Mr. White went on to say that the
land cost is something that his company doesn’t control and so there will be a few variables on the base
map level. The almost complete consensus, whether they are working with all of the land owners or not, is
that they understand what he is trying to accomplish and are supportive.
Gary Karp commented that Mark Rust and the Lane County Planning Commissioners need to obtain
information earlier than the Springfield Planning Commission, When the Planning Commissions decide to
set a date for the continued hearing, they should take this into consideration. Gary Karp added that he
doesn’t know how long it will take Springfield to respond to all if the information submitted tonight and
asked if Lane County would need an additional week or so.
Attachment 8-8
Mark responded that he’s not sure if the Planning Commissions are to the point where we can talk dates
yet. If the discussion goes down the path of needing to leave the record open one month, setting the
ontinued hearing and deliberation out, then we can talk about the details, then Lane County will need the c
extra time.
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann reminded the Planning Commissions and staff that they still have
one more person that wants to speak
Steve Moe – P.O. Box 847; Springfield, Oregon 97477. Commissioner Moe is speaking as a Glenwoo
Property Owner
Mr. Moe said he spoke to Springfield staff earlier about if someone in the area wants to develop right now
with Springfield services, they cannot get them, because they are not in the city limits. Now that there no
Boundary Commission, non‐contiguous Annexations are not allowed. Mr. Moe added that the Planning
Commissions move forward with staff’s proposal and forward it to the City Council. Mr. Moe suggested that
Franklin Boulevard should be annexed into Springfield so that anybody to the north would be contiguous: if
the property is along the Willamette River the city limits would be in the middle of the river. There would
probably be some land between that which would be a no man’s land, but there would be a way to figure
that out.
d
QUESTIONS FROM THE LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann asked about the discrepancy with the acreage, the memorandum
which is not official, but the documents would be, he keeps noticing 267.27 and 267.28. Gary Karp responded
hat this same thing has been brought up previously and added that when dealing with the fractions of an acre t
there is some rounding that had to be done and believes that this has been corrected.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan commented that Rick Satre’s testimony was intriguing. Commissioner
Sullivan asked if staff would be addressing Mr. Satre’s concerns prior to the next meeting, because it sounds
like there is a lot of support there, but there is this issue of the differences between the Franklin and the McVay
reas. He would admit that he does not understand exactly where Mr. Satre trying to convey. Gary Karp a
responded that they will be explaining this at the continued public hearing.
Greg Mott added that something which might be helpful for the Planning Commissioners in respect to the back
and forth discussion that has occurred tonight is the fact that staff has met with the Glenwood CAC, interested
parties, and a number of citizens through the course of the project to talk about particular issues that they had
with proposals that hadn’t yet been aired by the Glenwood CAC or the public. Staff is always willing to listen to
what those concerns are. In some cases, staff has taken these concerns to the Glenwood CAC. Most often, staff
has agreed with the comments that were offered and those have been incorporated into the documents. So
what the Planning Commissioners heard from Mr. White is consistent with what has been transpiring for the
last 12 to 14 months, as the Plan itself has gained more substance and people were able to digest what was
going on. Mr. White’s request would not be out of the ordinary or out of context with what has already been
done. It is a matter that he wants the Planning Commissioners to know about, reemphasizing the need to have
a little time in between tonight’s public hearing and the next time the Commissions meet. Greg Mott added that
staff is currently working with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) on language that is proposed in the Plan, to
esolve some design issues and the ability to transition from the service that is there to the service that will be
eeded at full build‐out by utilizing an Intergovernmental Agreement.
r
n
Attachment 8-9
Lane County Commissioner McCown commented that the Plan will require acquisition of property throughout
the next 20 years for public rights‐of‐way and parks. There is at least one person in the audience who is
nterested in knowing what Mr. Keefer thinks about this Plan. Commissioner McCown asked staff how this Plan i
addresses his concerns regarding process and development
Bob Keefer, Lane County Willamalane Park and Recreation District Superintendent, stated that the simple
answer is, as Willamalane looked at the Glenwood vision they looked at their Comprehensive Plan, where they
have identified the Glenwood Riverfront as a wonderful asset to this community, as is Island Park, East Alton
Baker Park and West Greenway. As Willamalane has reviewed the Plan, there is an identified trail system all
along the riverfront that is consistent with the TransPlan. Willamalane sees this as an important part of
District’s future. Along with the other sites that are identified in this Plan, this could eventually be an
important part of an overall parks system in Glenwood, because the only park that Willamalane currently has
in Glenwood is James Park which is located on the south side of the railroad tracks, away from the residential
development. Mr. Keefer stated that he sees this Plan as an important piece that the Willamalane Board will
need to consider as they look to the future. Willamalane is updating their Comprehensive Plan, which will
ccur over the next year and will be bringing the plan forward to both Planning Commissions and to the County
oard and City Council for their adoption as well as Willamalane’s Board.
o
B
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann asked if staff had anything else they wanted to enter into the record. Gary
Karp responded that he did not.
Springfield Commissioner Bean commented that the Springfield Planning Commission has been fairly quiet tonight,
which is a testimony to the staff. The Commission has been in the loop for the last 7 months and been presented
with different segments and the overall Plan, and then to add in the public testimony from tonight. This has
been a nice process for the Commission, thank you.
Greg Mott responded, that given the possibility of some definitive changes to what is presented tonight in response to
the testimony that Wildish submitted and the response to what Mr. White may propose, and what might occur with
Springfield Utility Board, it makes sense at the next meeting is a continued public hearing that will provide people
with an opportunity to look at what is being proposed and then the Commissioners can hear new testimony.
Mark Rust asked if the re-noticing would be required if Commissions pick a date tonight for the continued public
hearing and also, regarding what Greg Mott had communicated about re-analysis or the ripple effect of potential
changes, the proposal can change significantly, should the Lane County Planning Commission close the hearing
tonight and holding a new hearing?
