HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6422 11/02/2020
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO.______________ (GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THEEUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL
PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 36.57 ACRES OF LAND
FROM COMMERCIAL (C) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR);CONCURRENTLY
AMENDING THE METROPLANDIAGRAM BY REMOVING THE NODAL DESIGNATION FROM 81.37
ACRES OF LAND;CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 36.57ACRES OF LAND FROM MIXED USE COMMERCIAL (MUC)TO20.74
ACRES OF MDRAND 15.83 ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE (PLO);
CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BYREZONING APPROXIMATELY
9.06 ACRES OF LAND FROM MUC TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC); 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 Plandiagram amendments; and
WHEREAS,Section 5.14-115.A of the SDC classifies amendments to the Metro Plandiagram for land
inside the Springfield City limits as being Type I Metro Planamendments that require approval by
Springfield only; and
WHEREAS,Section 5.14-125.A of the SDCsets 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 Type I Metro Plandiagram amendments
as follows:
Redesignateapproximately 36.57acres of property that is located at the northwest corner of
th
MarcolaRoadand 28Street,identified as a portion of Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot
1800, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit Ato this Ordinance,from
Commercialto Medium Density Residential; and
Remove the Nodal Designation from approximately 81.37 acres ofproperty that is located at the
th
northwest corner of Marcola Road and 28Street, identified as a portion of Assessor’s Map 17-
02-30-00, Tax Lot 1800 and a portion of Map 17-03-25-11, Tax Lot 2300, as generally depicted
and more particularly described in Exhibit Bto this Ordinance; 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
WHEREASthe applicant/owner of the subject property initiated the following Springfield Zoning Map
amendments:
Rezoneapproximately 20.74acres of property identified herein as a portion of Assessor’s Map
17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 1800, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit Cto
this Ordinance, from Mixed Use Commercial to Medium Density Residential; and
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 1 of 44
Rezone approximately 15.83acres of property identified herein as a portion of Assessor’s Map
17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 1800, as generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit Dto
this Ordinance, from Mixed Use Commercial to Public Land and OpenSpace; and
Rezone approximately 9.06acres of property identified herein as Assessor’s Map 17-03-25-11,
Tax Lot 2300 and a portion of Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 1800, as generally depicted and more
particularly described in Exhibit Eto this Ordinance, fromMixed Use Commercial to Community
Commercial; and
WHEREAS, onSeptember 22, 2020the Springfield Planning Commission conducteda public hearing on
the proposed Metro Plandiagram amendment requestsand concurrent request forZoning Map
amendments. TheDevelopment & Public Works Department staff reports, 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; and
WHEREAS,at the regular meeting on September 22, 2020 the Planning Commission conducted
deliberations and voted five (5)in favor and two(2) opposed to forward recommendationsof approval to
the City Councilforthe proposedMetro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments; and
WHEREAS,onOctober 19, 2020the City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony and hear
comments on theproposals; and
WHEREAS, The City Council is now ready to take action on theseproposalswith due consideration
given tothe above recommendationsof the Planning Commission and the evidence and testimony
already in the record, as well as the evidence and testimony presented atthis public hearing held in the
matter of adopting this Ordinance amending the Metro Plandiagramand Springfield Zoning Map; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record and the findingsset forth in Exhibits F & G,
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 staff reportsand recommendationsto this Ordinance
set forth in Exhibits F & G,attached hereto and incorporated hereinby reference,are hereby adopted.
Section 3.The Metro Plandiagram designation of36.57 acres of the subject property
identified herein as a portion of Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00,Tax Lot 1800,generally depicted and
more particularly described in Exhibit Aattached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby
amended from Commercial (C) toMedium Density Residential (MDR).
Section 4.The Metro PlanNodal Designation of 81.37 acres of the subject propertyidentified
herein as a portion of Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 1800and a portion of Map 17-03-25-11, Tax
Lot 2300, generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit Battached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby removed.
Section 5.The Springfield Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone20.74 acres ofthe
subject propertyidentified as a portion of Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00,Tax Lot 1800,generally depicted
andmore particularly described in Exhibit Cattached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, from
MUCto MDR.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 2 of 44
The Springfield Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone15.83 acres ofthe
Section 6.
subject propertyidentified as a portion of Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00,Tax Lot 1800,generally depicted
andmore particularly described in Exhibit Dattached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, from
MUCto PLO.
Section 7.TheSpringfield Zoning Map is hereby amended to rezone9.06 acres ofthe
subject propertyidentified as Assessor’s Map 17-03-25-11, Tax Lot 2300 and a portion of Map 17-02-30-
00,Tax Lot 1800,generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit Eattached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, from MUCto CC.
Section 8.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 9.Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of
the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor or upon the date of acknowledgement as
provided in ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
ADOPTED by the CityCouncil of the City of Springfield this ____ day of ______________, 2020
by a vote of ____for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Council President of the City of Springfield, functioning as Mayor in
accordance with Section 17 of Springfield Charter this ____ day of _______________, 2020.
