The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 10 Urban Transitions LLC Metro Plan Amendment and Zone ChangeAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/21/2019 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 10 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR 13.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY AT 3522 & 3530 GAME FARM ROAD, CASES 811-19-000066-TYP3 AND 811-19-000065-TYP4. ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a fourth reading and adopt/not adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 13.6 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MIXED USE (MU); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE GATEWAY REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 13.6 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MU; CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 13.6 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MUC); ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ISSUE STATEMENT: The owner of the Patrician Mobile Home Park, Urban Transitions LLC, has submitted applications requesting amendments to the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan and the Springfield Zoning Map for the 13.6-acre property at 3530 Game Farm Road. The proposal would re-designate the property to Mixed Use and rezone the property to Mixed Use Commercial zoning allowing for future redevelopment with hospitality, tourism, restaurant, retail and higher density residential uses. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Ordinance and Exhibits Exhibit A: Map and Legal Description for Metro Plan Amendment Exhibit B: Map and Legal Description for Zone Change Exhibit C: Report and Findings for Metro Plan Amendment Exhibit D: Report and Findings for Zone Change DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City Council opened a public hearing and gave first reading to the ordinance at the regular meeting on September 3, 2019. The City Council gave second reading to the ordinance and the public hearing was closed at the regular meeting on September 16, 2019. The written record was held open an additional seven days to September 23, 2019 to accept final written rebuttal testimony by the applicant. On October 7, 2019 the City Council gave third reading to the ordinance, conducted deliberations, and provided direction to staff regarding the proposed Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change. Request: Complete deliberations and vote on the request for Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change can be approved through adoption of the Ordinance included herein as Attachment 1. {00013067:1} Page 1 of 3 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.______________ (GENERAL) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 13.6 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MUC); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE GATEWAY REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 13.6 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MUC; CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 13.6 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO MUC; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT: WHEREAS, Section 5.14-100 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) sets forth procedures for Metro Plan diagram amendments; and WHEREAS, Section 5.14-115.A of the SDC classifies amendments to the Metro Plan diagram for land inside the Springfield City limits as being Type I Metro Plan amendments that require approval by Springfield only; and WHEREAS, Section 5.14-125.A of the SDC sets forth procedures for property owners to initiate a Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment for property under their ownership; and WHEREAS, the applicant/owner of the subject property initiated a Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment as follows: Redesignate approximately 13.6 acres of property identified herein as 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100) as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A to this Ordinance, from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use; and WHEREAS, Section 5.22-110 of the SDC sets forth procedures for property owners to initiate an amendment to the Springfield Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, Section 5.22-110.A.1 sets forth procedures for concurrent amendments to the Metro Plan diagram and Springfield Zoning Map through the Legislative Zoning Map amendment process; and WHEREAS the applicant/owner of the subject property initiated the following Springfield Zoning Map amendment: Rezone approximately 13.6 acres of property identified herein as 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100), as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit B to this Ordinance, from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Commercial; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2019 the Springfield Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment request and concurrent request for Gateway Refinement Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments; the public hearing was continued to May 21, 2019 and the written record was extended to June 4, 2019; the Development & Public Works Department staff report, including criteria of approval, findings and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing, were considered and were made a part of the record of the proceeding; Attachment 1, Page 1 of 39 {00013067:1} Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on June 4 and July 2, 2019 to conduct deliberations and adopt a recommendation for the City Council; at the regular meeting on July 2, 2019, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor and 3 opposed to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the proposed Metro Plan diagram, Gateway Refinement Plan diagram, and Zoning Map amendments; and WHEREAS, on September 3, 2019 the City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony and hear comments on the proposals; and WHEREAS, the City Council is now ready to take action on these proposals with due consideration given to the above recommendations of the Planning Commission and the evidence and testimony already in the record, as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing held in the matter of adopting this Ordinance amending the Metro Plan diagram, Gateway Refinement Plan diagram, and Springfield Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record and the findings set forth in Exhibits C & D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, that the proposal meets the relevant approval criteria, NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The above findings and conclusions are hereby adopted. Section 2. The applicant narrative and the City Council Report and Findings to this Ordinance set forth in Exhibits C & D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted. Section 3. The Metro Plan diagram designation of the subject property identified as 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100), generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use (MU). Section 4. The Gateway Refinement Plan diagram designation of the subject property identified as a portion of 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100), generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended from LDR to MU. Section 5. The Springfield Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone the subject property identified as 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100), generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, from LDR to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. Section 7. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor or upon the date of acknowledgement as provided in ORS 197.625, whichever date is later. Attachment 1, Page 2 of 39 {00013067:1} Page 3 of 3 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Springfield this ____ day of ______________, 2019 by a vote of ____for and ____ against. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ____ day of _______________, 2019. _____________________ Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________________ City Recorder Attachment 1, Page 3 of 39 PROPERTY REDESIGNATED FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Springfield, County of Lane, State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the WILLIAM M. STEVENS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46, in Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian, 709 feet South 89° 55’ East of the intersection of the North line of said claim with the center of the main tract of the Oregonian Railroad, said point of intersection being, according to old county surveys, South 89° 55’ East 383.8 feet from the Northwest corner of said claim; and running thence South 89° 55’ East along the North line of the claim 879.8 feet, thence South 06° 15’ East 238.3 feet, thence South 89° 44’ East 614.4 feet to the center of the County Road, thence South 33° 34’ East 246 feet, thence South 04° 18’ East 48.9 feet, thence North 89°44’ West 1605 feet, thence North 06° 15’ West 488.6 feet to the point of beginning, being in said WILLIAM M. STEVENS DONATION LAND CLAIM, in Lane County, Oregon. Except the portion conveyed to the City of Springfield, to be used as a public road, in the Bargain and Sale Deed recorded September 29, 1982, Reception No. 82-29288, Official Records, in Lane County, Oregon. Also Except the portion conveyed to the City of Springfield, to be used as a public road, in the Bargain and Sale Deed recorded May 19, 2005, Reception No. 2005-036716, Official Records, in Lane County, Oregon. Beltline Rd Deadmond Ferry Rd Game Farm Rd EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 1, Page 4 of 39 PROPERTY REZONED FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE COMMERCIAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Springfield, County of Lane, State of Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of the WILLIAM M. STEVENS DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46, in Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian, 709 feet South 89° 55’ East of the intersection of the North line of said claim with the center of the main tract of the Oregonian Railroad, said point of intersection being, according to old county surveys, South 89° 55’ East 383.8 feet from the Northwest corner of said claim; and running thence South 89° 55’ East along the North line of the claim 879.8 feet, thence South 06° 15’ East 238.3 feet, thence South 89° 44’ East 614.4 feet to the center of the County Road, thence South 33° 34’ East 246 feet, thence South 04° 18’ East 48.9 feet, thence North 89°44’ West 1605 feet, thence North 06° 15’ West 488.6 feet to the point of beginning, being in said WILLIAM M. STEVENS DONATION LAND CLAIM, in Lane County, Oregon. Except the portion conveyed to the City of Springfield, to be used as a public road, in the Bargain and Sale Deed recorded September 29, 1982, Reception No. 82-29288, Official Records, in Lane County, Oregon. Also Except the portion conveyed to the City of Springfield, to be used as a public road, in the Bargain and Sale Deed recorded May 19, 2005, Reception No. 2005-036716, Official Records, in Lane County, Oregon. Beltline Rd Deadmond Ferry Rd Game Farm Rd EXHIBIT B, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 1, Page 5 of 39 Springfield City Council Report and Findings Type I Amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram Meeting Date: October 21, 2019 Case Number: 811-19-000065-TYP4 Applicant: Teresa Bishow, Bishow Consulting LLC on behalf of Urban Transitions LLC Project Location: 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Assessor’s Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100) Request The City has received applications for a Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment and a concurrent Zoning Map amendment from a property owner. Under Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.14-115.A.1, an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram inside the City limits is classified as a Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment requiring approval by Springfield only. Under SDC 5.14-125.A, an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram can be initiated by a property owner at any time. Under SDC 5.14-130, a property-owner initiated amendment to the Metro Plan diagram is processed as a Type IV land use action, which requires public hearings before the Springfield Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would change the plan designation for the subject parcel from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use (MU).1 The proposed amendment to the Metro Plan diagram would also amend the adopted Gateway Refinement Plan diagram, which is a refinement plan to the Metro Plan. Concurrent with the Metro Plan diagram amendment and Gateway Refinement Plan amendment, the applicant has proposed to amend the Springfield Zoning Map to change the zoning of the site from LDR to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). The proposed Mixed Use plan designation and MUC zoning would allow for construction of a variety of commercial and higher density residential units such as hotels, meeting and conference facilities, eating and drinking establishments, retail stores, and offices. According to the applicant’s submittal: “The zone change will allow redevelopment of the site for a new vibrant mix of uses that will stimulate job growth, support the hospitality industry, and provide new diverse housing options.” The application was submitted on March 14, 2019 and the initial public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission was held on May 7, 2019. The public hearing was continued to May 21, 2019 and 1 The application and public notices identify the proposal as changing the designation of the subject property from a combination of Commercial and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use. When the tax lot map is overlaid with the Metro Plan diagram, the western portion of the subject property appears to be designated Commercial with the remainder Low Density Residential. However, the Metro Plan diagram was not adopted to apply designations to specific properties. The Gateway Refinement Plan refines the Metro Plan diagram to assign plan designations to specific properties. The Gateway Refinement Plan diagram clearly shows that the entire property subject to this proposal is designated as Low Density Residential, with Commercial designation immediately to the west of the subject property. Accordingly, the existing designation for the subject property under both the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan is only Low Density Residential. Additionally, the applicant’s narratives refers to the proposed designation as both “Mixed Use” and “Commercial Mixed Use.” The applicant’s maps show the proposed designation as “Mixed Use.” “Commercial Mixed Use” is not a land use designation recognized under the Gateway Refinement Plan. According, all references by the applicant to Commercial Mixed Use designation are treated as a reference to the Mixed Use designation. EXHIBIT C, Page 1 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 6 of 39 the written record was extended to May 28, 2019. The Planning Commission deliberated and adopted a recommendation to the City Council on July 2, 2019. On September 3, 2019, the City Council opened a public hearing for the proposed Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change and the public hearing was continued to the regular meeting on September 16, 2019. The written record was