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann added that first the Commissions would need to decide how long to keep
the record open, then look at how much material has been presented, and then the Commissions could decide when to
hold the continued hearing.
Mary Bridget Smith with Springfield City Attorney Office stated there are two things that the Commissions can do
tonight: right now we have an open public hearing and the Commissions have received additional information through
testimony. If you set a hearing for a date certain tonight, the Commissions need to announce the date and time
tonight. If the Commissions are not able to set a date and time because of scheduling, then a new notice will need to
be published in the newspaper. Mary Bridget cautioned the Commissions to work in tandem to be consistent, to allow
for time for response, so when the Commissions come back for the second hearing, even if the record is held open, the
Commissions will be able to have some meaningful discussion. If the Commissions are looking at a possible
December date for another hearing. Staff commented that they would need to confirm the dates that this item would
Attachment 8-10
be forwarded to the City Council. Mary Bridget recommended that at this point to stick with the process we are
following and that staff and the Commissions think about response time for leaving the record open.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan asked why would the Commissions close the record, and what would the benefit
since there could be new testimony, if the Commissions continue the hearing as a public hearing. Mary Bridget
responded that he is correct, that the Commissions could keep everything open until the next hearing knowing that
they would have another hearing and then extend the record from the second hearing.
Mark Rust added that it might be worthwhile to pick a date to have new testimony submitted, then staff could
incorporate the information into a staff report for the subsequent hearing, but the record will effectively remain open.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan added what he is trying to do is out of courtesy ask the public to give the
Commissions information by a certain dates so staff can work on responses. Citizens could still bring in testimony
after the date, if we keep the record open. Commissioner Sullivan wants to keep the record open.
Lane County Commissioner McCown added that there is no point in having a hearing if the record is closed.
Greg Mott reminded the Commissions that this process is similar to the process they did for the Boundary Proposal,
the hearing was continued from July 19th to August 16th the record was held open until September 13th reconvening
October 25th.
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann asked for consensus of the Commissions.
Greg Mott proposed to schedule the reconvened public hearing for December 20th and if something happens that staff
cannot meet that date, staff can notify that the public hearing has been rescheduled for January X, 2012. If this
happened we would notice everyone who testified and also submit a notice in the newspaper.
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann reiterated that leaving the record open, having a continued public hearing,
will we ask that materials be submitted in 4 weeks, so staff could respond before the next continued hearing.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan added that the two largest contributors to new information are both in attendance
and they heard that staff needs the materials by November 20, 2011.
Greg Mott proposed to extend the record to November 21, 2011 by 5:00 p.m. and that material submitted to staff by
that date and time will be submitted into the staff report. Any other testimony submitted after 5:00 p.m. November 21,
2011 could be presented to the commissioners at the December 20, 2011 continued hearing.
Lane County Commissioner Arkin asked that staff include the studies that where sited in materials they received.
Greg Mott asked Commissioner Arkin if that was the Existing Conditions Report? Gary Karp responded that it was a
separate study done by a consultant, ande will get a copy of the study for the Commissioners. Greg Mott added that
the Existing Conditions report will be added into the record.
Lane County Commissioner Arkin asked Greg Mott if staff had a soils map for Glenwood. Ken Vogeney City
Engineer responded that the soil map they have is from the Natural Resource Conservation. Staff doesn’t have a
separate soil mapping but there are maps available.
Lane County Commissioner McCown asked Springfield staff to restate the dates that have been discussed. Greg Mott
reiterated that the proposal is to continue the public hearing to December 20, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Meeting
room; any written materials must be submitted into the record by November 21, 2011 @ 5:00 p.m. so that staff will be
Attachment 8-11
able to responded and present it to the Planning Commissions in the Staff Report. At the December 20, 2011 hearing
anybody can testify and they can enter new information into the record including their responses to the staff report
that will be ready 10 days prior to the hearing date, at that point anybody can request an extension of the record to
respond to new testimony.
Lane County Commissioner Sullivan commented that the Glenwood CAC did a marvelous job, he doesn’t see it being
an issue, and staff has been a pleasure to work with on this process, as complicated as this topic is. He doesn’t see
that this will be strung out to February.
Springfield Commissioner Kirschenmann attended a couple of the Glenwood CAC meetings, and commented on how
well the meetings where run. The members always had great questions and staff always had an answer and well
prepared.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH:
Commissioner Cross moved that Springfield continue the Public Hearing leaving the record open through
December 20, 2011 any materials submitted by November 21, 2011 will receive staff response in the staff report.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bean. 6:0:1 absent
Lane County Commissioner Nichols motioned that Lane County continue the Public Hearing leaving the record
pen through December 20, 2011 any materials submitted by November 21, 2011 will receive staff response in the
taff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sisson. 7:0:1 absent and 1 open position.
o
s
Attachment 8-12
Attachment 9 A -1
Attachment 9 A -2
1
ATTACHMENT 9
Response to Steve Roth Correspondence Dated November 17, 2011
Steve Roth
“November 7, 2011
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions
C/O Springfield City Hall
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Members of the Planning Commissions:
Subject: Glenwood Refinement Plan/Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use District
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and testimony. As a Glenwood property
owner/business operator (along with my brother we own about 8 acres including Roaring Rapids
Pizza Co. and Camp Putt Adventure Golf Park) and member of the CAC, I wanted to praise the
staff for their professional manner throughout this lengthy process and specifically their efforts
to work with stakeholders and try and be responsive to our concerns.