_____________________
Council President
ATTEST:
10/29/2020
___________________________________________
City Recorder
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 3 of 44
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY REDESIGNATED FROM COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
A
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 4 of 44
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 17 South, Range 3 East and the
northwest one-quarter of Section 30, Township 17 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon, being a portion of that tract of land described as Adjusted Tract 2 in
Document Number 2020-028024, Lane County Deed Records, and being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a 2- said point
being on the easterly extension of the centerline of Marcola Road; thence North
easterly extension and centerline, 90.70 feet; thence leaving said
a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Marcola Road and the Point of Beginning
West along said northerly right-of-way line, 237.98 feet; thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line North
feet to the northerly right-of- northerly
right-of-way line, 792.89 feet to the southwest corner of Adjusted Tract 2 in said Document No. 2020-028024
and a point of non-tangent curvature; thence northeasterly along the westerly line of said Adjusted Tract 2 on
the arc of a 14.00 foot radius curve left (the radius point
(chord
westerly line North
continuing along said westerly line on the arc of said curve right through a central angle of
hence North
East, 199.39 feet; thence
westerly right-of-way line of 28th Street and a point of non-tangent curvature; thence tracing said westerly
right-of-way line along the following courses: southwesterly on the arc of a 365.00 foot radius curve right (the
West, 579.36 feet to the point of curve left of
a 490.00 foot radius curve; thence along the arc of
non-tangent curvature; thence southwesterly along the arc of a 505.00 foot radius curve left (the radius point of
which
West, 43.28 feet
to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 36.574 acres, more or less.
Basis of Bearing per Survey No. 45090, Lane County Survey Records.
Area boundaries used in this description are scaled from City of Springfield Zoning Maps and / or Metro Plan,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 Update).
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 5 of 44
EXHIBIT B
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREA
B
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 6 of 44
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 17 South, Range 3 East and the
northwest one-quarter of Section 30, Township 17 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon, being portions of those tracts of land described as Adjusted Tract 1
and Adjusted Tract 2in Document Number 2020-028024, Lane County Deed Records, and being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 2- brass cap marking the northeast corner of the BB Powers DLC No. 64, said point
being on the easterly extension of the centerline of Marcola Road; thence North West along
said easterly extension and centerline, 90.70 feet; thence leaving said centerline North East,
45.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Marcola Road and the Point of Beginning; thence
North West along said northerly right-of-way line, 1655.36 feet to the southwest corner of Adjusted
Tract 1in said Document No. 2020-028024; thence North East along the westerly line of said
Adjusted Tract 1, a distance of 515.87 feet to the northwest corner thereof; thence South East along
the northerly line of said Adjusted Tract 1, a distance of 99.65 feet; thence leaving said northerly line South
East, 545.86 feet; thence South West, 350.98 feet; thence South East, 223.18
feet; thence North East, 70.44 feet; thence South East, 211.91 feet; thence South
East, 84.63 feet; thence South East, 178.94 feet; thence North 802.39
feet; thence South West, 59.10 feet; thence North West, 677.86 feet; thence South
West, 127.87 feet; thence North West, 134.97 feet to the northeast corner of Adjusted
Tract 1, said Document No. 2020-028024; thence North along the northerly line of said
Adjusted Tract 1, a distance of 113.05 feet to the southeast corner of Austin Park recorded inFile 74,
Slide 132, Lane County Plat Records, said point being an angle point in the easterly line of Adjusted Tract 2,
said Document No. 2020-028024; thence North East along said easterly line, 909.63 feet to the
northwest corner thereof and a point on the southerly line of the Eugene Water and Electrical Board right-of-
way (60.00 feet wide); thence North East along the northerlyline of said Adjusted Tract 2, a
distance of 2393.65 feet to the northeast corner thereof and a point on the westerly right-of-way line of 31st
Street (30.00 feet from centerline); thence tracing said westerly right-of-way line along the following courses:
South West, 738.61 feet; thence North West, 5.00 feet; thence South West,
376.34 feet to the point of curve right of a 365.00 foot radius curve; thence along the arc of said curve right
through a central angle of 408.48 feet (chord bears South West, 387.49 feet) to the
westerly right-of-way line of 28th Street (35.00 feet from centerline); thence tracing said westerly right-of-
way line along the following courses: South West, 579.36 feet to the point of curve left of a 490.00
foot radius curve; thence along the arc of said curve left through a central angle of 368.76 feet
(chord bears South West, 360.12 feet); thence South West, 122.17 feet to a point of non-
tangent curvature; thence southwesterly along the arc of a 505.00 foot radius curve left (the radius point of
which bears S (chord bears South
est, 62.28 feet); thence South 01º West, 55.99 feet; thence
feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 81.367 acres, more or less.
Basis of Bearing per Survey No. 45090, Lane County Survey Records.
Area boundaries used in this description are scaled from City of Springfield Zoning Maps and / or Metro Plan,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 Update).