extended to September 23, 2019 to allow the applicant to submit final rebuttal comments. The City Council deliberated on October 7, 2019 and directed staff to prepare findings in support of the proposed redesignation and rezoning action. The findings and conclusions in this report demonstrate that the application complies with the criteria of approval. Except where the findings specifically state otherwise, the applicant’s narrative copied herein is adopted as findings in support of this application. Notification Under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was transmitted to the DLCD on March 22, 2019, which is 46 days prior to the initial Planning Commission public hearing on the matter. Under SDC 5.2-110.B, this application requires mailed notification of the public hearing as well as notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Notice of the May 7, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners and residents on April 12, 2019 and published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on April 29, 2019. Staff also posted notices of the May 7, 2019 public hearing at two places along the Game Farm Road frontages of the property (northwest and southeast driveway entrances); along the Beltline Road frontage of the subject property; in the lobby of City Hall; on the Development & Public Works office digital display; and on the City’s webpage. Notification of the September 3, 2019 City Council public hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners and residents on August 6, 2019 and published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on August 20 & 27, 2019. Staff also posted notices of the September 3, 2019 public hearing at two places along the Game Farm Road frontages of the property (northwest and southeast driveway entrances); along the Beltline Road frontage of the subject property; in the lobby of City Hall; on the Development & Public Works office digital display; and on the City’s webpage. Notice of the continued public hearing on September 16 and of the one-week record extension was provided orally by the City Council during the meetings on September 3 and September 16, respectively. Response to Public Testimony Over the course of the initial public comment period, and during the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, both written and verbal testimony was submitted to the record. Forty-six written submittals were entered into the record of the Planning Commission action and another 48 written submittals were added to the record for the City Council action. The issues raised in the submitted comments are summarized below and are permanently kept in the Planning file for this application (Case 811-19-000065-TYP4). All of the testimony was presented to the City Council for consideration prior to the closure of the public hearing meeting on September 16, 2019 and closure of the written record on September 23, 2019. EXHIBIT C, Page 2 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 7 of 39 Issues Identified The following key issues are among those identified in the public comments submitted to the public record of these land use actions: The proposal will effectively render existing homes on the subject property almost worthless because the resale value will be impacted by the change of plan designation and changing the zoning from residential to mixed use commercial; A change in plan designation is unwarranted when other property [in the vicinity] is undeveloped or underdeveloped; Other jurisdictions have adopted comprehensive plan policies that address manufactured dwelling parks; The proposed redesignation is contrary to State law, particularly Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Sections 90 and 456. The proposed Metro Plan amendment could require residents to vacate their homes; The Patrician mobile home park is a form of affordable housing for vulnerable segments of the population including the elderly and persons with disabilities; The state-mandated compensation for closure of mobile home parks ($6,000 - $8,000 per dwelling unit) isn’t enough to cover the cost of relocation. And, even if relocation of the affected homes was possible, there are very few vacant mobile home park spaces available in the region; The City has the authority to pass an ordinance requiring additional compensation for owners of mobile homes in the event of a park closure, and the compensation should be closer to real market value instead of state-mandated minimums; The owner and/or City need to provide assurance to the residents that mobile home park closure won’t occur unless a timetable has been established; The Gateway area of Springfield has been developed as a hospitality center over the past several decades and a conference center is a natural next step in the economic development of this neighborhood; The subject property was identified as a preferred site for a conference center development in Springfield. Findings in Response to Issues Raised Proposed Rezoning Action Diminishes Value of Existing Dwellings A common theme among respondents that oppose the proposed redesignation and rezoning is a concern that the action would render the existing manufactured dwellings on the site essentially worthless. Not only would the residents be required to disclose the change of zoning to a potential purchaser, the property owner has indicated that site redevelopment is anticipated in the next 5-10 years making long-term viability of the manufactured dwellings doubtful. At least one respondent has commented that the loss in value of the existing units due to rezoning would constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property. Additionally, relocation of the vintage manufactured dwellings could be costly and damaging to the structures. And, even if relocation could be undertaken, there are very few vacant manufactured dwelling park sites available in the region. The redesignation and rezoning of the property would make the existing mobile home park a legal non- conforming use. Non-conforming uses are created when the City changes the type of uses it allows in a zoning district as a way to implement goals and policy that indicate a desire for a different type of future land uses. The City has no policies about non-conforming uses that provide any direction in terms of this plan amendment and rezoning. Neither approval nor denial of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change affects the property owner’s right to close the mobile home park in accordance with state landlord-tenant law and redevelop the property. EXHIBIT C, Page 3 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 8 of 39 Proposed Rezoning Action is Contrary to Provisions of ORS 90 & 456 One respondent cited a section of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and stated the proposed action was contrary to state law regarding tenant’s rights to compete to purchase parks that are offered for sale. The provisions of ORS 90 & 456 pertain to landlord-tenant relationships, including manufactured homes within managed parks, and are not governed by the City or applicable to land use actions affecting the property. Proposed Rezoning Action Could Result in Residents Becoming Homeless A primary concern among respondents is the high cost of housing in the area, and the fact that the Patrician Mobile Home Park is an age 55+ facility that offers relatively low cost housing for vulnerable demographics: the elderly, veterans, and persons with disabilities. Residents testified that the rezoning could result in park closure and eventual displacement of the residents, and that there are few if any “landing spots” for the residents. Some of the respondents indicated that they would not meet income qualifications for a different park if they are forced to move because they are on a fixed income and rents have been increasing at a faster rate than pensions and Social Security benefits. Respondents also spoke of not only being afraid of losing their homes, but also their community and each other. They like the location of the park as it is near transit and services. As noted above, redesignating and rezoning the property does not affect the property owner’s right to issue a park closure notice at any time in accordance with state landlord-tenant law. Neither approval nor denial of the application prevents or guarantees park closure and displacement of residents. Given the applicant’s statement that redevelopment is planned for the next 5-10 years under either the existing or proposed plan designation and zoning, approval of the application does not affect residents’ likelihood of displacement. Proposed Rezoning Action Constitutes a Mobile Home Park Closure Respondents cited the public hearing notice as their indication that the Patrician Mobile Home Park was about to close and their dwellings “would be bulldozed.” Although the rezoning itself does not result in a closure – as the park can continue to function as a legal non-conforming use – the applicant has indicated an intent to redevelop the site within the next 5-10 years. Regardless of whether the rezoning is approved – or not – the applicant could still announce a mobile home park closure in the upcoming years and the residents would have to find other places to live. There would not be a public hearing or land use approvals required for a park closure. Amending the Metro Plan designation and zoning of the subject property, if approved, does not automatically displace current residents from their homes. The existing residential uses on the site can continue indefinitely under either the current or the proposed comprehensive plan designation and zoning. If the plan designation is changed to mixed-use and the zoning is changed to mixed use commercial, the mobile home park could remain as an existing non-conforming use until the site formally redevelops. Nothing in the proposal alters the landlord’s obligations to tenants under state law (as provided in ORS 90.645-655) before closing a manufactured dwelling park, nor does this development proposal require the closing of the manufactured dwelling park, which is consistent with the City’s obligations in ORS 90.660 not to interfere with a tenant’s rights under state law. Owner and/or City to Provide Assurance of Park Remaining Open The requested land use actions do not constitute a notification of park closure. Additionally, there are no criteria of approval that require the City to take action against park closure or enter into an agreement with the park owner or the residents regarding long-term plans for redevelopment. Therefore, requiring assurance that the Patrician Mobile Home Park won’t close within a specified time period is not within the City’s authority. Any such agreements would have to be made between the landowner and the tenants through modified lease agreement language. EXHIBIT C, Page 4 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 9 of 39 Available Compensation is Insufficient for Mobile Home Park Closure Respondents commented that the compensation they would receive is insufficient to compensate for the loss of their dwelling, to facilitate a relocation of their unit, or to provide a down payment on another dwelling – whether in a manufactured dwelling park or another type of housing. Almost all of the residents within the Patrician Mobile Home Park own their units, but not the underlying property. At such time as a park closure is announced, state statute (ORS 90.645) provides for a one year notification and $6,000 for a single-wide or $8,000 for a double-wide unit (or more based on inflation) as compensation from the park owner. Some residents requested that the City include a condition of approval or adopt new City-wide regulations to require additional compensation or longer notice periods prior to park closure. There are no criteria of approval or any other existing City regulation that would require this type of payment or notice to the tenants. Furthermore, the City is explicitly preempted by state statute (ORS 90.660) from enforcing any ordinance, rule, or other local law regulating manufactured dwelling park closures or partial closures adopted after July 1, 2007. Regarding the remaining issues raised under public comments, the findings in this report demonstrate that the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment complies with the requirements of the Statewide Planning Goals, including Goal 10 – Housing. Different and conflicting Metro and Refinement Plan policies were identified that apply to the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. The City Council has the authority under the Metro Plan to determine which policies are more applicable or carry greater weight in this case. A majority of the City Council has determined that the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan policies pertaining to redevelopment for mixed uses and economic opportunities take precedence over the applicable policies pertaining to retaining existing residential uses, as generally described and more specifically detailed under Criterion B.2 below. Findings in Support of Metro Plan Amendment The Gateway Area of Springfield has Evolved as a Hospitality Center Over Several Decades As the Gateway area of Springfield has developed over the years, several key ingredients that favor mixed use development have been implemented including bus rapid transit, improved local and regional transportation infrastructure, increased I-5 freeway exposure, redevelopment of the Shoppes at Gateway, and construction of several new hotels, restaurants and brewpubs. This progression has paved the way for further evolution of the Gateway area with additional hospitality and tourism facilities such as a hotel and conference center. The Subject Site is Identified as a Preferred Location for a Conference Center A 2007 study conducted by the Springfield Conference Center Consortium found that the site of the Patrician Mobile Home Park was a preferred location for a hotel with conference facilities. This was a determining factor in the applicant purchasing the property after the study was released. Participants in the Consortium study, including Travel Lane County and the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, have expressed their written support for the redesignation and rezoning action. Final Rebuttal Comments from Applicant Issue: Rebuttal to comments urging city administration and government should work with the owner on a “When and How” strategy to minimize the negative impact on current residents. EXHIBIT C, Page 5 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 10 of 39 Summary of Applicant Rebuttal: The Applicant stated that it would be willing to enter an agreement with the City of Springfield to operate and maintain the park through at least January 31, 2023. The Applicant suggests that the negotiations on the details of the agreement occur outside of the land use process. The Applicant offered this proposal not as a condition of approval on the land use decisions but to provide a greater level of certainty to the tenants. The agreement is not intended to be the formal park closure notice but to reflect a commitment to maintain the park through at least January 31, 2023. Urban Transitions, LLC acquired the property on January 2, 2008. Currently, only 12 (or about 15%) of the manufactured dwellings are still occupied by the original households. The ownership of the remaining manufactured dwellings (85%) has changed at least once since the park was acquired in 2008 by the Applicant. On March 14, 2019, Urban Transitions, LLC gave all park residents notice of the intent to submit the pending applications to the City of Springfield. At