In a continuing effort to create a final plan that includes appropriate flexibility and still maintains
very high standards and certainty for the development community, we offer the following
suggestions:
1. We understand that a primary goal for the Glenwood Riverfront is to create a Transit
Oriented Development (TOD) which relies less on autos and more on public transit. With
this in mind, instead of completely banning “drive thru” components as proposed in
Subarea A (and all of the riverfront), please consider placing “strict limits” and giving the
Planning Director the ability to consider a “drive thru” component on a case by case
basis. A project with 130 units of vertical housing above a commercial use like a retail
pharmacy or bank (which may require a drive thru) would not be possible in Glenwood;
but similar projects have been done in other mixed use areas with great success (Capitol
Hill Housing Seattle). We would suggest language limiting but not banning outright the
ability to add a drive thru to mixed use residential developments along Franklin with a
minimum of 50 units of housing. It would be a shame to lose high quality/high density
housing projects which require a strong commercial anchor because a simple drive thru
component is not allowed—specifically along Franklin Blvd.”
Staff Response
The proposed prohibited use list in Section 3.4‐255 is virtually identical to the list currently
applicable in the Campus Industrial Zoning District and the 50 acre Glenwood Riverfront Plan
District. The Franklin Riverfront and the area along the McVay Riverfront north of the Union
Pacific railroad trestle are within a node* which emphasizes multi‐modal development (cars,
bikes and walking), the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) Transportation Chapter,
completed with the cooperation of ODOT, also emphasizes multi‐modal development in the
Attachment 9 B -1
2
McVay Riverfront with specific objectives, policies and implementation strategies (see the GRP
pages 74‐77).
* Nodal Development is the integration of land use (high density residential and mixed use
commercial/employment) and transportation planning that seeks to increase the use of
alternative modes of transportation, reduce per‐person vehicle miles of travel and reduce
demand for automobile‐related transportation facilities.
In staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 12, Transportation, and the Transportation
Planning Rule**, as stated on pages 57‐58 of the Staff Report (Attachment 1): “It is important to
understand that even though existing and proposed zoning are treated the same for this
analysis, existing zoning allows for auto centric types of land uses such as drive through
restaurants and gas stations. The proposed commercial zoning specifically prohibits such auto
centric land uses (proposed Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District, Section 3.4‐255).”
** The intent of the TPR is to “…promote the development of safe, convenient and economic
transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile…”
The GRP Transportation Chapter P. 55 states: “This Chapter acknowledges that automobiles and
trucks are likely to continue as primary transportation modes during the Plan period.” The
Plan’s intent is not to eliminate automobiles and trucks, but to establish efficient and successful
land use patterns and building orientation that can thrive in a multi‐modal environment. If
someone needs gas or tires, that person has numerous choices available elsewhere in Eugene
and Springfield. The same is true for banks and restaurants with drive through windows.
It is important to remember that all comprehensive plans establish a preferred outcome based
on the successful implementation of the plan’s vision, policies and standards. While this
formula is consistent throughout the City, each refinement plan is unique to that area’s history,
location, and potential; what may be effective in northwest Springfield may be less successful
Downtown. Glenwood, and particularly the Franklin and McVay corridors, is consistently
recognized as the gateway entrance to the larger community of Springfield. The significance of
such an honorific was not lost on the CAC when they considered how this expectation should be
memorialized:
“The unique amenities provided by the Willamette River as it flows through Glenwood
are unsurpassed in the state. In addition, Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway serve
as major thoroughfares connecting Springfield and Eugene and set the stage for
Glenwood as a gateway to both cities. The new I‐5 Willamette River Bridge and
associated riparian restoration and multi‐use path enhancement projects further
highlight this entryway to the region. The presence of a bus rapid transit line along
Franklin Boulevard and one planned along McVay Highway enhances the possibilities for
transit‐oriented development in the Glenwood Riverfront. Glenwood’s proximity to the
University of Oregon and Lane Community College, I‐5, and two rail lines also positions
it well for successful, mixed‐use residential, commercial, and employment development
along the Franklin and McVay corridors. Prior planning and urban design efforts, as well
as visioning with the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee for this project, affirm that
the community wants Glenwood to continue to be a unique place with a distinct identify
that takes advantage of Glenwood’s existing strengths and seizes the opportunity to set
Attachment 9 B -2
3
the stage for the making of a place that will have a lasting legacy. Ensuring that this
vision is implemented depends on the proper arrangement, appearance, and
functionality of land uses, infrastructure, and open spaces. (GRP, Community Vision,
page 18)
It’s clear from this passage that the Roth property represents an important partner in
the successful redevelopment of Glenwood. However, recognition of the presence and
importance of this relationship should not be confused with an expectation that the
Plan’s vision is mutable. The gateway entrance to Springfield and the enduring purpose
of legacy decisions are values that are rarely served by expediency.
In Subarea A, with its emphasis on High Density Residential development, staff’s response to
Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, specifically, Oregon Administrative Rule 660‐008‐0015,
Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required, that states: “Local approval standards, special
conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing must be clear and
objective, and must not have the effect, either of themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging
needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay.” Allowing the Planning Director discretion
to allow drive through facilities on a case by case basis is problematic regarding clear and
objective standards. This may be remedied by requiring drive through facilities to be a
“Discretionary Use” a Type III review by necessitating Planning Commission approval will add to
the cost of providing needed housing.
For these reasons, staff does not support Steve Roth’s suggestion to allow drive through
facilities in Glenwood Phase 1.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Steve Roth
2. In Subarea A high density housing/ mixed use, we would encourage you to add
“boutique hotel” of 100 rooms or less once the minimum density (50 units per acre)
requirements are met as an allowable use within a master plan. We see examples of
smaller hotels mixing well with residential uses in many urban settings helping to
create more vibrant mixed use housing neighborhoods and support ground level
retail uses. For example, in the Portland area there are several boutique hotel
projects that include a McMenamins restaurant on ground level with hotel rooms
above which mix very well with adjacent higher density apartment and condo uses
and helps to create more synergy and activity in the area which is a draw for
residents. Please consider adding “boutique hotels” to the list of approved uses for
the residential mixed use zoning in Subarea A.