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 7 of 44
EXHIBIT C
PROPERTY REZONED FROM MIXED USE COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 8 of 44
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 17 South, Range 3 East and the
northwest one-quarter of Section 30, Township 17 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon, being a portion of that tract of land described as Adjusted Tract 2 in
Document Number 2020-028024, Lane County Deed Records, and being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a 2- brass cap marking the northeast corner of the BB Powers DLC No. 64, said point
being on the easterly extension of the centerline of Marcola Road; thence West along
said easterly extension and centerline, 90.70 feet; thence leaving said centerline North East,
45.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Marcola Road and the Point of Beginning; thence
North West along said northerly right-of-way line, 237.98 feet; thence leaving said northerly right-
of-way line North East, 199.71 feet; thence North West, 200.00 feet; thence North
East, 686.67 feet; thence North West, 616.76 feet; thence North East,
127.87 feet; thence East, 677.86 feet; thence North East, 59.10 feet; thence
South 37.84 feet; thence North East, 163.51 feet; thence North East,
333.44 feet; thence South East, 215.81 feet; thence South East, 199.39 feet; thence South
East, 163.24 feet; thence South 34º01 East, 193.72 feet to the westerly right- of-way line of 28th
Street and a point of non-tangent curvature; thence tracing said westerly right- of-way line along the following
courses: southwesterly on the arc of a 365.00 foot radius curve right (the radius point of which bears North
West) through a central angle of feet (chord bears South West, 71.00
feet); thence South West, 579.36 feet to the point of curve left of a 490.00 foot radius curve; thence
along the arc of said curve left through a central angle of 43º07368.76 feet (chord bears South
West, 360.12 feet); thence South West, 122.17 feet to a point on non-tangent curvature;
thence southwesterly along the arc of a 505.00 foot radius curve left (the radius point of which bears South
East) through a central angle of 63.32 feet (chord bears South 62.28
feet); thence South West, 55.99 feet; thence South West, 43.28 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Contains 20.738 acres, more or less.
Basis of Bearing per Survey No. 45090, Lane County Survey Records.
Area boundaries used in this description are scaled from City of Springfield Zoning Maps and / or Metro Plan,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 Update).
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 9 of 44
EXHIBIT D
PROPERTY REZONED FROM MIXED USE COMMERCIAL TO PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(PLO)Μ
)Μ
D
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 10 of 44
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 17 South, Range 3 East,
Willamette Meridian, City of Springfield, Lane County, Oregon, being a portion of that tract of land described
as Adjusted Tract 2 in Document Number 2020-028024, Lane County Deed Records, and being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 2- brass cap marking the northeast corner of the BB Powers DLC No. 64, said point
being on the easterly extension of the centerline of Marcola Road; thence West along
said easterly extension and centerline, 528.89 feet; thence leaving said centerline North East,
45.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Marcola Road and the Point of Beginning; thence
North West along said northerly right-of-way line, 792.89 feet to the southwest corner of Adjusted
Tract 2in said Document No. 2020-028024 and a point of non-tangent curvature; thence northeasterly along
the westerly line of said Adjusted Tract 2 on the arc of a 14.00 foot radius curve left (the radius point of which
bears North through a central angle of 21.97 feet (chord bears North
East, 19.79 feet); thence continuing along said westerly line North East, 690.89 feet to the point of
curve right of a 635.00 foot radius curve; thence continuing along said westerly line on the arc of said curve
right through a central angle of 16° 186.46 feet (chord bears North 185.79 feet);
thence leaving said westerly line South East, 751.73 feet;
feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 15.836 acres, more or less.
Basis of Bearings per Survey No. 45090, Lane County Survey Records.
Area boundaries used in this description are scaled from City of Springfield Zoning Maps and / or Metro Plan,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 Update).
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 11 of 44
EXHIBIT E
PROPERTY REZONED FROM MIXED USE COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
В͵ЉЏ
E
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 12 of 44
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Commencing at the northeast corner of the B.B. Powers Donation Land Claim No. 64, also being on the
easterly extension of the centerline of Marcola Road; thence along said easterly extension, North
West 10.06 feet to the intersection of the centerline of said Marcola Road and the centerline of N 28th Street;
thence along said centerline of N 28th Street, North East 45.00 feet to the easterly extension of the
north right-of-way line of Marcola Road (45.00 feet from centerline); thence along said easterly extension,
North West 80.60 feet to the southeasterly corner of Parcel 2 of Instrument Number 2019-
057709, Lane County Official Records; thence along said north right-of-way line, North 88°02 West
1231.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continuing along said north right-of-way line, North
West 424.28 feet to the southwesterly corner of Parcel 1 of said Instrument Number 2019-
057709; thence along the westerly line of said deed, North East 515.87 feet to the northeast
corner of Instrument Number 97-49738, Lane County Official Records, also being on the south line of Lot 18
of the plat File 74, Slide 30, Lane County Plat Records; thence along said south line, South
East 99.65 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 18; thence along the east line of said plat, North
East 259.82 feet to the northeast corner of Lot16 of said plat; thence along the north line of said
Lot 16, North West 6.20 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 4 of the plat Lomond Terrace
First File 46, Slide 20, Lane County Plat Records; thence along the east line of said plat, North
East 112.99 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 15 of the plat Park File 74, Slide
132, Lane County Plat Records; thence along the south line of said plat and the easterly extension thereof;
South East 373.05 feet; thence along a non-tangent curve (Radial Bearing of
East) to the left with a Radius of 635.00 feet, a a Lengthof 186.46 feet, and a Chord of
South West 185.79 feet; thence South West 690.89 feet; thence along a curve to the right
with a Radius of 14.00 feet, a Delta of a Length
West 19.79 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described tract of land contains 8.15 acres, more or less.
The Basis of Bearings for this description is State Plane Grid bearing, Oregon State Plane, South Zone 3602,
NAD83(2011) Epoch: 2010.0000. Distances shown are ground values.