that time, 75 of the park spaces were rented to households who owned their mobile home. Since March 14, 2019, 8 of these homes were sold by former residents and are now occupied by new residents. This reflects a 10% turnover in the past six months. About 44% of the mobile homes owned by residents are occupied by households that purchased their homes since January 1, 2016. Turnover in the park is normal and due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to health, monetary circumstances, and change in life circumstances. The applicant cannot legally prevent or obstruct a current resident from selling their mobile home. Provided the prospective buyer meets the criteria for renting space in the park and agrees to follow the park’s Statement of Policy and Rules and Regulations, Urban Transitions, LLC is obligated to rent the ground space and allow the sale transaction of the personal property mobile home to go forward. To minimize the negative impact on current residents, Urban Transitions, LLC stated its goal to maintain and operate the park as long as possible consistent with its redevelopment goals. Findings in Response: Regardless of whether the Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change request is granted or not, the property owner has the right to issue notification of park closure at any time in accordance with state landlord tenant law. The City has declined to enter into any agreement with the applicant regarding future park closure, because it is outside the authority of the City to place restrictions or requirements on manufactured park closures unrelated to the criteria of approval for this application. The City’s decision in this matter is based on the criteria of approval, which does not include potential scenarios that could unfold if and when park closure is announced. Issue: Rebuttal to comments urging the City to table the rezoning until a new city ordinance is passed mandating all mobile home park owners to compensate tenants, in addition to ORS 90.610 mandatory compensation, up to current market values. Vote against the rezoning until all current residents have a safe and affordable place to go. Summary of Applicant Rebuttal: State law prohibits cities from enacting new ordinances that require mobile home park owners to compensate tenants beyond what is established in ORS 90.610, or place other restrictions on park closure above what is required by state law (see ORS 90.660). In the event of a park closure, Urban Transitions, LLC has indicated that it will comply by State law and provide tenants the required compensation. State law requires landlords to provide tenants compensation according to the size of the manufactured home (e.g., single- wide, double-wide) and not based on local market conditions or assessed valuations. This provides existing and future tenants certainty as to what financial compensation they will receive in the event of a park closure. EXHIBIT C, Page 6 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 11 of 39 Findings in Response: The requested Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change does not constitute a notification of park closure, therefore the rezoning action is not dependent upon the approval of new policies or programs to increase compensation for residents. Tabling the ordinance until all residents have a “safe and affordable place to go” is subjective and assumes that the rezoning action will result in immediate closure of the mobile home park. Park closure is unrelated to the criteria of approval, and therefore does not provide a reasonable basis to defer the decision to an unknown future date. Testimony Rejected by the Council for Consideration in the Record After the close of the public hearing and written record, members of the Council received communications from members of the public regarding the Patrician Mobile Home Park. Those communications were disclosed at the October 7, 2019 meeting. One email communication included a letter and lease agreement amendment sent by the applicant to park residents, which included an offer by the applicant not to close the park prior to January 31, 2023; the email to which these documents were attached included a park resident’s comments that they did not want to agree to the terms of the lease amendment. On October 7, the Council rejected the communication and excluded it from the record, because the terms of lease agreements and the circumstances around park closure are unrelated to the criteria of approval for this application. A second communication sent to Councilors after the close of the written record included a letter written to the Oregonian newspaper about the City Council’s public hearing and deliberations in the matter, and requesting that the Oregonian cover the land use proceedings in their publication. Because this letter cited to facts already in the record and to portions of the public hearings and meetings held by the Council, and did not contain any new information or facts, the Council also rejected this communication and did not include it in the record on October 7. Finally, members of the Council have received communications that contain only a general statement urging the Councilor to vote in favor or against the application; these communications have also been excluded from the record as they have no factual bearing on the criteria of approval for the application. Criteria of Approval Section 5.14-135 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Metro Plan diagram amendments. The Criteria of approval are: SDC 5.14-135 CRITERIA A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the Springfield City Council and other applicable governing body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the following criteria: A. The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and B. Plan inconsistency: 1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. 2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. EXHIBIT C, Page 7 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 12 of 39 In addition, SDC 5.14-115A provides the criteria of approval for refinement plan amendments: A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following: 1. The Metro Plan; 2. Applicable State statutes; and 3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. The criteria of approval in SDC 5.14-115A require the same findings as the criteria of approval for Metro Plan amendments in SDC 5.14-135. Because the criteria of approval for Metro Plan diagram amendments and refinement plan diagram amendments are the same (although worded differently), the findings in this report that demonstrate compliance with the criteria in SDC 5.14-135 also demonstrate compliance with SDC 5.14-115A and those criteria are therefore not addressed separately. A. Consistency with Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals Finding 1: Of the 19 statewide planning goals, 13 are “urban” goals: the goals that may be applicable to plan map amendments within Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB). The potentially applicable goals are Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement; Goal 2 – Land Use Planning; Goal 5 - Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality; Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; Goal 8 - Recreational Needs; Goal 9 – Economic Development; Goal 10 – Housing; Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services; Goal 12 - Transportation; Goal 13 - Energy Conservation; Goal 14 – Urbanization; and Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. Goal 3 – Agricultural Lands and Goal 4 – Forest Lands are not applicable within the City’s acknowledged UGB. Goals 16 through 19 are related to ocean and coastal planning and not applicable within Springfield’s UGB. The 13 urban statewide planning goals are listed below; findings and a determination of compliance are included for each applicable goal. Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement Applicant’s Narrative: “The City of Springfield has a citizen involvement program that is acknowledged by the State as in compliance with Goal 1. This Metro Plan amendment and related land use applications are being reviewed as a Type IV procedure. This procedure includes opportunities for citizens to be involved including two public hearings. Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Type IV land use application review procedures. This application complies with the SDC Type IV procedures and thus complies with Goal 1.” Finding 2: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.” As the applicant notes in their narrative, the proposed citizen-initiated amendment to the adopted Metro Plan diagram is subject to the City’s acknowledged plan amendment process (SDC 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments) and the City’s public notice standards (SDC 5.2-115). This process requires a public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Springfield City Council, and requires the City to provide mailed notice (see description following). Mailed notice of the initial Planning Commission public hearing EXHIBIT C, Page 8 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 13 of 39 on May 7, 2019 was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on April 12, 2019. The Planning Commission public hearing was advertised in the Register-Guard on April 29, 2019. Finding 3: At the request of persons testifying at the May 7, 2019 public hearing, the public hearing was extended to May 21, 2019 and the written record was subsequently extended to May 28, 2019. All public testimony and information addressing the criteria of approval was considered and is included in the record for the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council. Finding 4: Planning Commission hearing procedures for open record requests and deliberations resulted in the rescheduling of the initial City Council hearing on the matter until September 3, 2019. Mailed notification of the rescheduled City Council public hearing was provided to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on May 14, 2019. Finding 5: Mailed notice of the City Council public hearing on September 3, 2019 was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on August 6, 2019. The City Council public hearing was advertised in the Register-Guard on August 20 and 27, 2019. Additionally, staff posted notices for the public hearing at three locations on the perimeter of the subject property, in the lobby of City Hall, on the Development & Public Works office digital display, and on the City’s webpage. The notice for this proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment complies with SDC 5.2-115 and is consistent with Goal 1 requirements. Finding 6: At the request of persons testifying at the September 3, 2019 public hearing, the public hearing was extended to September 16, 2019 and the written record was held open until September 23, 2019 for the applicant to submit final rebuttal comments. Notice of the continued public hearing was provided at the meeting on September 3; notice of the extended written record was provided at the meeting on September 16. Finding 7: Public testimony and all information received addressing the criteria of approval has been considered and included in the record for the City Council’s decision. Finding 8: As demonstrated above, the citizen involvement process for this application is consistent with the City’s acknowledged procedures for compliance with Goal 1 – Public Involvement. Goal 2 – Land Use Planning Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 2 requires local plans and regulatory measures to be consistent with statewide goals and land use decisions to be supported by an adequate factual basis. Goal 2 also requires that comprehensive plan amendments be adopted after a public hearing by the governing body that provides citizens an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. The Springfield Development Code implements Goal 2 by providing state-acknowledged procedures and criteria governing land use decisions. This Metro Plan amendment and related applications will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council following two public hearings. This application complies with the requirements of the Springfield Development Code and thus complies with Goal 2.” Finding 9: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide planning program. Under Goal 2, land use decisions must be consistent with a comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the plan’s policies into EXHIBIT C, Page 9 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 14 of 39 force and effect. Consistent with the City’s coordination responsibilities and obligations to provide affected local agencies with an opportunity to comment, the City sent a copy of the application submittals to the following agencies: Willamalane Park & Recreation District; Springfield Utility Board (water, ground water protection, electricity and energy conservation); Lane 911; United States Postal Service; Northwest Natural Gas; Emerald People’s Utility District; Rainbow Water District; Eugene Water and Electric Board – Water and Electric Departments; Springfield School District #19 Maintenance, Safe Routes to School and Financial Services; Lane County Transportation, County Sanitarian; Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority; Comcast Cable; CenturyLink; Lane Transit District; and ODOT Planning and Development, State Highway Division. Additionally, notice was provided electronically to DLCD on March 22, 2019. Finding 10: The Metro Plan is the acknowledged comprehensive plan for guiding land use planning in Springfield. The City has adopted other neighborhood- or area-specific plans (such as Refinement Plans) that provide more detailed direction for land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan. The subject property is within the adopted Gateway Refinement Plan area and the proposed amendment to the Metro Plan diagram would concurrently amend the adopted Refinement Plan diagram. Additionally, the City is in the process of developing and adopting a Springfield- specific Comprehensive Plan. The acknowledged Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element (Ordinance 6268) provides supplemental policies and findings and expands upon – but does not replace – the applicable residential Metro Plan policies. The acknowledged Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element (Ordinance 6361) replaces the economic development and employment findings and policies of the Metro Plan. Findings that demonstrate the proposal’s consistency with these elements of the comprehensive plan are provided under Criteria B. These findings demonstrate the public need and justification for the proposed Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan diagram amendment. Finding 11: The public hearing process used to amend the Metro Plan and adopted refinement plans is specified in Chapter IV Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements. These policies are acknowledged as consistent with the Goal 2 requirement that citizens and affected governments be provided notice and an opportunity to review and comment on minor changes to the comprehensive plan. The following relevant sections of the Springfield Development Code are acknowledged to implement the above Metro Plan policies and Goal 2. The proposal is classified as a Type I amendment to the adopted Metro Plan diagram that is approved by Springfield only under SDC 5.14-115.A. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment was initiated under SDC 5.14-125 and is being processed as a Type IV land use action consistently with SDC 5.1-140 and 5.14-130. Because this process is consistent with the relevant procedures in the Springfield Development Code, it is consistent with the Metro Plan policies and Goal 2. Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Applicant’s Narrative: “The property does not contain any inventoried Statewide Goal 5 resources. The Gateway Refinement Plan does not identify any natural assets or historic resources on the property. Goal 5 is not applicable.” Finding 12: Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources applies to more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands, and establishes a process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated. As stated in the applicant’s narrative, the site that is subject of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is considered developed and has not been identified in the City’s Natural Resources Inventory, Register of EXHIBIT C, Page 10 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 15 of 39 Historic Sites, or the Willamalane Park & Recreation District Comprehensive Plan. There are no known natural or cultural resources present on the subject site. Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 5. Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Applicant’s Narrative: “The City of Springfield has existing programs and regulations in place to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources. Springfield’s Environmental Services Divisions (ESD) coordinates the City’s and Metro region’s compliance with applicable federal and state environmental quality statutes. ESD manages multiple programs to maintain compliance with Goal 6 including Water Resources Programs, such as implementing the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permit, and the Wastewater & Stormwater (sewer & drainage) Programs. This Metro Plan amendment will allow redevelopment of an existing developed site. All new development must comply with applicable local, state and federal air and water quality standards. The proposed Metro Plan amendment does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 6.” Finding 13: Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality applies to local comprehensive plans and the implementation of measures consistent with state and Federal regulations on matters such as clean air, clean water, and preventing groundwater pollution. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and concurrent Gateway Refinement Plan amendment does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 6 requirements. Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 6. Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Applicant’s Narrative: “The Metro Plan, Springfield’s 2030 Plan and the City’s Development Code are acknowledged to be in compliance with all applicable statewide land use goals, including Goal 7. Springfield has existing programs, policies, zoning overlays, and development standards to regulate development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. The property included in this Metro Plan amendment is not in the City’s Floodplain Overlay District or the Hillside Development Overlay. The Gateway Refinement Plan does not identify the property as within the Floodway, Floodway Fringe, or containing hydric soils. The property does not contain any known natural hazards. Goal 7 is not applicable.” Finding 14: Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards applies to development in areas such as floodplains and potential landslide areas. Local jurisdictions are required to apply “appropriate safeguards” when planning for development in hazard areas. The City has inventoried areas subject to natural hazards such as the McKenzie and Willamette River floodplains and potential landslide areas on steeply sloping hillsides. The subject site is within a developed residential neighborhood and is on level ground, but it is outside the mapped 100-year flood hazard area of the McKenzie River. Future site development will be subject to the provisions of the City’s Site Plan Review process as described in SDC 5.17-100. Finding 15: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment has no effect on City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 7 requirements and siting standards for development within hillside areas or the mapped flood hazard area of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 7. EXHIBIT C, Page 11 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 16 of 39 Goal 8 – Recreational Needs Applicant’s Narrative: “The subject property is located in the Willamalane Park and Recreation District. located at 1500 Mallard Avenue [sic]. Gamebird Park is improved with a full basketball court, playground and other amenities. Per Goal 8, the 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan assessed projected population growth and changes in community demographics. The plan proposed new and expanded recreational facilities although none were identified on the subject property. Within a mile of the subject property, an area adjacent to the McKenzie River is identified for a proposed new path and special use park. The subject property is currently designated on the Metro Plan Diagram as a combination of Commercial and Low Density Residential. The proposed Metro Plan amendment will allow a diversity of commercial and high- density residential uses [through] a concurrent zone change to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). A proposed amendment to the MUC zone would allow a conference center providing a destination for visitors and an educational facility for the region’s workforce. The subject property is not needed to satisfy recreational needs. The proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendment and related applications comply with Goal 8.” Finding 16: As stated in the applicant’s narrative, Goal 8 – Recreational Needs requires communities to evaluate their recreation areas and facilities and to develop plans to address current and projected demand. The provision of recreation services within Springfield is the responsibility of Willamalane Park & Recreation District. Willamalane has an adopted 20-Year Comprehensive Plan for the provision of park, open space and recreation services for Springfield. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would not affect Willamalane’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or other ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 8 requirements. Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8. Goal 9 – Economic Development Applicant’s Narrative: “Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 9, in February 2010, the Springfield City Council, together with Eugene and Lane County, approved the Regional Prosperity Economic Development Plan providing a framework to better align regional economic growth with the area’s assets and values. In 2016 the City of Springfield amended the Metro Plan and adopted Springfield’s city-specific Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element including Economic Development Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies as well as its Technical Supplement the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA). (City Ordinance No. 6361). The adopted Economic Element stated a need for large sites for future employment. Specifically, ‘The employment land needs that may not be met within the UGB are for sites five acres and larger. The City has one buildable site 20 acres or larger.’ (Finding 16). It is worth noting that the EOA indicated there were no available sites designated either Commercial or Mixed Use between 10.00-19.99 acres (See EOA, Table 2-9). The property is approximately 13 acres and if available for commercial development would help meet the projected demand. The EOA listed sectors with the most growth potential as: Health and Social Assistance; Administrative and Support; Construction; and Accommodations and Food Services. Other sectors with growth opportunities were listed as: Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; Management of Companies and Enterprises; Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; and Private Educational Services (See EOA pages 62 and 63). Consistent with Goal 9 requirements, the City of Springfield identified ‘target industries’ or those most likely to be attractive to Springfield (See EOA pages 65-67). The ‘target industries’ include: EXHIBIT C, Page 12 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 17 of 39 Medical Services Services for Seniors Call Centers Manufacturing Specialty Food Processing High-Tech Professional and Technical Services Call Centers [sic] Back-Office Functions Tourism Green Businesses Corporate Headquarters Services of Residents Government and Public Services The City of Springfield has multiple plan designations that can accommodate the target industries listed above (See EOA, Table 4-2 Target Industries and Plan Designations). This Metro Plan amendment would change the Plan Diagram for the subject property from a combination of Commercial and Low Density Residential to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use designation would provide a new 13 acre site available for several of Springfield’s target industries. As noted in the EOA, ‘Many businesses in Springfield, especially large businesses like those in Springfield’s target industries, are located as close to Interstate 5 or a state highway as possible…Much of Springfield’s employment base, especially large employers, is clustered in the Gateway area, within one mile (or less) of I-5.’ (See page 92). The subject property is located within one mile of Interstate 5 and close to other major employers and medical services such as RiverBend Hospital. The subject property is ideally suited for a mix of uses including a conference center, hotels, higher education or business training facility. The proposed Metro Plan amendment and related applications will increase the available supply of land for employment needs and thus complies with Goal 9.” Finding 17: Goal 9 – Economic Development addresses diversification and improvement of the economy. It requires local jurisdictions to conduct an inventory of commercial and industrial lands, anticipate future needs for such lands, and provide enough appropriately-zoned land to meet the projected demand over a 20-year planning horizon. The City’s acknowledged Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities analysis (CIBL-EOA) identified a deficit of employment land, including a need for 4 new sites that are between 5 and 20 acres in size. To address this deficit, the City expanded the UGB to provide sufficient employment- generating land area for the 20-year planning horizon. The UGB expansion has been acknowledged by LCDC effective March 5, 2019. This proposal would result in a small surplus of sites between 5 and 20 acres in size that are available for mixed use commercial development, which is consistent with Goal 9. Finding 18: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use will supplement the amount of employment land within the City’s inventory. Amending the Metro Plan diagram to facilitate redevelopment of existing sites complies with Goal 9. EXHIBIT C, Page 13 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 18 of 39 Goal 10 - Housing Applicant’s Narrative: “The April 2011 Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) serves as the City’s ‘housing needs analysis and buildable lands inventory’ under Goal 10, Division 008 and ORS 197.296. The April 2011 RLHNA demonstrated in the aggregate there was sufficient buildable residential land within Springfield’s urban growth boundary to meet residential, public and semi-public land needs during the 20-year planning period. As stated in the adopting Ordinance No. 6268, Exhibit F-14: ‘Springfield has an overall surplus of residential land in two residential plan designations: The Low Density Residential (LDR) designation had a surplus of approximately 378 buildable acres; The Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation had a surplus of approximately 76 gross buildable acres. However, The High Density Residential (HDR) designation had a deficit of approximately 28 gross buildable acres needed to accommodate an additional 411 high-density, multiple family housing units.’ The City was not required, nor did the City take action to address the surplus of buildable land available for low- and medium-density housing. The City did amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan to re-designate 28 acres as Mixed Use to help address the deficit of high-density residential land. The proposed plan amendments and zone change application will further address the deficiency by providing an additional 13 acre site available for high-density residential uses. The RLHNA included a detailed spreadsheet of the tax lots in the residential land base by plan designation and zoning. Since the subject property was developed, it was not included in the residential buildable land inventory as a site available to meet future housing needs. The subject property is designated in the Metro Plan as Commercial and Low Density Residential. The proposed Metro Plan amendment would shift surplus low-density residential land to Mixed Use Commercial helping to further address the deficit of high density multiple family housing. Please refer to Exhibit C – Metro Plan Diagram – Existing and Proposed. The Metro Plan change and related applications comply with Goal 10.” Finding 19: Goal 10 – Housing applies to the planning for – and provision of – needed housing types, including mobile home or manufactured dwelling parks. The subject site is currently developed as a mobile home and manufactured dwelling park, which is a permitted use in the existing LDR designation and zone. As noted by the applicant’s narrative, a surplus of LDR designated land exists within the City’s land inventory. Currently, the surplus of LDR designated land is approximately 164.6 acres. (See Ordinances 6364, 6373, 6374, 6375, 6378, 6395, and 6400). Finding 20: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would change the anticipated type of development on the property from single-family homes to a variety of commercial uses with provision for higher-density residential units to be included. Although the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment from LDR to Mixed Use would allow for certain types of residential units to be constructed on the site, the 13.6-acre property would no longer be part of the City’s residential land inventory. Finding 21: The subject property is identified in the acknowledged Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) as not available for housing because it is already a fully developed site. EXHIBIT C, Page 14 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 19 of 39 Amending the Metro Plan designation of the subject site from LDR to Mixed Use will have a collateral impact on the City’s housing inventory because, upon future redevelopment of the site, the existing dwelling units on the subject site would no longer be counted toward meeting the City’s housing need. The subject site is 13.6 acres and is currently developed to support 80 manufactured dwelling units or mobile homes and there is one stick-built house. The RLHNA assumes redevelopment of currently developed sites will occur at a rate of 5% from 2010-2030. Redevelopment of the subject site would remove 81 dwellings from the housing inventory that are attributable to the subject site in the RLHNA. The RLHNA assumes a future density of 7.9 dwelling units per acre for all dwelling types. Therefore, if 81 dwelling units are removed from the inventory of existing dwellings upon future site redevelopment, there is a need for approximately 10.3 acres of additional buildable LDR land. Effectively, this reduces the City’s surplus of LDR to 154 acres. Because the inventory shows a surplus of residential buildable land both before and after the proposed plan amendment, the remaining surplus shows that the plan amendment is consistent with Goal 10. Finding 22: Under a Mixed Use plan designation, the existing residential dwellings on the site would become legal non-conforming uses. The subject land use action does not constitute a notice of manufactured home park closure, so the dwellings could remain indefinitely. Proposed modifications to the existing manufactured home park under a Mixed Use designation and zoning would require a separate land use action for expansion of a non-conforming use. Finding 23: The site is adjacent to a pedestrian and transit-oriented Nodal Development area, and is close to major employers, health care facilities, multi-use pathway connections, and the regional transportation network. Other sites in the immediate vicinity have been the subject of recent Metro Plan diagram amendments to change the designation from LDR to higher density residential districts (i.e. Medium and High Density Residential). The North Gateway area of Springfield is growing and evolving based on existing development and the recent intensification of land use on underdeveloped LDR sites located nearby. In this context, the site would be suitable for more intensive forms of development such as Mixed Use Commercial, which could include higher density residential uses. Finding 24: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment will retain the existing surplus of low density residential buildable land within the Springfield UGB which allows development of manufactured home dwelling units. Changing trends in the Gateway area support redevelopment of the subject site with mixed uses, which could include high density residential uses. Therefore, this proposal is consistent with Goal 10. Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services Applicant’s Narrative: “The property is located within the City of Springfield and currently is provided the full range of urban public facilities and services. The proposal will not affect the City or other service providers’ ability to provide public services. The Metro Plan amendment and related applications comply with Goal 11.” Finding 25: Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. Under OAR 660-011- 0005(5), public facilities include water, sewer and transportation facilities, but do not include buildings, structures or equipment incidental to the operation of those facilities. The Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) is a functional plan of the Metro Plan that is acknowledged to EXHIBIT C, Page 15 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 20 of 39 meet Springfield’s obligations under Goal 11. This area of Springfield is already planned for a variety of residential, commercial, campus industrial, and institutional development and the public facilities serving this area have been planned accordingly. The PFSP states that there is current capacity to adequately serve all infill, redevelopment, and Nodal Development Areas within Springfield city limits, which includes the subject property. If future redevelopment results in a need to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure serving the property, mitigation would be required at time of development. Goal 12 – Transportation Applicant’s Narrative: “The City of Springfield’s adopted and acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan. The proposed Metro Plan Diagram change from a combination of Community Commercial and Low Density Residential to Commercial Mixed Use is consistent with the TSP. The amendment will allow the creation of a vibrant, mixed use area taking advantage of the strategic location near transit and major transportation corridors. The mixed use land use pattern will be developed at densities that support transit ridership and decrease reliance on the automobile. To comply with the Transportation Planning Rule and local regulations, a special Traffic Impact Study was conducted to assess projected traffic associated with commercial mixed use development at the Patrician Mobile Home Park. The Traffic Impact Study, prepared by David Evans and Associates, concluded: ‘Approval of the proposed zoning of Commercial Mixed Use would not result in a significant effect to the existing or planned transportation facilities in the opening year of 2020 or the 20-year planning horizon of 2038. With signal timing optimization at the intersection of Gateway at Game Farm Road, all study area intersections are projected to meet the ODOT and City mobility target in the opening year of 2020. For the forecast year of 2038, all study area intersections are project to meet the ODOT and City mobility targets with currently planned improvements. A detailed safety analysis determined that safety oriented mitigations are not necessary, and that there are no trends that would be magnified by the proposed redevelopment of the project site.’ For additional information, please refer to the Traffic Impact Study dated March 2019 prepared for Urban Transitions, LLC distributed under separate cover.” Finding 26: OAR 660-012-0060, also referred to as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), requires that, “if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map), would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures” to mitigate the impact, as defined in OAR 660-012-0060(2). Under the TPR, a plan amendment and/or zone change may result in a “significant affect” under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a) & (b) by changing the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility, or by changing the standards implementing a functional classification system. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment from LDR to Mixed Use does not alter the functional classification of any facility or change any standards for implementing the functional classification system and therefore do not result in a “significant affect” under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a) or (b). Finding 27: Under the TPR, a plan amendment or zone change may also result in a “significant affect” if it would result in any of the effects listed under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(c) “based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP.” EXHIBIT C, Page 16 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 21 of 39 Under the TPR, a “significant affect” occurs if the proposed amendment(s) would result in types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the identified functional classification of the existing or planned transportation facilities, that degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet performance standards identified in the TSP, or that degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise not projected to meet the performance standards identified in the TSP. Finding 28: When determining whether a proposed functional plan or land use amendment has a significant effect, OAR 660-012-0060(4)(a) states that local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities and services set forth under subsections (4)(b) and (4)(c) of the rule. OAR 660-012-0060(4)(b)(E) states that improvements to regional and local roads, street, or other facilities that are included in a regional or local transportation system plan are considered planned facilities, improvements or services when the responsible local government provides a written statement that the facilities, improvements, or services are “reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.” Finding 29: Under OAR 660-012-0060(4)(c)(A), which is applicable within interstate interchange areas, the facilities and improvements listed in subsection (4)(b)(E) are considered planned facilities if the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) provides written concurrence that the proposed funding and mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway systems. Under OAR 660-012-0060(4)(c)(B), which is applicable within interstate interchange areas, the City may rely on improvements listed in an adopted interchange area management plan that are also identified under subsection (4)(b)(E). Finding 30: The City of Springfield has an adopted and acknowledged transportation system plan under Goal 12: the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (Springfield TSP). The end of the planning period in the Springfield TSP is the year 2035. The Springfield TSP prioritizes planned improvements and facilities that the City expects to construct in the 20-year planning horizon (20-year projects) and those that they may not be constructed in that time (beyond 20-year projects). The 20-year projects are broken down in relative order of priority as “priority projects,” “opportunity projects,” and “as-development occurs” projects. However, any of the projects listed in the Springfield TSP could be constructed within the planning period as opportunities arise. Finding 31: The development area falls within the geographic scope of the interstate interchange area for I-5 and Beltline. The I-5/Beltline Interchange Project Interchange Area Management Plan is Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) adopted Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for the interstate interchange area. ODOT facilities are subject to the performance standards in the Oregon Highway Plan. Finding 32: As required by SDC 5.22-110, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) addressing traffic impacts associated with the proposed zone change from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Commercial to show compliance with the TPR at OAR 660-012-0060. The scope of the applicant’s TIS complies with the requirements in SDC 4.2-15A.4 and the City of Springfield’s Standard Operational Procedures and Policies. The intersections and driveways scoped in the applicant’s TIS are reasonable, appropriate, and relevant to the potential impacts of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. Finding 33: The applicant’s TIS relies upon three planned Springfield TSP projects—R-3, R-50, and R-2—in the analysis for the future buildout conditions in order to determine whether the proposed EXHIBIT C, Page 17 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 22 of 39 comprehensive plan diagram and zoning map amendments would meet performance standard within the applicable planning horizon. Project R-3, Game Farm Road – East to International Way, is listed as a “priority project” in the Springfield TSP’s 20-year project list and it is reasonably likely that this project will be completed by the end of the planning period in 2035. Project R-50, Gateway/Beltline Phase 2 project, is listed as a “priority project” in the Springfield TSP’s 20-year project list and is included in the I-5/Beltline Interchange Project. It is reasonably likely that this project will be completed by the end of the planning period in 2035. Project R-2, Gateway Road/International Way to UGB, is listed as an “opportunity project” in the Springfield TSP’s 20-year project list. Again, it is reasonably likely that this project will be completed by the end of the planning period in 2035. Finding 34: The applicant’s TIS was submitted to ODOT Region 2 for review. Via memo dated April 3, 2019, ODOT has reviewed the submitted TIS and has provided written concurrence that the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures (i.e. none) are reasonable for this project (Attachment 6). The City’s Transportation Planning Engineer concurs with the applicant’s trip generation methodology and findings. The applicant’s TIS provides Trip Generation scenarios for the existing and proposed plan designation(s) and zoning. The trips generated by 130 single family dwellings and under “Scenario 2” (i.e. 168 multifamily housing units in mid-rise apartments and 125,000 ft2 shopping center) represent the “reasonable worst case scenarios” under the current and proposed zoning and comply with the TPR. Finding 35: The applicant’s TIS assumed retiming of the intersections and optimization of signal operations in determining transportation facility performance for the various scenarios and analysis time periods. The applicant’s assumptions regarding retiming adjustments and optimization activities are common and reasonable assumptions and are accepted by the City of Springfield for analysis purposes. Finding 36: The applicant’s TIS analyzes traffic impacts in year 2020 at “opening” of the anticipated development and in 2038. Under the TPR, a plan amendment or zone change results in a “significant affect” if it has results listed under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(c) “based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP.” The end of the planning period in the Springfield TSP is the year 2035. Finding 37: The applicant’s TIS demonstrates that the proposed zoning of Mixed Use Commercial will not result in any study intersections failing to meet ODOT and City of Springfield mobility standards in the projected opening year of 2020 and in 2038. Thus, the applicant’s TIS demonstrates that, through the end of the planning period in 2035 (and beyond until at least 2038), the proposed amendments will not degrade the performance of an existing or planned facility such that it does not meet the performance standards in the Springfield TSP or Oregon Highway Plan. Thus, the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change do not result in a “significant affect” under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(c). Finding 38: The applicant’s Goal 12 Transportation findings and supplementary Transportation Analysis, including the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by David Evans and Associates, concludes that the vehicle trip generation for the proposed Mixed Use site would not create a significant affect. Finding 39: Based on the above findings, the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment from LDR to Mixed Use and Zoning Map amendment from LDR to MUC will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with OAR 660- EXHIBIT C, Page 18 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 23 of 39 012-0060 and SDC 5.22-115C.4.b, and no additional mitigation is required under the TPR. The proposal is consistent with Goal 12. Goal 13 – Energy Conservation Applicant’s Narrative: “There are no non-renewable resources on the property. The proposed redevelopment will allow a greater mix of uses potentially decreasing the reliance on the automobile. All new development will be required to comply with local, state and federal codes related to energy conservation.” Finding 40: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. As stated in the applicant’s narrative, converting the property from LDR to Mixed Use Commercial should not have an appreciable impact to energy consumption and could offer opportunities for increased energy efficiency by implementing green building concepts. The developer will have an opportunity to incorporate suitable energy conservation measures into the future site development when detailed construction plans are prepared for the site. The City’s building codes comply with all Oregon State Building Codes Agency standards for energy efficiency in commercial and residential building design. The site’s solar access is not compromised by surrounding development. Any future development will be required to observe the building height limitations and solar setback provisions in SDC 3.2-615 where Mixed Use Commercial sites abut existing LDR properties or other acknowledged land use regulations adopted to implement Goal 13. The City’s acknowledged conservation measures applicable to storm water management, temporary storage, filtration and discharge also would apply to commercial uses to be developed on this site. Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 13. Goal 14 - Urbanization Applicant’s Narrative: “This Metro Plan amendment does not proposed to expand the Urban Growth Boundary thus does not require a review of the transition of rural to urban land uses. Therefore, the provisions of Goal 14 and OAR Chapter 660, Division 24 (Urban Growth Boundaries) are not applicable.” Finding 41: The subject property is within the City’s acknowledged UGB and no changes to the UGB are proposed. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change do not affect the City’s adopted ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to satisfy the compliance requirements of Goal 14. Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway Applicant’s Narrative: “The property is not in the Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 is not applicable.” Finding 42: Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300 miles of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City limits and UGB of Springfield. The subject site is not within the adopted Willamette River Greenway Boundary area so this goal is not applicable; therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 15. EXHIBIT C, Page 19 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 24 of 39 Conclusion: The above findings demonstrate that the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use is consistent with the applicable statewide land use planning goals as required by SDC 5.14-135.A: “The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals.” The proposal meets this criterion of approval. B. Plan Inconsistency 1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Applicant’s Narrative: “This Metro Plan amendment is limited to a change to the Plan Diagram affecting a single property. The proposed amendment does not create any internal inconsistencies or conflicts with the remainder of the Metro Plan.” Finding 43: The subject property is located within the Gateway Refinement Plan, which is an acknowledged refinement of the Metro Plan. According to SDC 5.14-120.D, “[w]hen a Metro Plan diagram amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan … diagram for consistency, the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the diagram … if no amendment to the refinement plan … text is involved.” No amendments to the refinement plan text have been proposed as part of this application and the proposed diagram amendment is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Gateway Refinement Plan text, so “no amendment to the refinement plan… text is involved” in this proposal. Therefore, approval of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the Gateway Refinement Plan. Finding 44: As discussed under subcriterion B.2 below, to the extent that this criterion requires consistency with the Metro Plan policies, the applicant’s proposal complies with this criterion. Finding 45: The subject property is within the adopted Gateway Refinement Plan area, which is a refinement of the Metro Plan. Consistency with the Gateway Refinement Plan is discussed in Findings 60 and 61. 2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. Applicant’s Narrative: “This Metro Plan amendment shifts an underutilized site with a combination of Commercial and Low Density Residential designations to a new Commercial Mixed Use designation. The Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the following Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2030 Plan) goals and policies. 2030 Plan EG-1 Broaden, improve and diversify the state and regional economy, and the Springfield economy in particular, while maintaining or enhancing environmental quality and Springfield’s natural heritage. This Metro Plan Amendment will provide a new mixed use site allowing for a diversity of commercial and medium- to high-density residential uses. The increased range and density of uses will help strengthen the economy. The site does not contain any significant Statewide Goal 5 environmental or historic resources. EXHIBIT C, Page 20 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 25 of 39 2030 Plan EG-5 Support the development of emerging economies guided by the following principles: a. Healthy Living – Champion businesses and entrepreneurs that promote a healthy, safe, and clean community while enhancing, protecting, and making wise use of natural resources. b. Ideas to Enterprise – Encourage a culture of entrepreneurship and re- investment into the local community. c. Regional Identity – Create a strong economic personality that celebrates our region’s attributes and values. d. Be Prepared – Contribute to the development of the region’s physical, social, educational, and workforce infrastructure to meet the needs of tomorrow. e. Local Resilience – Support businesses and entrepreneurs that lead the city and region to greater economic independence, innovation, and growth of the traded sector economies. The proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendment will provide a new Commercial Mixed Use area that will allow a conference center, educational facilities and other businesses that will contribute to a diversified economy, support entrepreneurs, and offer educational opportunities for the local workforce. The Commercial Mixed Use area will also create the opportunity for new housing close to commercial services, major employment areas and medical services. 2030 Plan E.6 Facilitate short term and long term redevelopment activity and increased efficiency of land use through the urban renewal program, updates to refinement plans and the development review process. The proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendment will facilitate redevelopment of an existing underutilized site. The proposed Commercial Mixed Use designation will increase the mix and density of uses in a manner that more efficiently utilizes public services. 2030 Plan E.11 Plan, zone and reserve a sufficient supply of industrial and commercial buildable land to create opportunity sites for employment uses in the 2015 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), with an initial emphasis on Target Industries listed in the analysis Table S-1, Target Industries, Springfield 2010-2030 (page iii-iv). The proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendment will provide a new opportunity site for employment uses in particular the City of Springfield Target industries of tourism and senior services. 2030 Plan E.14 Leverage and promote Springfield’s Interstate 5 corridor location and visibility. The primary impetus for the proposed applications is the ability to develop the subject property for a conference center and hospitality uses. These tourist-related uses will leverage and promote Springfield’s strategic location on the I-5 corridor. EXHIBIT C, Page 21 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 26 of 39 2030 Plan E.19 In the 2030 Plan diagram and Land Use Element, and future refinement planning, locate regional, community and neighborhood-serving commercial uses to support economically viable centers, enhanced commercial corridors, and walkable neighborhood scale mixed-use centers. The 13 acre site is large enough to create a vibrant walkable mixed use area. It is on an arterial and is conveniently located near transit services. 2030 Plan E.22 Plan, designate and zone land to allow community and neighborhood retail commercial uses in new, existing or expanded mixed use centers/nodes to address the land need for retail described in the Economic Opportunities Analysis; timing shall be coordinated with City refinement planning processes or through property-owner initiated proposals that are consistent with Springfield Comprehensive Plan policies. This property-owner initiated proposal is consistent with Springfield Comprehensive Plan policies and will allow for redevelopment opportunities that address both commercial and residential land needs. 2030 Plan E.35 Increase the potential for convention- and tourist-related economic activities to generate economic activity, especially in the service industries like retail, food services, and accommodations. This Metro Plan amendment will provide a suitable site for a new conference center, hotels, and other tourist-related economic activities. The site is located in the north Gateway area near the Interstate 5 corridor. The site has frontage on Beltline Road and Game Farm Road providing excellent visibility and easy access to transportation facilities including I-5 and the airport. 2030 Plan E.44 Expand the City’s partnership with the University of Oregon, Lane Community College, Oregon State University and other education institutions to support the development of education and research facilities and programs into Springfield, to bring new technologies and innovations to market, and to promote sustainable practices. This Metro Plan amendment will enable the site to be developed with a mix of uses including a conference center and/or other educational facilities for adults. 2030 Plan H.10 Through the updating and development of each neighborhood refinement plan, district plan or specific area plan, amend land use plans to increase development opportunities for quality affordable housing in locations served by existing and planned frequent service that provides access to employment centers, shopping, health care, civic, recreational and cultural services The subject property is ideally suited for new high-density housing due to its location near employment centers, shopping, and medical services. It is near transit stops providing access to numerous civic, recreational and cultural services. The Metro Plan amendment will help address the need for new multiple family housing. EXHIBIT C, Page 22 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 27 of 39 2030 Plan H.12 Continue to designate land to provide a mix of choices (i.e. location, accessibility, housing types, and urban and suburban neighborhood character) through the refinement plan update process and through review of developer- initiated master plans. This Metro Plan amendment will result in additional land designated mixed use increasing the opportunities for new housing options for residents. The location near medical services will make the site attractive to people working in the medical field and to those wanting to live near medical services. Based upon the above information, the proposed Metro Plan amendment complies with SDC 5.14- 135. ” Finding 46: The adopted Metro Plan is the principal policy document that creates the broad framework for land use planning within the City of Springfield. The adoption of Springfield Ordinances #6268 and #6400 included the new Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element and Economic Element respectively. The policies and implementation actions of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element are intended to refine and update the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro Plan’s Residential Land Use and Housing Element. The policies and implementation actions of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element replace the economic development and employment growth provisions of the Metro Plan. Therefore, both plans are applicable to this request and the proposed Metro Plan amendment and zone change must be consistent with both the Metro Plan and the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The following findings in this section identify and show compliance with the applicable Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Plan policies. Policies not identified herein are not applicable to this proposal. Finding 47: Chapter 1 of the Metro Plan, under the heading Use of the Metro Plan, states: “The [City] recognize[s] that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals and policies. When making decisions based on the Metro Plan, not all of the goals and policies can be met to the same degree in every instance. Use of the Metro Plan requires a balancing of its various components on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand.” Communities like Springfield are faced with the dilemma of managing growth pressures while preserving a feeling of “community.” To address this, planning decisions need to be intentional and smart to protect the community that is already established – not just made for the sake of overall growth. Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan - Economic Findings Finding 48: As stated in the applicant’s project narrative above, the Policies and Implementation Actions of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element apply to the subject site. The applicant’s findings above assert that the proposal complies with applicable policies and implementation strategies of the Economic Element and further supports the identified goals. The following findings discuss the proposal’s compliance with other applicable policies and EXHIBIT C, Page 23 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 28 of 39 implementation strategies in the Springfield 2030 Plan. Policies not discussed in this report are not applicable to this proposal. Finding 49: Policy E.1 of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element states that the City will “[d]esignate an adequate supply of land that is planned and zoned to provide sites of varying locations, configurations, size and characteristics as identified and described in the Economic Opportunity Analysis to accommodate industrial and other employment over the planning period. These sites may include vacant undeveloped land; partially developed sites with potential for additional development through infill development; and sites with redevelopment potential.” The proposal is consistent with this policy because it would help meet the City’s need for 4 commercial and mixed use sites between 5 and 20 acres in size. Finding 50: Policy E.7 of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element states that the City will “[w]here possible, concentrate development on sites with existing infrastructure or on sites where infrastructure can be provided relatively easily and at a comparatively low cost.” The subject property is surrounded by an existing transportation network and utility infrastructure. The subject property is already developed and has all available utilities and services on the perimeter. The proposal is consistent with this policy because the subject site is served by existing infrastructure that could support redevelopment of commercial mixed uses more easily and at a comparatively low cost compared to the recent UGB expansion areas that lack existing infrastructure. Finding 51: Policy E.12 of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element states that the City will “[r]ecruit or support businesses that pay higher than average wages for the region (as reported by the Oregon Employment Department) to diversify and expand Springfield’s economy.” Specifically, to implement that policy, Implementation Strategy 12.6 states that the City will “[s]upport development of convention- and tourism-related economic activities.” The proposal is consistent with this implementation strategy because it would facilitate the future redevelopment of the site with hotel and conference-center uses which support convention- and tourism-related activities. Finding 52: Policy E.16 