Staff Response
The following statements are taken form staff’s response to Statewide Planning Goal 10,
Housing, that can be found in Attachment 1 of the October 18th Glenwood Phase 1 packet:
Attachment 9 B -3
“Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and
rent levels commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households. Oregon
Administrative Rule 660 Division 8 defines standards for compliance with Goal 10. ‘Sufficient
buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by
type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable
lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each residential plan
designation.’”
“In 2007, the Oregon Legislature required Eugene and Springfield to establish separate urban
growth boundaries (UGB) that included separate 20 year residential lands inventories for each
city. In response to House Bill 3337, Springfield conducted a study to determine the City’s
housing needs for 2010‐2030 and to evaluate the sufficiency of land available for residential
uses within Springfield’s UGB. The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis
(RLHNA) was adopted by the City Council by Resolution 09‐54 on December 7, 2009. The RLHNA
along with the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan’s Residential Land Use and Housing Element
was adopted by City Council Ordinance 6268 on June 20, 2011 and by Lane County Board of
Commissioners Ordinance PA1274 on June 6, 2011.
The RLHNA states: “The last step in the analysis is to add in public and semi‐public land needs.
Table S‐5 shows the reconciliation of land need and supply. The results show that Springfield has
an overall surplus of residential land, but has deficits in the High‐Density Residential and Parks
and Open Space categories.
Table S‐5. Reconciliation of land need and supply, Springfield UGB, 2010
Plan Designation
Residential
Land
Surplus/Deficit
(From Table S-4)
Public/Semi-
Public Land
Need
Total Surplus/
Deficit
Low Density Residential 455 77 378
Medium Density Residential 93 17 76
High Density Residential -21 7 -28
Parks and Open Space 300 -300
Government/Employment 62 Met through land need in EOA
Total 527 463 126 Source: ECONorthwest”
“The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Housing and Economic Development Chapter,
Introduction, discusses the High Density Residential and parks and open space deficits by
stating: ‘As described in the Land Use Chapter, the adopted Springfield RLHNA identified a deficit
of 28 gross acres for high‐density residential uses and associated public/semi‐public land
intended to provide public open space for the higher density development, as well as any needed
supporting public facilities. To address this deficit, Implementation Action 2.1 in the Springfield
2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element directs the City Council to re‐designate at least
28 additional gross buildable acres as part of Glenwood Phase I (seven acres of which are
intended to provide public open space for the higher density development, as well as any needed
supporting public facilities). Implementation Action 2.2 directs Springfield to support
development of additional high‐density residential uses adjacent to commercial and employment
areas. The Land Use Chapter therefore directs the designation of 33.26 gross acres with a
4
Attachment 9 B -4
5
minimum density of 50 net dwelling units per acre in the Glenwood Riverfront as Residential
Mixed‐Use to provide housing choice for Springfield residents and ensure that Springfield’s high‐
density housing needs can be met through annexation and redevelopment, consistent with
Springfield’s adopted housing policies. The Housing Section of this Chapter contains additional
policies intended to: enhance the progress of high‐density residential development; facilitate the
development neighborhood where residents from a range of economic levels, household sizes,
and ages can choose to live; address the impact of redevelopment on existing manufactured
home park residents; and support the preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing
housing to safe and sanitary standards over the Plan period.’”
Hotels, “boutique” or otherwise, are considered commercial uses. Subarea A is reserved to
meet Springfield’s High Residential deficit, but allows for commercial uses that serve the
neighborhood on the first floor. Hotels are permitted uses in Subareas B and C.
For these reasons, staff does not support Steve Roth’s suggestion to allow boutique hotels in
Subarea A.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Steve Roth
“3. We continue to have questions about the designated “park blocks.” Open space is critical, in
our view, to successful housing development (particularly higher densities). Who acquires
the land which the park blocks will be built on? City or park district? Can development occur
without the park blocks or must development wait—park blocks first then development or
vice versa? Does the City expect developers or landowners to build out the park blocks at
their own expense and continue ownership of the land? What about incremental
development of smaller parcels (5‐10 acres)—will just portions of a particular park block be
required to be built out in this case and how will the street grid fit in? At this point, we are
concerned that the park blocks concept may represent a potential “road block” for
redevelopment along the riverfront and probably needs clarification to provide a higher level
of certainty for developers—particularly how smaller, incremental developments can be
accomplished.”
Staff Response
There may be a number of ways to reduce the financial burden to private developers of
providing the required park blocks, including using them for storm water treatment as part of a
development or by providing the park blocks and receiving SDC credits that offset the costs of
the park blocks or their development (e.g., SDC credits from the City for storm water use or
Willamalane SDC credits for parks development). The parks blocks could be dedicated by private
developers over time to incrementally grow to the required dimensions and development.
Alternatively, developers’ paying Willamalane Park SDCs would allow the Parks District to
acquire some of the necessary property for the blocks to ensure a consolidated park block.
These issues will be addressed more specifically during the Annexation Agreement require prior
to annexation to the City and/or the Master Plan and Site Plan application processes.
Attachment 9 B -5
6
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Steve Roth
“4. We feel that without significant “public investment” in the basic infrastructure (proposed city
street grid, park blocks, utilities, storm drainage systems, etc.) the redevelopment of the
Glenwood riverfront will not be able to move forward. From our perspective, if potential
developers are required to pay for the majority of these costs; they will likely go elsewhere.
Imagine downtown Eugene with no streets, utilities, sewers, etc., and how much more
difficult it would be to redevelop—could potential developers absorb the added
infrastructure costs and still put projects on the ground? Even with the public infrastructure
in place, the City of Eugene and its Urban Renewal Agency have provided millions of dollars
in incentives and even guaranteed to lease space to make projects happen downtown. In
our view, the Glenwood riverfront needs this type of focused commitment and significant
public investment to reach its full potential. However, once it does develop we are certain
the rewards will be huge and the initial public investments repaid many times over.