ALSO INCLUDING:
A tract of land located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 17 South, Range 3 East and the
northwest one-quarter of Section 30, Township 17 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, City of
Springfield, Lane County, Oregon, being a portion of that tract of land described as Adjusted Tract 2 in
Document Number 2020-028024, Lane County Deed Records, and being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing ata 2- brass cap marking the northeast corner of the BB Powers DLC No. 64, said point
being on the easterly extension of the centerline of Marcola Road; thence North West along
said easterly extension and centerline, 328.68 feet; thence leaving said centerline North East,
45.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Marcola Road and the Point of Beginning; thence
North West along said northerly right-of-way line, 200.21 feet; thence leaving said northerly right-
of-way line North East, 199.98 feet; thence South East, 200.00 feet; thence South
West, 199.71 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contain 0.918 acres, more or less.
Basis of Bearings per Survey No. 45090, Lane County Survey Records.
Area boundaries used in this description are scaled from City of Springfield Zoning Maps and / or Metro Plan,
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (2004 Update).
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 13 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 1 of 23
Staff Reportand Findings
Springfield City Council
Type I Amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram
MeetingDate: November 2, 2020
CaseNumber:811-20-000118-TYP4
Applicant: AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC on behalf of Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC
thst
Project Location: Marcola Road at 28 / 31Street(Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 2300 & Map
17-03-25-11, Tax Lot 1800).
Request
The City has received applications for a Type I Metro Plandiagram amendment and a concurrent Zoning
Map amendment from a property owner. In accordance with Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.14-
115.A.1, proposals for redesignating land inside the City limits are classified as a Type I Metro Plan
diagram amendment requiring approval by Springfield only. In accordance with SDC Section 5.14-
125.A, an amendment to the Metro Plandiagram can be initiated by a property owner at any time. In
accordance with SDC 5.14-130, the property-owner initiated amendment to the Metro Plandiagram is
processed as a Type IV land use action that requires public hearings before the Springfield Planning
Commission and City Council.
The proposed Metro Plandiagramamendment would change the plan designationforapproximately
36.57acres of the subject propertyfrom Commercial to Medium Density Residential (MDR), leaving
about 9.06acres of the site with Commercial designation. Concurrent with this Metro Plandiagram
amendment, anamendment to the Springfield Zoning Map (Case 811-20-000117-TYP3) would change
the zoning of the same 36.57acresof the subject property to 20.74 acres of MDR and 15.83acres of
Public Landand Open Space (PLO). The 9.06 acres of land that is retaining its Commercial designation
would be rezoned from Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) to Community Commercial (CC) with this
request. The applicant is also requesting removal of the Nodal Development (ND) zoning overlay from
the site in its entirety; this overlay affects approximately 81.37 acres of the property. In order to remove
the ND zoning overlay, the Metro Plandiagram must be amended concurrently to remove the Nodal
Development Area designation for the site.
According to the applicant’s submittal, the proposed Metro Plandiagram amendments and zoning map
amendments would allow for creation of an 8.14-acre site with CC zoning at the southwest corner of the
property that could accommodate a future church proposal; a 0.92-acre site with CC zoning just west of
th
the intersection of Marcola Road and 28Streetthat could accommodate a future neighborhood
convenience storeor similar commercial use; a 15.83-acre site with PLO zoning for a future public
th
school; and 20.74acres of additional MDR near the intersection of Marcola Road and 28Street for
future multi-unit residential development. The changes to the comprehensive plan designation and zoning
on the property would facilitate modifications to the approved Marcola Meadows Master Plan applicable
to the site. The applicant has depicted the conceptual modified master plan configuration on Sheet PO-03
of the submitted plans (Attachment 4, Page 52).
The application was submitted on June 17, 2020and the initial Planning Commission public hearing on
the proposed Metro Plandiagramand Zoning Map amendments washeld onSeptember 22, 2020. No
written or verbal testimony opposing the proposal was provided at the Planning Commission public
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 14 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 2 of 23
hearing. Testimony in support of the proposal was provided byrepresentatives of the Springfield School
District and the Northwood Christian Churchasboth institutions are proposing to develop new facilities
in the Marcola Meadows neighborhood. At the meeting, the Planning Commission completed the public
hearing, conducted deliberations, and adopted a majority recommendation of approval for the proposed
Metro Plan amendment (Attachment 5).
Notification and Written Comments
In accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 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 onJuly 14, 2020,
which is 57days prior to the initial public hearing on the matter.
In accordance with SDC 5.2-115, Type IV land use decisions require mailed notification as well as notice in
a newspaper of general circulation.Notification of the October 19, 2020City Councilpublic hearing was
mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property onSeptember 11, 2020 and
published in the legal notices section of The Register GuardonSeptember 16, September 18 and October 5,
2020.Staff advises that an extra legal notice postingwasprovided in the Register Guard because of a
change to the online meeting link arising from meeting postponementdue to the Holiday Farm fire.Staff
also posted notices of the October 19, 2020 City Council public hearings at three locations along the
st
Marcola Road and 31Street frontages of the subject property,on the Development & Public Works office
digital display, and on the City’s webpage.
On April 16, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 20-16, which requires governing bodies to hold
public meetings and hearings by telephone, video, or through other electronic or virtual means whenever
possible. On June 30, 2020, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 4212, which waives requirements under
the Oregon Public Meetings Law and other statutes to facilitate public meetings online or by phone. Under
HB 4212, the governing body must make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually
attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs. HB 4212 allows governing bodies to accept
public testimony by telephone or video conferencing technology, or to provide a means to submit written
testimony (including email or other electronic methods) that the governing body can consider in a timely
manner. HB 4212 overrides conflicting requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in state law or in the
Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan.