of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element states that the City will “[c]onsider the economic opportunities provided by transportation corridors and seek to maximize economic uses in corridors that provide the most optimal locations and best exposure for existing and future commercial and industrial uses.” The subject property is located at the intersection of an arterial and a collector street (Beltline Road and Game Farm Road) and the site has extensive frontage on three major streets. The property proposed for rezoning is in close proximity to I-5 and the Beltline Road and Gateway Street intersection, which are among the busiest streets in the metro area. The proposal is consistent with this policy because its proximity to important local and regional transportation corridors will maximize economic use of the property. Finding 53: The subject property is located within the Gateway Refinement Plan, which is an acknowledged refinement of the Metro Plan. According to SDC 5.14-120.D, “[w]hen a Metro Plan diagram amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a refinement plan … diagram for consistency, the Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the diagram … if no amendment to the refinement plan … text is involved.” No amendments to the refinement plan text have been proposed as part of this application and the proposed diagram amendment is not inconsistent with any provisions of the Gateway Refinement Plan text, so “no amendment to the EXHIBIT C, Page 24 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 29 of 39 refinement plan… text is involved” in this proposal. Therefore, approval of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the Gateway Refinement Plan. Finding 54: The applicant’s submittal complies with the applicable Economic Element policies of the Springfield 2030 Plan and the Gateway Refinement Plan. Gateway Refinement Plan – Commercial Element Findings Finding 55: The Gateway Refinement Plan – Commercial Element states the City should “[m]inimize potential conflicts between residential and commercial development” (Goal 2). The applicant cited Gateway Refinement Plan policies in the application for zoning map amendment (Case 811-19-000066-TYP3) that demonstrate that amending the plan designation and zoning to allow mixed commercial uses is consistent with the refinement plan policies. The applicant’s narrative regarding the refinement plan policies in Case 811-19-000066-TYP3 are hereby adopted as findings in support of this criterion, except as noted in the findings to Case 811-19-000066-TYP3. Finding 56: The Planning Commission’s recommendation identified Gateway Refinement Plan policies and goals in support of retaining the existing plan designation and zoning. However, the amendment provisions of the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan allow for changes to the land use pattern upon demonstration that the proposal meets the applicable criteria of approval. As stated under Finding 1 above, use of the Metro Plan, including its component refinement plans, requires a balancing of its various components on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand. The goals and objectives stated by the applicant in support of the subject application are more pertinent than goals and objectives related to preserving existing residential areas, in part because the underlying plan designation and zoning does not affect the future preservation or closure of the existing Patrician Mobile Home Park. As demonstrated in the applicant’s narrative and this report, the subject request meets this criterion of approval. Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Residential Land Use and Housing Findings Finding 57: Policy A.11 of the Metro Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element states that the City will “[g]enerally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-efficient nodes.” The proposal is consistent with this policy because it could facilitate redevelopment of the subject site with higher density mixed commercial and residential uses near major employment centers including RiverBend hospital and in close proximity to major transportation systems including I-5. Finding 58: Policy A.13 of the Metro Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element states that the City will “[i]ncrease overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods.” The proposal is consistent with this policy because it would facilitate redevelopment of the site for mixed-use. Impacts of potential redevelopment on adjacent properties in the existing neighborhood will be mitigated at the time of development; future development will be required to comply with the City’s acknowledged land use regulations that mitigate impacts of commercial and mixed uses on adjacent neighborhoods. EXHIBIT C, Page 25 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 30 of 39 Finding 59: The goal of the Metro Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element is to “[p]rovide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable housing that meets individual needs.” The Planning Commission recommendation concluded that denying the application is consistent with this goal because the existing Patrician Mobile Home Park provides housing for low and very low income households, as well as for seniors and persons with disabilities. However, approval or denial of the subject application has no effect on the applicant’s legal right as the property owner to issue a park closure notice and redevelop the property at any time in accordance with state landlord tenant law. Denial of the application does not provide any certainty that the Patrician Mobile Home Park will remain on the property, as opposed to other forms of low density residential development. In addition, redevelopment of the property for higher density residential uses under a mixed use plan designation could also meet the goal of providing housing that meets individual needs. Approval of the subject application therefore has no effect on the stated goal of the Metro Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element. Finding 60: Policy A.25 of the Metro Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element states that the City will “[c]onserve the metropolitan area’s supply of existing affordable housing and increase the stability and quality of older residential neighborhoods, through measures such as revitalization; code enforcement; appropriate zoning; rehabilitation programs; relocation of existing structures; traffic calming; parking requirements; or public safety considerations. These actions should support planned densities in these areas.” A majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the Patrician Mobile Home Park represents an existing, older residential neighborhood and provides needed housing. However, in accordance with state law, the property owner has the option to provide notification and close and redevelop the park at any time regardless of the City’s decision on the requested Metro Plan amendment and Zone Change. In addition, the park can continue to operate under the proposed designation and zoning as an existing non-conforming use until such time as the property owner initiates redevelopment. Neighborhood preservation and stability depend entirely on the applicant’s decision whether to redevelop, which can occur under either the existing LDR plan designation and zoning, or the proposed MU and MUC plan designation and zoning. Therefore, Policy A.25 is not applicable to this application. Finding 61: The applicant’s submittal complies with the applicable Residential Element policies of the Metro Plan, Gateway Refinement Plan and the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan. Conclusion Finding 62: The above findings illustrate that not all of the goals and policies in the Metro Plan, Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, and Gateway Refinement Plan regarding residential land use and housing and economic development can be met to the same degree for this application. The City Council has balanced these competing policies and goals, and finds that, for the present proposal, the policies that favor economic development outweigh and are more pertinent than the policies encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing, as explained in the applicant’s narrative and the findings above. This is primarily due to the impermanent nature of the mobile home park on the subject property: it could be closed and redeveloped at any time in accordance with state law, without any input or approval required from the City and regardless of the underlying plan designation and zoning. As explained in findings 43-61 above, the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the most pertinent policies in the Springfield 2030 Plan, Metro Plan, and Gateway Refinement Plan. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, Criterion B is met. EXHIBIT C, Page 26 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 31 of 39 Conclusion and Recommendation The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment to change the property’s designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use is consistent with the adopted policies of the Metro Plan, the Gateway Refinement Plan, and the Springfield 2030 Plan under Criterion B. Because the criteria are met, the City Council approves the application for a comprehensive plan diagram amendment from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use on the basis of the findings contained herein. EXHIBIT C, Page 27 of 27 Attachment 1, Page 32 of 39 Springfield City Council Report and Findings Zone Change Request Meeting Date: October 21, 2019 Case Number: 811-19-000066-TYP3 Applicant: Teresa Bishow, Bishow Consulting LLC on behalf of Urban Transitions LLC Property Owner: Urban Transitions LLC Site: 3522 & 3530 Game Farm Road (Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 3100) Request Rezone a 13.6-acre parcel from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Site Information/Background The application was initiated and accepted as complete on March 14, 2019. The initial Planning Commission public hearing on the matter of the Zone Change request was held on May 7, 2019. The public hearing was continued to May 21, 2019 and the written record was extended to May 28, 2019. The City Council public hearing was opened on September 3, 2019 and continued to September 16, 2019. The written record was extended to September 23, 2019 to allow the applicant to submit final rebuttal comments. This zoning map amendment is being processed concurrently with a Metro Plan diagram and Gateway Refinement Plan diagram amendment submitted under Case 811-19-000065-TYP4. The property that is subject of the zoning map amendment is a single parcel comprising approximately 13.6 acres. The site is currently developed as the Patrician Mobile Home Park and is developed to accommodate 81 dwellings. The site has frontage on Beltline Road along the southern boundary and Game Farm Road along the eastern boundary and a portion of the northern boundary. The property is designated LDR on the Metro Plan diagram and Gateway Refinement Plan, and is zoned LDR on the Springfield Zoning Map. The site adjoins existing commercial uses along the western boundary and single family residences (also zoned LDR) along the northeast boundary. Zoning in the vicinity of the site includes Community Commercial (CC) to the west and southwest; Campus Industrial (CI) to the north; Low Density Residential to the south and northeast; and a combination of Medium and High Density Residential to the east. The applicant proposes to change the zoning from LDR to MUC to facilitate future redevelopment of the property with a variety of potential uses including hotels and accommodations, conference and meeting facilities, eating and drinking establishments, retail stores, offices, and higher density residential housing units. The findings and conclusions in this report demonstrate that the application complies with the criteria of approval. Except where the findings specifically state otherwise, the applicant’s narrative copied herein is adopted as findings in support of this application. Notification Notice of the initial May 7, 2019 Planning Commission public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on April 12, 2019. Notice of the initial Planning Commission public hearing was published in the April 29, 2019 edition of the Register-Guard. Staff also posted notices of the May 7 public hearing at two places along the Game Farm Road frontage of the property (northwest and EXHIBIT D, Page 1 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 33 of 39 southeast driveway entrances), along the Beltline Road frontage of the property, in the lobby of City Hall, on the Development & Public Works office digital display, and on the City’s webpage. Notification of the September 3, 2019 City Council public hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners and residents on August 6, 2019 and published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on August 20 & 27, 2019. Staff also posted notices of the September 3, 2019 public hearing at two places along the Game Farm Road frontages of the property (northwest and southeast driveway entrances); along the Beltline Road frontage of the subject property; in the lobby of City Hall; on the Development & Public Works office digital display; and on the City’s webpage. Notice of the continued public hearing on September 16 and of the one-week record extension was provided orally by the City Council during the meetings on September 3 and September 16, respectively. Response to Public Testimony Over the course of the initial public comment period, and during the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, both written and verbal testimony was submitted to the record. Forty-six written submittals were entered into the record of the Planning Commission action and another 48 written submittals were added to the record for the City Council action. The issues raised in the submitted comments are summarized below and are permanently kept in the Planning file for this application (Case 811-19-000065- TYP4). All of the testimony was presented to the City Council for consideration prior to the closure of the public hearing meeting on September 16, 2019 and closure of the written record on September 23, 2019. The public testimony received on this request is the same as the testimony and evidence submitted for the requested Metro Plan diagram amendment in Case 811-19-000065-TYP4. The issues identified in testimony from the public, the city’s findings in response to those issues, and the applicant’s rebuttal of those issues are set forth in the City Council Report and Findings for the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment in Case 811-19-000065-TYP4, which are incorporated herein by reference. Criteria of Approval Section 5.22-100 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Zoning Map amendment requests. The criteria of approval for a zoning map amendment are as follows: SDC 5.22-115 CRITERIA C. Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval: 1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram; 2. Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans; and 3. The property is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and transportation networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation networks are planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property. 