Again, we wish to thank the city staff for their hard work and collaborative focus during the
process of developing the plan which is before the Planning Commissions. We very much
appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback.
Sincerely,
Stephen Roth
Roth & Roth, LLC
4006 Franklin Blvd.”
Staff Response
The concern is one of the reasons there is an urban renewal district in Glenwood: to help with
the initial funding of key public infrastructure that is linked to launching private investments
consistent with the plans for Glenwood. Overall, most of the infrastructure will be provided by
developers, but the priming of private investments in Glenwood and helping with the front‐end
costs are goals and intents of the Urban Renewal Agency Board. At this time, the amount of
urban renewal funds in hand is limited by the current stream of revenue. However, new private
high‐value projects proposed to the Agency for assistance could instigate searching for new
revenue sources to initiate the public investments and subsequent private investments.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 9 B -6
file:///S|/_PC%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20Commission...d%20Metro%20Plan/ATT%2010%20(1)%20PC%20RS%20White%20Email.htm
From: MCEACHERN Clayton
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 4:57 PM
To: KARP Gary; TAMULONIS John
Subject: FW: notes
Attachments: B and H est 80 foot section.pdf
Here is the background on how Roger White came up with the street cost estimate
From: Roger White [mailto:rogerwhite@jps.net]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:28 AM
To: MCEACHERN Clayton
Subject: notes
Clayton,
Got a call from Gary Carp asking for my assumptions (and how I got there) behind the exhibit and
spreadsheet work to date. I told him I needed to think through my notes to get there. I will call him
again mid afternoon today. Since you and I have had the ongoing dialog on the so-called ‘test drive’ so
far, thought I would think out loud with you:
The improvements number (80 foot section – B & H, attached) is very basic. At a minimum, it assumes
good soils, relocation/demo complete, no dry utilities plus existing and required utility structures and
easements managed by others, no mass grading, and so on. As you will notice, dry utilities are not
included. Importantly, there is no allowance for drainage systems. And finishing items such as striping,
traffic control solutions, signage, monumentation (such as historic, public use/access, etc.) are beyond
this estimate.
Also, the Park Block and Riverfront Walkway estimates are based upon simple landscaping, where in
reality there will be significant additional improvements. I will need staffs’ help to get my arms around
all of that, of course!
Thoughts?
Roger
file:///S|/_PC%20Staff%20Reports/2011%20Planning%20...20Plan/ATT%2010%20(1)%20PC%20RS%20White%20Email.htm [12/8/2011 2:09:18 PM]Attachment 10 A -1
Attachment 10 A -2
Attachment 10 A -3
Attachment 10 A -4
Attachment 10 A -5
Attachment 10 Response to the Roger White Correspondence
Springfield staff is currently reviewing Mr. White’s submittal. Mr. White will be given an opportunity to
discuss his cost analysis at the public hearing. Staff will comment at that time.
Planning Commission Action
Information only, no amendments are proposed.
Attachment 10 B -1
Attachment 11 Other Proposed Staff Amendments
Staff has made the following additional revisions to the proposed amendments to the Springfield
Development Code and the Glenwood Refinement Plan submitted for Planning Commission review on
October 18, 2011. Where new text is added, revisions are highlighted in “yellow”.
Springfield Development Code
The following revision is based upon staff’s ongoing discussions with the Springfield Utility Board
regarding the creation of an Intergovernmental Agreement for utility placement and design in
Glenwood.
3.4‐230 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District Modifications
B.2. A change that requires a street, mid‐block connector, multi‐use path or other
transportation facility to be shifted, provided the change maintains the connectivity
requirements established by the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter
and the provision for public utilities established by the Public Facilities Chapter policies
and implementation strategies and that the shift does not impact the integrity of a
Subarea.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐230B.2. as proposed to the
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The following revision is based upon staff’s reconsideration of primary and secondary uses in Glenwood.
The revision changes all uses, except warehouse uses, to primary uses. Warehouses are secondary uses
in Subarea D, only.
3.4‐250 Schedule of Use Categories
In Subareas A, B, C and D, the following uses shall be permitted in the base zoning districts as indicated,
subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not
specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 3.4‐260. Prohibited uses are listed in Section 3.4‐
255.
“P” = PRIMARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Primary uses are defined in Chapter 6 as “the
principal use approved in accordance with this Code which usually occupies greater than 50% of the
gross floor area of a building or greater than 50% of a development area.
"S" = SECONDARY USE subject to the standards of this Code. Secondary uses are defined in Chapter 6
as “Any approved use of land or a structure which is incidental and subordinate to the primary use, and
located on the same development area as the primary use. Secondary uses shall not occur in the
absence of primary uses.”
“N” = NOT PERMITTED
Attachment 11-1
SITE PLAN REVIEW SHAL BE REQUIRED for all development proposals within Subareas A, B, C and D.L
Categories/Uses
Residential
Mixed‐Use
Subarea A
Commercial
Mixed‐Use
Subarea B
Office
Mixed‐Use
Subarea C
Employment
Mixed‐Use
Subarea D
Accessory Uses
A use or uses within a primary commercial, office
and/or employment building that is for the
employees’ benefit and which does not generally
serve the public; including, but not limited to:
building maintenance facilities, central mail rooms,
child care, conference rooms; employee restaurants
and cafeterias, indoor recreation areas and indoor
recycling collection centers.
N
P
P
P
Commercial/Retail
Eating and drinking establishments whose principal
activity involves the sale and/or service of prepared
foods and beverages directly to consumers including,
but not limited to, bakeries, cafes, delicatessens,
restaurants, coffee shops, brew pubs, and wine bars.