The October 19, 2020public hearing wasconducted as an online meeting via video conferencing
technology that allowedmembers of the public toregister for participating in the meeting online by using
the following link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2435551706434375694 and using Webinar
ID 833-548-027. After registering, participants receiveda confirmation email containing information
about joining the webinar. The public could also listen to the public hearing meeting by calling 1-951-
384-3421 or the toll-free number (1-877-309-2071) andentering Webinar ID 535-706-169.Members of
the public had the opportunity to providetestimony to the CityCouncilby observing the online meeting at
City Hall in Council chambers, or by joining the online meeting remotely. The public was able to listento
the meeting by phone but could not provide testimonyby phone. Details regarding how to join the online
meeting were provided in the City Council meeting agenda and posted on the City’swebsite.No verbal or
written testimony aside from the applicant’s presentation was provided at the public hearing meeting on
October 19, 2020.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 15 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 3 of 23
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 Plandiagram 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 caseswhere the Metro Planapplies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the
Metro Planinternally inconsistent.
2.In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent
with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
A. Co
nsistencywithApplicable State-Wide Planning Goals
Applicant’s Narrative:“As describedin thiswritten document, the Metro Plan Diagram
amendment to change the designation from Commercial to Medium Density Residentialisin
compliance with the applicableOregon Statewide Planning Goals.Furthermore, the analysis for
‘overlay removal’ to amend the ND Overlay on the Metro Plan Diagram and Springfield Zoning
Map is consistent with the applicable StatewidePlanning Goals. Please see the narrative \[in
Attachment 4\] regarding specificfindings. The criterionis met.”
Finding 1:Of the 19 statewide goals, 13areas “urban” goalsapplicable to any comprehensive plan
map amendmentsin the city; however, it is the proposal and its effect on the purpose of these goals
that will determine whether or not the proposed amendment is “consistent with” the applicable
goals. The goals that areto be evaluated 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.All of the statewide goals are listed
below; the narrative that accompanies each is more expositive when the discussion applies toone of
the 13 goals identified above.
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 1 calls for the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of
the planning process. The City of Springfield has an established citizen involvement program. The
application will be processed according to Chapter 5 of the SDC, which involves the development
review process, public notification, public hearings, and decision appeal procedures, as established
in SDC Section 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments.”
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 16 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 4 of 23
Finding 2:Goal 1 –Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process.”The proposed property owner-initiated amendment to the adopted
Metro Plandiagram issubject to the City’s acknowledged plan amendment process –SDC Section
5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments and the City’s public notice standards –SDC Section 5.2-115
which requires a public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission and a public hearing
before the Springfield City Council, and includes specifications for the content, timing and dispersal
of mailed notice (see description following).The City Councilpublic hearing to consider the
proposed amendments is being held onOctober 19, 2020. Mailed notification of the Planning
Commission and City Council public hearings was provided to all property owners and residents
within 300 feet of the subject property on September 11, 2020.The City Councilpublic hearing
was advertised in thelegal notices section of the Register-Guard on September 16, September 18
and October 5, 2020. An extra meeting notice was published in the Register Guard on September
18, 2020 to update the online meeting linkfor the September 22 Planning Commission public
hearing meeting; the October 19 City Council meeting date was included in this notice.Staff also
posted notices of the public hearing at three locations along the subject property frontages on
st
Marcola Road and 31Street. The recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Springfield
City Councilwere included with the AIS for consideration at the October 19, 2020 public hearing
meeting.The notice for this proposed Metro Plandiagramamendmentcomplies with SDC 5.2-115
and is consistent with Goal 1 requirements. Additional information was provided to the public for
how to attend the meeting via online meeting platform or by phone, as described above. The public
hearing on October 19, 2020wasconducted in compliance with Executive Order 20-16 and HB
4212.
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning
Applicant’s Narrative: “This application will be processed by the City in accordance with SDC
Chapter 5.14-100, Metro Plan Amendments. The City and County have acknowledged
comprehensive plans and land use development (zoning) codes that implement theirrespective
comprehensiveplans. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
long- rangepublic policydocument that establishes thebroad framework upon which Springfield,
Eugene, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions. The City and other applicable
governing bodies will review and process this application consistent with the procedures detailed in
the SDC.This application provides an adequate factual basis for the City and Countyto approve
the application because it describes the current and planned futuresite characteristics and applies
the relevant approval criteria to those characteristics. Therefore, following the application process
will ensure consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 2.”
Finding 3: Goal 2 –Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide
planning program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in accordance with
a comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the
plan’s policies into 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 andFinancial Services; Lane
County Transportation, County Sanitarian; Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority; Comcast Cable;
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 17 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 5 of 23
CenturyLink; Lane Transit District; and ODOT Planning and Development, State Highway
Division. Additionally, notice was provided electronically to DLCD on July 14, 2020.
Finding 4: The Metro Planand Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan together make upthe
acknowledged comprehensiveplan for guiding land use planning in Springfield. The City has
adopted other neighborhood- or area-specific plans (such asRefinement Plans) that provide more
detailed direction for land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Planand Springfield 2030
Comprehensive Plan. However, the subject property is not within anadopted neighborhood
refinement plan area.