4. Legislative Zoning Map amendments that involve a Metro Plan Diagram amendment shall: a. Meet the approval criteria specified in Section 5.14-100; and b. Comply with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060, where applicable. EXHIBIT D, Page 2 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 34 of 39 1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram; Applicant’s Narrative: “The Metro Plan defines Mixed Use as ‘A building, project or area of development that contains at least two different uses such as housing, retail, and office uses.’ The Metro Plan Diagram describes the Mixed Use designation as: ‘This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate, usually as determined by refinement plans on the local level. (For example, the Whiteaker Refinement Plan includes several areas where a mix of compatible uses, based in part on existing development, are designated). In the absence of a refinement plan, the underlying plan designation shall determine the predominant land use.’ According to SDC 3.2-605.A, ‘The primary development objectives of the MUC District are to expand housing opportunities,; allow businesses to locate in a variety of settings; provide options for living, working, and shopping environments; facilitate more intensive use of land while minimizing potentially adverse impacts; and to provide options for pedestrian-oriented lifestyles.’ The Zoning Map amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan policies and upon adoption of the Metro Plan diagram amendment being processed concurrently, the Zoning Map amendment will also be consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. For additional evidence, please refer to the findings above related to SDC 5.6-115.A.1.” Finding 1: The property owner has initiated a concurrent Metro Plan Diagram amendment under SDC 5.14-100 (Case 811-19-000065-TYP4) to change the property designation from LDR to Mixed Use. The Gateway Refinement Plan and the city’s acknowledged land use regulations at SDC 3.2- 610A permit MUC zoning to implement the Mixed Use plan designation. Upon approval of the Metro Plan diagram amendment, if this were to occur, the MUC zoning would be consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. Prior or concurrent amendment of the Metro Plan diagram is required for the subject zone change request to be approved. Without an approved amendment to change the plan designation to Mixed Use, the zone change is inconsistent with the Metro Plan diagram and Gateway Refinement Plan and therefore does not meet this criterion. Finding 2: The City Council has determined that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment meets the applicable criteria of approval, based upon the findings in Attachment 1 Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference. Upon prior or concurrent amendment of the Metro Plan diagram to Mixed Use, the zoning map amendment from LDR to Mixed Use Commercial is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. 2. Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans; Applicant’s Narrative: “Upon adoption of the Gateway Refinement Plan amendments being processed concurrently with this Zoning Map amendment, the proposed zone change will be consistent with the Gateway Refinement Plan. The zone change also does not create any conflicts with TransPlan, the Public Facilities Plan, or the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan. Below are applicable Gateway Refinement Plan policies followed by findings of fact. EXHIBIT D, Page 3 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 35 of 39 Gateway Plan – Support tourism and convention activities that promote the Springfield Area. (Community and Economic Development Element, Goal 5) The change in zoning from LDR Low Density Residential to MUC Mixed Use Commercial will create a 13-acre site in a strategic location for a new conference center, hotels and other tourist related activities. Gateway Plan – Attract new business, development and investment to the Springfield area. (Community and Economic Development Element, Goal 6) The proposed zoning will be attractive to new and growing businesses and stimulate substantial private investment during redevelopment of the property. Gateway Plan – Provide for a diversity of sound, affordable housing in the Refinement Plan area. (Residential Element, Goal 1) Gateway Plan – Ensure the availability of adequate supplies of land appropriate for low-, medium-, and high-density residential development. Maintain approximately the existing balance among LDR-, MDR-, and HDR-designated lands, consistent with Metro Plan allocations, while allowing for an appropriate mix of uses consistent with the Transportation and Residential elements of the Metro Plan. (Residential Element, Goal 2, as amended per Ordinance 6051) The Patrician Mobile Home Park was established in 1972 and currently consists of one single family dwelling, a clubhouse, and 81 spaces for mobile homes. Of the 81 spaces, 2 are occupied with mobile homes that are owned by Urban Transitions LLC and rented, 2 are occupied with RVs and the remainder are occupied by the owners of the mobile homes. All of the mobile homes were manufactured between 1970 and 1975 except for one manufactured in 1985. For the mobile homes with known production dates the breakdown is as follows: 1970 – 3 1971 – 22 1972 – 18 1973 – 13 1974 – 17 1975 – 1 1985 – 1 Please refer to section titled “History of Site and Current Use in the Summary. The term ‘affordable housing’ is not defined in the Gateway Refinement Plan. LCDC’s Housing goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for needed housing as follows: ‘Goal: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.’ ‘Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate number of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for the flexibility of housing location, type and density.’ EXHIBIT D, Page 4 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 36 of 39 In essence, all types and densities of housing are considered ‘needed housing’. Gateway Plan – Minimize potential conflicts between residential and commercial development. (Commercial Element, Goal 2) Gateway Plan – Ensure availability of an adequate supply of land appropriate for Commercial development. (Commercial Element, Goal 3) The SDC 3.2-605A. describes the Mixed-Use Commercial District as follows: A. Mixed-Use Commercial District (MUC). The MUC District is established where a mix of commercial with residential uses is compatible with existing nearby uses. Development within the MUC District shall have a commercial dominance, with residential and public uses also allowed. The primary development objectives of the MUC District are to expand housing opportunities; allow businesses to locate in a variety of settings; provide options for living, working, and shopping environments; facilitate more intensive use of land while minimizing potentially adverse impacts; and to provide options for pedestrian-oriented lifestyles. Development areas one acre or more in size in the MUC District shall have frontage on either an arterial or collector street. Access to any MUC development area may be from a local street, if there is no negative impact on adjacent residential uses. Development in Mixed Use Districts are required to comply with standards that are intended to minimize conflicts between residential and commercial uses. As stated in SDC 3.2-625, ‘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 ...’ This code section requires compliance with standards pertaining to building design, building orientation and setbacks all aimed at ensuring compatibility among various uses. The scale and type of residential and commercial uses allowed in the Commercial Mixed Use zone also serve to help minimize potential conflicts. Per SDC 3.2-630 Mixed Use Development Standards - Specific, potential conflicts are minimized due to a maximum footprint for retail use and a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) for all new development. The retail size limitation would prevent a large, freestanding big box retail outlet. The FAR will result in a compact land use pattern and reduce conflicts often associated with large single story commercial buildings with expansive parking areas. Per SDC 3.2-630, new development will preserve 100% of the commercial land supply while also allowing for residential development. Gateway Plan - Provide for a safe and efficient transportation system for the Gateway Refinement Plan area. (Transportation Element, Goal 1) Gateway Plan - Provide for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians and bicyclists in the Gateway Refinement Plan area. (Transportation Element, Goal 6) Gateway Plan - Discourage use of local residential streets by commercial and industrial traffic. (Transportation Element, Policy 1) Limit access to arterials as redevelopment occurs. (Transportation Element, Policy 4) EXHIBIT D, Page 5 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 37 of 39 The subject property is close to Interstate 5 on Beltline (arterial) and Game Farm Road (collector) each with on-street bike lanes. The subject property is conveniently located near transit and pedestrian corridors. The proposed Zoning Map amendment does not propose any changes to access to Beltline Road or encourage use of local residential streets. The zone change to Mixed-Use Commercial will not adversely impact the safe and efficient transportation system. Refer to the Traffic Study prepared by David Evans and Associates distributed under separate cover. Gateway Plan - Provide an adequate level of public sanitary sewers, storm drainage facilities, and water and electric service in a timely and efficient manner in order to support development consistent with adopted land use designations. (Public Facilities Element, Goal 1) The subject property is located in the City of Springfield and is currently provided adequate levels of public services. The redevelopment of the 13 acre site will enhance the efficient delivery of public services.” Finding 3: The property lies within the adopted Gateway Refinement Plan. The applicant has identified policies in the Gateway Refinement Plan as amended by Ordinance 6051. However, Ordinance 6051 was remanded to the City following appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals and Oregon Court of Appeals, and was never acknowledged. Ordinance 6051 was repealed and replaced by Ordinance 6109 (adopted January 10, 2005). Goal 2 of the Residential Element was amended to state, “Ensure the availability of adequate supplies or land appropriate for low-, medium-, and high-density residential development, while allowing for an appropriate mix of commercial, employment, and residential uses.” The other Gateway Refinement Plan policies cited by the applicant are consistent with Ordinance 6109. Finding 4: Rezoning of the subject property from LDR to MUC would be consistent with the requested Metro Plan diagram and Gateway Refinement Plan diagram amendments initiated by the applicant in Case 811-19-000065-TYP4. Therefore, upon adoption of the enabling comprehensive plan amendments, this requested rezoning meets the criteria for approval. 3. The property is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and transportation networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation networks are planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property. Applicant’s Narrative: “Public facilities and services are currently provided to the property. The proposed zone change will broaden the range of permitted uses and result in redevelopment of the site at increased densities. The city and other service providers are capable of providing timely and efficient public services.” Finding 5: The subject property has frontage on Game Farm Road along the northern and eastern boundaries. Along the property frontages, Game Farm Road is classified as a collector street and is fully developed with one vehicle travel lane and bicycle lane in each direction and a bi-directional center turn lane. The paved street has lane striping, street lighting, street trees, sidewalks, and piped stormwater management facilities. The subject property also has frontage on Beltline Road along the southern boundary. In this location, Beltline Road is classified as an arterial street and is fully developed with two vehicle travel lanes and a bicycle lane in each direction with a landscaped center EXHIBIT D, Page 6 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 38 of 39 median. The street has lane striping, street trees, street lighting, sidewalks, and piped stormwater management facilities. Finding 6: Based on the existing conditions in the vicinity, a full suite of public utilities and services are available on the perimeter of the subject property. Future development of the site with either Low Density Residential or Mixed Use Commercial uses would be subject to the land use approval process outlined in SDC 5.12-100 or 5.17-100, or other land use regulations acknowledged to implement the city’s comprehensive plan. If future redevelopment results in a need to increase the capacity of existing infrastructure serving the property, mitigation would be required at time of development. 4. Legislative Zoning Map amendments that involve a Metro Plan Diagram amendment shall: a. Meet the approval criteria specified in Section 5.14-100; and Finding 7: The applicant has submitted a concurrent Metro Plan diagram amendment application in Case 811-19-000065-TYP4. The applicant’s submittal materials, narrative, and findings in Case 811-19-000065TYP4, incorporated herein by reference, are intended to demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria specified in SDC 5.14-135. The majority of the City Council finds that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change meets the criteria of approval under SDC 5.14-135.B. Therefore, this criterion of approval is met. b. Comply with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060, where applicable. Applicant’s Narrative: “The Zoning Map amendment involves a Metro Plan Diagram amendment being processed concurrently. For evidence demonstrating compliance with the Metro Plan amendment approval criteria, please refer to the information above regarding SDC 5.14-135B.2 criteria. The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan is the City of Springfield’s adopted and acknowledged Transportation System Plan (TSP). The proposed Metro Plan amendment and related zone change require compliance with OAR 660-012-0060(9)(a-c) showing compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Please refer to the Traffic Study prepared by David Evans and Associates submitted under separate cover.” Finding 8: OAR 660-012-0060 requires that, “if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map), would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures” to mitigate the impact, as defined in OAR 660-012-0060(2). The applicant’s Goal 12 Transportation findings, Transportation Impact Study, and the findings under Goal 12 in Case 811-19-000065TYP4, incorporated herein by reference, demonstrate that the proposed rezoning to Mixed Use Commercial complies with OAR 660-012-0060. Therefore, this criterion of approval is met. Conditions of Approval: SDC Section 5.22-120 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Zone Change request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. There are no conditions of approval required to bring the request into conformance with the criteria of approval. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, the proposal for a zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from LDR to MUC meets the criteria of approval under SDC 5.22-115.C.1, 2, and 4.a. Therefore, the City Council approves this application. EXHIBIT D, Page 7 of 7 Attachment 1, Page 39 of 39