P
P
P
P
Personal services whose principal activity involves the
care of a person or a person’s apparel including, but
not limited to, fitness centers, spas, barber shops,
shoe repair, dry cleaners, tailors, and daycare.
P
P
P
P
Professional, scientific, research and technical services
are small‐scale commercial office enterprises whose
principal activity involves providing a specialized
service to others. These activities can be housed in
office storefronts, office buildings, or in residential or
live/work units where such residential use is
permitted by this Code and include, but are not
limited to, legal advice and representation,
accounting, banking, architecture, engineering, design
and marketing, real estate, insurance, physicians, and
counselors.
P
P
P
P
Retail Sales and Services commercial enterprises
whose principal activity involves the sale and/or
servicing of merchandise (new or reused), directly to
consumers. Examples include, but are not limited to,
bookstores, grocers, pharmacies, art galleries, florists,
and apparel shops.
P
P
P
P
Educational facilities (1)
Public/Private educational classroom facilities for
primary and secondary education P N N N
Public/Private educational classroom facilities that
include, but are not limited to higher education,
business, professional, and vocational schools and job
training and vocational rehabilitation services. N N P P
Attachment 11-2
Categories/Uses
Residential Commercial Office Employment
Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use
Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C
Subarea D
Employment
Business Parks N N P P
Hospitals N N N P
Light Manufacturing uses engaged in the manufacture
(predominantly from previously prepared materials)
of finished products or parts including processing,
fabrication, assembly, treatment, testing, and
packaging of these products that are not potentially
dangerous or environmentally incompatible with
office employment uses and all manufacturing and
storage of materials and company vehicles occurs
entirely indoors. These uses include, but are not
limited to, manufacture of electronic instruments,
preparation of food products, pharmaceutical
manufacturing, research and scientific laboratories,
and businesses that recycle manufactured materials
for sale to the public within a building.
N
N
N
P
Office Employment uses are typically housed in office
buildings where there is limited interaction between
the public and the proprietor, are associated with the
performance of a range of administrative, medical,
high tech, nanotechnology, green technology,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology, information
technology, information management, and research
and development functions. These uses include, but
are not limited to, call centers, corporate or regional
headquarters, physicians’ clinics, software
development, media production, data processing
services, and technical support centers.
N
P
P
P
Recycling facilities that occur completely within
buildings and located only on the west side of McVay
Highway.
N
N
N
P
Warehousing and distribution ‐ Warehousing and
distribution are for the storage and regional wholesale
distribution of manufactured products and for
products used in testing, design, technical training or
experimental product research and development
permitted in conjunction with business headquarters.
N
N
N
S
Hospitality
Conference/Visitor Center include, but are not limited
to conference hotels, museums, and
conference/exposition centers.
N
P
N
N
Hotels include, but are not limited to, inns, bed and
breakfasts, guesthouses, extended stay hotels or
apartment hotels, limited service hotels, full service
Attachment 11-3
Categories/Uses
Residential Commercial Office Employment
Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use Mixed‐Use
Subarea A Subarea B Subarea C
Subarea D
hotels. Hotels may be converted to apartments where
such residential use is permitted by this Code and the
Oregon Structural Specialty Code, related building
codes, fire codes and referenced standards in effect at
the time of application for a building permit.
N
P
P
N
Housing (high density), including, but not limited to:
Apartments P P N N
Condominiums P P N N
Dormitories P P N N
Lofts P P N N
Row Houses P P N N
Senior/Congregate Care Facilities P P N N
Townhouses P P N N
Live/Work Units P P N N
Parking
Public or private parking structures P P P P
Public Open Space
Riverfront Linear Park/Multi‐Use Path P P P P
Park Blocks to include recreational facilities and
stormwater management P N
N N
Public Utilities and Other Public Uses
Low Impact Facilities Any public or semi‐public facility
that is permitted subject to the design standards of
this Code, including, but not limited to: wastewater,
stormwater management, electricity and water to
serve individual homes and businesses and other
utilities that have minimal olfactory, visual or auditory
impacts; street lights; and fire hydrants.
P
P
P
P
Public uses including, but not limited to fire and police
stations. N N P N
Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities. Only
flush mounting the entire antenna on a building shall
be permitted if: the connecting cables cannot be
seen; they are color matched to the building; and they
match the façade of the building. If conditions do not
favor flush mounted antennas, a stand‐alone
monopole antenna not more than 15 feet high,
measured from the place of attachment on the roof,
shall be permitted if the antenna is set back so that it
cannot be seen from street.
P
P
P
P
(1) Educational facilities include, but are not limited to: classrooms, labs, gyms and libraries.
Attachment 11-4
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐250, as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The following revision is necessary because these landscaping standards concern private property only
and the previous reference to the Springfield Engineering Design and Procedures Manual does not
apply.
3.4‐270 Public and Private Development Standards
F.3.e.i. In any required landscape area, trees shall suitable for this region and as may be
approved during the land use review process. At the time of planting, deciduous
trees shall be a minimum caliper of 2 inches (dbh) in caliper and permitted
conifer trees shall be fully branched, between 4‐6 feet in height. Spacing and
time of coverage of trees shall be as specified in Subsection F.4.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270F.3.e.i., as proposed to
the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The following revision is necessary because the parking lot design standards that will apply in Glenwood
are found the referenced SDC Section; therefore reference to the Springfield Engineering Design and
Procedures Manual does not apply.
G 9. Vehicle Parking Lot Design Standards. These standards shall apply to parking lots
located in interior courts permitted in all Subareas, as well as other parking lots
permitted in Subarea D.
a. In both public and private parking lots, the stall width and length and aisle width
standards specified in Section 4.6‐115 shall apply.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270G.9.a., as proposed to the
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Staff re‐evaluated the bicycle parking standards based upon standards found in other jurisdictions.