Finding 5: The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element
provides supplemental policy and expands upon –but does not replace –the applicable residential
Metro Plan policies.
Finding 6: The City also adopted the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Economic Element
upon adoption of Ordinance #6361 in December 2016. The Economic Elementreplaces the
applicable sections of the Metro Planpertaining to maintaining an adequate supply of land for
economic development and employment growth.
Finding 7: The public hearing process used for amendment of the Metro Planis specified in
Chapter IV Metro PlanReview, Amendments, and Refinements. The findings under Criteria B
(below) demonstrate that the proposed amendmentwill not make the adopted Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
Finding 8: The Springfield Development Codeis a key mechanism used to implement the goals and
policiesof the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposal is
classified as a Type I amendment tothe adopted Metro Plandiagramthat is approved by Springfield
only in accordance with SDC 5.14-115.A. The proposed Metro Plandiagram amendment is
processed as a Type IV land use action as described in SDC 5.1-140 and 5.14-130. The process
observed forthe proposed Metro Plandiagram amendment is consistent with the policies pertaining
to Review, Amendments and Refinements. Additionally, the proposed Metro Plandiagram
amendment has been initiated in accordance with the provisions of the City’s acknowledged
comprehensive plan and development code. The proposed Metro Plandiagram amendment is
consistent withCity ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 2
requirements. Notice and coordination requirements “with those local governments, state and federal
agencies and special districts which have programs, land ownerships,or responsibilities within the
area” that includes this proposal have been provided consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3 – Agricultural Land
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) \[is\] not applicable to lands within the City’s
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and has been omitted for brevity.”
Finding 9: Goal 3 – As noted by the applicant in their narrative, Agricultural Land applies to areas
subject to farm zoning that are outside acknowledged urban growth boundaries (UGBs):
“Agricultural land does not includeland within acknowledged urban growthboundaries or land
within acknowledgedexceptions to Goals 3 or 4.” (Text of Goal 3). The City has an acknowledged
UGB and therefore consistent with the express language of the Goal, does not have farm land zoning
within its jurisdictional boundary. Furthermore, the site of the proposed Metro Plan diagram
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 18 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 6 of 23
amendment is inside the City’s acknowledged UGBand within the Citylimits. Consequently, and
as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 3 is not applicable.
Goal 4 – Forest Land
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 4 (Forest Lands) \[is\] not applicable to lands within the City’s
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and has been omitted for brevity.”
Finding 10: Goal 4 – Forest Land applies to timber lands zoned for that use that are outside
acknowledged UGBs with the intent to conserve forest lands for forest uses: “Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-006-0020: Plan Designation Within an Urban Growth Boundary. Goal 4
does not apply within urban growth boundaries and therefore, the designation of forest lands is not
required.” The City has an acknowledged UGB and does not have forest zoning within its
incorporated area. Furthermore, the site of the proposed Metro Plandiagram amendment is inside
the City’s UGBand City limits.Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal,Goal 4is
not applicable.
Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, andOpen Spaces
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 5 (Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces)
is not applicable because there are no identified Goal 5 resources on the property and has been
omitted for brevity.”
Finding 11: Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources appliesto
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. The subjectsite has not
been identified as a historic resource in the City’s Register of Historic Sites, nor as an open space
resource inthe Willamalane Park & Recreation District Comprehensive Plan.The “Pierce Ditch”
that runs through the property is identified in the City’s acknowledged Local Wetlands Inventory
but was deemed not locally significant and therefore is not subject to the City’s acknowledged land
use regulations that govern development in and adjacent to locally significant wetlands (SDC 4.3-
117). As noted in the applicant’s narrative, there are no identified or inventoried Goal 5 resources
located within the subject site. Therefore, thisaction does not alter the City’sacknowledged
compliance with Goal 5.
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 6 isimplemented by Comprehensive Plan policies to protect air,
land, and water resources. Generally, these policies rely oncoordination with theDepartmentof
Environmental Quality (DEQ) for their implementation. Specificstandards related to theproject
include requirements for addressingstormwater runoff, grading, and erosion control standards
related to site planning for specific projectelements (e.g., a church, school, and multi-family
homes). This project does not involve alterations to the site or the construction of improvements;
therefore, after the amendments are approved, the site’s physical appearance will remain the same.
The portion of the property planned for the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from Commercial to
Medium Density Residential is within the City’s limit and is designated with existing zoning until
otherwise approved in the future. Thus, the application is consistent with Goal 6.Additionally, the
Nodal Development (ND) Overlay is planned to be removed from the entire Marcola Meadows
Master Plan site through the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and subsequent Zone Map
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 19 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 7 of 23
Amendment processes. Similar to the response above, Goal 6is not impacted upon approval of this
land use action. Thus, the application is consistent with Goal 6.”
Finding 12: 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 Plandiagram
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: “Goal 7 (Areas Subject to Natural Hazards) is not applicable and has been
omitted because the subject site does not contain mapped areas of steep slopes 25 percent or greater
or other known hazard areas.”
Finding 13: 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 on vacant, level groundthatis not within the
mapped 100-yearflood hazard area of the McKenzie River. Future development of the Marcola
Meadows neighborhood will be subject to the provisions of the City’s Subdivision approval process
(SDC 5.12-100) and, for certain sites, the Site Plan Review process as described in SDC 5.17-100.
Fi
nding 14:The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment has noeffect on City ordinances,
policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 7 requirementsand 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.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 8 isfacilitated by the 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan. Togetherwith the Metro Plan, the provisions identify future needs for parks,
a natural area, and recreation facilities. Theamendmentswill not negatively affect the City’s
Comprehensive Plan with respectto Goal 8 and its development regulations governing
recreational needs (e.g. open space, park dedication, fee in-lieu-of requirements,etc.). An
increase in residential land supply will increase the number of residents and visitors andin turn
System Development Charges (SDC) and the demand for recreational facilities will increase.
Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 8.Removing the ND Overlay from the site will not
impact Springfield’s recreational needs or future inventory meeting these needs. Overlay removal
will not impact the requirementor criteria to provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities. Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 8.”
Finding 15: 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. As stated in the applicant’s narrative, Willamalane has an adopted 20-Year Comprehensive
Plan for the provision of park, open space and recreation services for Springfield.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 20 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 8 of 23
Finding 16: The 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Planidentifies a potentialcollaborative
recreational project with the developer of the Marcola Meadows neighborhood. Project 1.2 of the
adopted Comprehensive Plan is the development of Pierce Park, an undeveloped linear property
located north of the EWEB recreational pathway (operated and maintained by Willamalane) and
roughly parallel with the northern boundary of Marcola Meadows. Willamalane has participated in
ongoing meetings with staff and the developer of the Marcola Meadows neighborhood over the past
several years and has not expressed interest in extending Pierce Park south of the EWEB right-of-
way.Additionally, Willamalane has declined to take over maintenance and operational
responsibilities for the future open space tracts within the MarcolaMeadows neighborhood because
these areas are dispersed throughout the neighborhood, primarily associated with stormwater
management facilities,and do not further Willamalane’s missionfor the provision of park and
recreational facilities to the community.Conversely, Willamalane is supportive of the multiple
pedestrian pathway connections from the Marcola Meadows neighborhood to the EWEB pathway
and, by extension, to Pierce Park. Redesignation of the subject property to accommodate a future
public school site that is linked via dedicated pedestrian connections to the Willamalane-operated
pathway system and Pierce Park does support the agency’s mission. The proposed Metro Plan
diagram amendment would not affect Willamalane’s adopted Comprehensive Plan orother
ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 8 requirements. Therefore, this
action is consistent withthe City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8.
Goal 9 – Economic Development
Applicant’s Narrative: “Approval of Ordinance No. 6361 added ±269.08 acres of land to the
SpringfieldUGB, designated Urban Holding Area – Employment (UHA-E) Plan, and zoned
Agriculture – Urban Holding Area (AG) District. As described in the ordinance, the UGB and
Metro Plan Diagram and text were amended to provide suitable land to meet the need for larger
industrial and employment sites (i.e. 20 acres and greater). The City’s acknowledged
Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic OpportunitiesAnalysis
(CIBL-EOA) identifieda104-acre deficitofcommercial and mixed-use employment land, including
20acres insize, and a need for one
a need for 37 acres or four newsites that are between 5 and
60-acre site. As such, the UGB was expanded to
address the identified deficit(i.e. 104 acres of
commercial and mixed-use employment land) and was acknowledged by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission (LCDC), effective March 5, 2019.
Furthermore, the Supplemental Findings (Exhibit F-1) of the CIBL-EOA demonstrate theMarcola
Meadows site isclassified with 44 total commercial acres in the inventory as“masterplanned,”
based on the approved Marcola Meadows Master Plan. The CIBL-EOA concluded that the subject
site does not provide a sitein the 20-acre and largercategory to meet the identified employment site
needs in the2010-2030 planning period. Additionally, the approved Master Plan is not conditioned
to require a 20-acre site to be reserved. Therefore, removing this acreage from the employment
lands inventory doesnot impact the inventory of20-acre or larger sites, the most desired
characteristic ofneeded sites the City’sland inventory currently lacks.
In 2019, Springfield OrdinanceNo. 6407 amended theMetro Plan Diagram by re-designating 13.6
acres of landfrom Low Density Residential (LDR) to MUC – resultingin an additional surplus of
acreage available for commercial development, consistent with Goal 9.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 21 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 9 of 23
This application involves a Metro Plan Amendment from Commercial to Medium Density Residential
(MDR) that will change the anticipated use of a portion of the property(i.e. ±36.54 acres) from
mixed-use designation to residential. As stated above, the City had a deficit of ±230 acres of
employment landin 2015. The UGB was expanded to include ±269 acres of land (designated UHA-
E and zoned AG District) for the identified 2010-2030planning period needs. Therefore, the
City has an existing surplus of approximately ±39 acres of employment land and a ±36-acre
amendment to the subjectsite willnot create a deficit.