Bicycle Parking Standards Table 3.4‐2
Use Category Use Sub‐Category
Number of Required Spaces
(No less that 4 bicycle spaces shall
be required for each use)
Long and Short Term
Bicycle Parking
Percentages
Commercial Eating and Drinking
Establishments
1 per 600 square feet of floor area 25% long term
75% short term
Hospitality 1 per 20 rentable rooms 75% long term
Attachment 11-5
Number of Required Spaces
Use Category Use Sub‐Category
Long and Short Term
(No less that 4 bicycle spaces shall Bicycle Parking
be required for each use) Percentages
25% short term
Personal Services 1 per 2000 square feet of floor
area
25% long term
75% short term
Professional, Scientific
and Technical Services
1 per 3000 square feet of floor
area
75% long term
25% short term
Retail Sales and Services 1 per 3000 square feet of floor
area
25% long term
75% short term
Employment Office Employment 1 per 3000 square feet of floor
area
75% long term
25% short term
Light Manufacturing 1 per 10000 square feet of floor
area
75% long term
25% short term
Light Manufacturing
Storage
1 per 10000 square feet of floor
area
75% long term
25% short term
Warehousing 1 per 40000 square feet of floor
area
75% long term
25% short term
Recreation Park Blocks or Riverfront
Linear Park Recreational
Facilities
8 per each park block and 4 per
each mile of riverfront linear park
100% short term
Residential Senior and Congregate
Care
1 per 4 rooms
75% long term
25% short term
Dormitories 1 per every 3 beds 75% long term
25% short term
High Density Residential
Housing
1 per 2 dwelling units 75% long term
25% short term
Vehicle Related Uses Structured Parking
Public or Private
5% of the number of vehicle
spaces provided or 105 percent of
the demand
75% long term
25% short term
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Table 3.4‐2, as proposed to the City
Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The word “secure” has been added.
G.14.c. Long term bicycle parking required in association with high density residential use shall
be provided in a well‐lighted, secure ground‐level or below ground location within a
convenient distance of an entrance to the residential unit. A secure location is defined
as one in which the bicycle parking is provided outside the residential unit within a
secure garage, a lockable room, a lockable bicycle enclosure, or a bicycle locker.
Attachment 11-6
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270G.14.c., as proposed to
the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The highlighted reference is now correct.
3.4‐275 Building Design Standards
I.2. Pedestrian Amenities Standards. The pedestrian standards are minimums. The
developer is encouraged provide additional pedestrian amenities.
a. Where there is no building setback, the following coordinated pedestrian
amenities shall be provided on each block or development area, if applicable,
located between the curb and the build‐to‐line:
i. At least one bench for every 80 feet of street frontage;
ii. At least one trash receptacle for every 80 feet of street frontage; and
iii. At least one pedestrian scale wall mounted light meeting the standards
specified in Subsection 3.4‐270C.2. for every 50 feet of street frontage.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐275I.2.iii., as proposed to the
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The following figures were not available for the October 18th public hearing.
Glenwood Refinement Plan
The following revisions to the Plan designation descriptions in the Glenwood Refinement Plan is based
upon staff’s revision of Springfield Development Code Section 3.4‐250, above regarding primary and
secondary uses. Commercial uses that were previously listed as secondary uses are now considered
primary uses and are limited by square footage or other means in order to protect the primary use in
each Subarea. Therefore, a number of references to secondary uses have been deleted.
Pages 33 and 34
The Plan designations established within the Glenwood Riverfront are as follows:
• Residential Mixed‐Use is established where the intended primary use is high‐density residential.
However, to increase the development of housing opportunities in close proximity to supporting
commercial or civic uses needed by residents, limited small scale retail, office, service, and
educational uses if developed as an integral part of the residential development.
Attachment 11-7
• Commercial Mixed‐Use is established where the intended primary use is commercial and office
employment but where flexibility is provided for high density residential to be permitted either in
stand‐alone buildings or integrated with the primary commercial use.
• Office Mixed‐Use is established where office employment uses are intended as the primary uses.
However, to provide commercial services needed by office users near their workplace, limited small
scale retail and service uses are permitted if developed as an integral part of the office
development. Additional flexibility is also provided under this designation to allow for limited other
uses that are compatible with office development, such as commercial hospitality services, civic
uses, and educational facilities either as stand‐alone uses or uses integrated with the primary office
employment use in portions of the area designated Office Mixed‐Use.
• Employment Mixed‐Use is established where office employment, educational uses and light
manufacturing employment uses are intended as the primary uses with external impacts less than
or equal to office uses. Limited small scale retail, service, and educational uses are also permitted if
developed as an integral part of the employment development to provide commercial services
needed by employees in close proximity to their workplace.
Page 35
Zoning
Zoning Districts delineate areas that implement plan designations and apply land use regulations and
development standards. In the Glenwood Riverfront, the names of the zoning districts will be the same
as the Plan designations. These zoning districts in the Glenwood Riverfront identify permitted land use
types and mixes and address distinct constraints and diverse amenities that create unique opportunities
for development within the boundaries of four subareas, as depicted in Figure 3. Primary uses are the
principal permitted uses intended to predominate or characterize each subarea. Other primary uses are
also permitted but are intended to be incidental and subordinate to the principal use. Thus, to preserve
the land supply of the principal intended use of each subarea, the prevalence of the other primary uses
must be constrained in some fashion; typically, in terms of their occupancy of a building, development
area, or the subarea as a whole.
Page 40
On the street side of buildings along Franklin Boulevard, however, the commercial categories listed
above will be permitted as secondary uses on upper stories to enable commercial development to take
advantage of the exposure to Franklin Boulevard and to enable development on the north and south
sides of Franklin Boulevard to include similar uses. Nevertheless, to preserve the residential land supply
of this subarea, no more than 50% of a development area may be dedicated to commercial uses.
The following revisions to the Subarea descriptions in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Subareas B, C and
D are based upon staff’s response to the Wildish correspondence (See Attachment 1) regarding
“educational facilities”. Educational facilities are now primary uses in Subareas C and D, but not
permitted in Subarea B.
Subarea B (Page 41)
Subarea B provides for flexible commercial and/or high‐density residential development opportunities in
response to developer interest in and market demand for hotels, conference, entertainment, and other
complementary commercial uses with riverfront views and access that complement the adjacent urban
Attachment 11-8
high‐density residential mixed‐use neighborhood to the west. Thus, for Subarea B, all five categories of
commercial uses (hospitality services, retail sales and services, eating and drinking establishments,
personal services, and professional, scientific, and technical services) and office employment uses are
permitted either as primary stand‐alone uses or as part of a building with a mix of residential and
commercial uses. For the same reasons described above under Subarea A, though, Subarea B is not
intended for auto‐ or truck‐oriented/dependent uses. Residential uses at densities of at least 50
dwelling units per net acre are also allowed, either as a stand‐alone use or as part of a building with a
mix of residential and commercial uses. Nevertheless, since this subarea is designated with commercial
as the primary use, in order to preserve this area for commercial development, no more than 50% of the
subarea may be developed with residential uses.
Subarea C (Page 42)
As such, office employment uses, as well as professional, technical, and scientific commercial service
uses and educational facilities are considered the primary use in Subarea C.
Subarea C allows, as secondary uses, retail sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, and
personal service commercial uses that predominantly support nearby office employment uses.
Subarea D (Page 44)
As with Subarea C, to provide commercial services for employees in close proximity to their workplace,
Subarea D also allows for retail sales and services, eating and drinking establishments, and personal
service commercial uses that predominantly support and are located on the ground floor of a primary
employment building. Flexibility is also provided to allow for educational facilities in this subarea, as well
as secondary warehousing and distribution functions associated with primary light
manufacturing uses. However, similar to Subarea C above, uses such as child care, indoor recreation
centers, cafeterias, restaurants, or other contracted services for the benefit of office employees and that
do not generally serve the public are considered accessory uses and may be located anywhere within
primary use structures.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan Pages 33,
34, 35, 40, 41, 42 and 44, as proposed to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
The revised text addresses future Transportation Planning Rule compliance by describing what happens
should the percent of a development area and associated trip generation for Subareas A, B, C as one
area and Subarea D as the second area be exceeded by proposed development. This is meant to satisfy
the latest case law in “Willamette Oaks” which essentially says if the trip limit is reached, then a plan
amendment would be needed to authorize additional development.
Page 46
» In Subareas A, B and C in aggregate, not more than 90% of that area will redevelop within the 20 year
Plan horizon. This level of redevelopment will be associated with trip generation of 3,229 peak hour
trips plus 165 peak hour trips generated by remaining non‐redeveloped property. These are the
maximum trips which may reasonably be expected during the 20‐year Plan horizon. Should
Attachment 11-9
10
development be proposed during the Plan horizon which may, when added to trips generated from
previous redevelopment and trips generated on undeveloped property, reasonably be expected to
generate trips in excess of 3,394 trips, then the proposed development will be responsible to make
further determinations of significant effect as required by the TPR in effect at the time of the
proposed development and best practices, subject to the sunset provisions described below. Should
the TPR analysis conclude that the proposed development would significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility, then the proposed development shall be responsible for: 1)
Successfully pursuing a reduced mobility standard from the State of Oregon in such manner that the
significant effect would no longer exist; or 2) Successfully mitigating the significant effect, to the
extent necessary pursuant to the requirements of the TPR by actions including, but not limited to,
amendments to any or all land use and other plans, including this Plan, the City Transportation System
Plan or the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan. Trip
generation from redeveloping land uses will be tracked as development is proposed and approved.
» In Subarea D, not more than 50% of that area will redevelop within the Plan horizon, with an
associated trip generation of 1,363 peak hour trips plus 294 peak hour trips generated by remaining
non‐redeveloped property. These are the maximum trips which may reasonably be expected during
the 20 year Plan horizon. Should development be proposed during the Plan horizon which may, when
added to trips generated from previous redevelopment and trips generated on undeveloped property,
reasonably be expected to generate trips in excess of 1,667 trips, then the proposed development will
be responsible to make further determinations of significant effect as required by the TPR in effect at
the time of the proposed development and best practices, subject to the sunset provisions described
below. Should the TPR analysis conclude that the proposed development would significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility, then the proposed development shall be responsible for: 1)
Successfully pursuing a reduced mobility standard from the State of Oregon in such manner that the
significant effect would no longer exist; or 2) Successfully mitigating the significant effect, to the
extent necessary pursuant to the requirements of the TPR by actions including, but not limited to,
amendments to any or all land use and other plans, including this Plan, the City Transportation System
Plan or the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan. Trip
generation from redeveloping land uses will be tracked as development is proposed and approved.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan Page 46,
as proposed to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Attachment 11-10
Attachment 12 Development and Building Design Standards Figures
The following figures were not completed for the October 18th Public Hearing and are being added at
this time in the Springfield Development Code Glenwood Riverfront Mixed‐Use Plan District, Subsection
3.4‐270 and 3.4‐275.
Planning Commission Action
Forward a recommendation of support for the amendments to Section 3.4‐270 and 3.4‐275, as
proposed to the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Attachment 12 A -1
Attachment 12 B -1
Attachment 12 B -2
Attachment 12 B -3
Attachment 12 B -4
Attachment 12 B -5
Attachment 12 B -6
Attachment 12 B -7
Attachment 12 B -8
Attachment 12 B -9
Attachment 12 B -10
Attachment 12 B -11
Attachment 12 B -12