Upon approval, the Metro Plan Amendment will provide residentialland to be designated MDR
District for needed homes and PLO District for a public-school facility. The MDRDistrict
allows several commercial uses (e.g. professional offices, home occupations,care facilities, etc.),
providing potential economic opportunities on non-employment land. ThePLO District’s primary
uses are educational; in this case, the Marcola Meadows SchoolPhase will provide employment
opportunities and publiclandto meet the needs of the local community. Therefore, this application
is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Nodal Development Overlay Removal
The original Marcola Meadows Master Plan had the potential to generate significant traffic,
generally resulting from anticipated commercial retailland use. To mitigate such impacts, the
Nodal Development Overlay was designated on site by Ordinance No. 6195. In this instance,
through the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment process, the ND Overlay was consistent with the
goal of offsettingtransportation impacts associated with thedense development. In contrast,
other nodes in Springfieldwere designated to identifymajor transportation projects needed to
serve the area. Because this ND Overlay wasplaced in conjunction with the Marcola Meadows
Master Plan approval, the ND Overlay should be reevaluated to reflect the envisioned use of
the site. With a significantdownzone, decrease in average dailytrips, and general land use
amendments shifting thesite(from mixed-use commercial) to residential are taken into
consideration, the site isno longer consistent with the ND Overlay, pursuant to Section 3.3-1000 of
the SDC.
Furthermore, the ND Overlay does not inherently support the local economy or generate jobs. It
does include provisions which prevent job opportunities in auto-oriented businesses (e.g.
service stations, auto-related sales, retail, and quick servicing, car washes, etc.).As
illustrated on the Preliminary Plans, a Commercial Phase is planned to include a neighborhood
convenience store and fueling station, providing practical amenities to local residents. While
permitted outright in the underlying Community Commercial District base zone, the use is
prohibited by the ND Overlay and therefore restrictseconomic opportunity.Applying theND
Overlayregulations willcreate inefficiencies on the site without meeting the intent of the mixed-use
land use pattern.
The specific designstandards of Section 3.3-1025 for new homes add significant cost to
development and preclude most forms of housing on lots designed for single-familydetached
homes. The concept of the ND Overlayis to facilitate pedestrian scale development when
more than 50 percent of a siteis commercially oriented, in order to create a “non-autocentric”
community. In thiscase, the predominant use of the site is now residential, and the regulations
restrict home design without achieving the purposeof the ND Overlay defined in Section 3.3-1005.
Removal of the ND Overlay will provideeconomic activityto a vacant, stalled area of
Springfield. Therefore, this application supports removal of the ND Overlay from the entire
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 22 of 44
Attachment 1, Page 22 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 10 of 23
MarcolaMeadows Master Plan site (through the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and Zone Map
Amendment process) and is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.”
Finding 17: Goal 9 –Economic Development regulations in OAR 660-009-0010 require the City to
evaluate post-acknowledgementplan amendments that change the plan designation for more than
two acres at a time, when the change is from an employment use (which includes the Commercial
designation) to any other designation, such as the Medium Density Residential designation. To find
compliance with Goal 9, the findingsmust demonstrate that the proposed plan amendment is
consistent with the Economic Element and the City’s acknowledged Commercial and Industrial
Buildable Lands Inventory (CIBL).The CIBL identifies the City’s needed sites for employment
uses based on use categories and site size ranges, rather than by cumulative area needed within the
UGB.
Finding 18: Through the Metro PlanAmendment and Zone Change process, the subject property
was zoned and designated for approximately 45.3 acres of commercial land use in 2007 via
Ordinances 6195 and 6196. Ordinance 6196 required approval of a Master Plan for the site as a
condition of approval of the zoning map amendments. The first Marcola Meadows Master Plan
approved in 2008 (2008 Master Plan) provided for a warehouse commercial development (home
improvement center) and retail village. Specifically, the original Master Plan provided one
professional office site 2-5 acres and four commercial retail sites 5-20 acres. The current plan
designations proposed for this property would result in one commercial site that is 5-20 acres
intended for future church uses and one commercial retail site less than 2 acres. During the Land
Conservation and Development Commission’sacknowledgmentprocessfor the CIBL, the City
provided an analysis showing that there was no need for the four (4) commercial retail sites 5-20
acresincluded in the 2008Master Plan; the analysis concluded that the need for new 5-20 acre
commercial sites was only for office sites. LCDC agreed with this analysis in its order approving
the UGB expansion. The end result is that the four retail sites in the 2008Master Plan are surplus to
the City’s Goal 9 inventory.
Finding 19:Additionally, removing the one 2-5 acre office sitein the 2008Master Plan does not
create a Goal 9 issue. CIBL Table 5-1 concluded that there was a deficit of two (2) commercial sites
2-5 acres, but a surplus of forty-four (44) industrial sites of this size. The CIBL assumes that the
deficit in commercial sites less than 5 acres can be accommodated by redevelopment of industrial
sites. Increasing the deficit by one (1) commercial office site 2-5 acres does not undermine this
assumption, because there remains more than adequate surplus of redevelopable industrial sites.
Finding 20:Because all of the existing commercial areas within the Marcola Meadows
development area are surplus commercial sites under the City’s acknowledged CIBL, the proposed
redesignation and rezoning of 36.57 acres of the subject property from Commercial to Medium
Density Residential will not create a deficit of employment land within the City’s inventory.
Therefore, this proposal is consistent with Goal 9.
Finding 21: Concurrent with redesignationof approximately 36.57 acres of the site to MDR, the
applicant is requesting the removal of the Nodal Development Overlay from the entire property
(approximately 81.37 acres). The removal of the Nodal Development Overlay does not affect the
employment land supply, it only affects the type of commercial land uses allowed on the property.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 23 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 11 of 23
Goal 10 - Housing
Applicant’s Narrative: “The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and
Housing Element addresses Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing. The Springfield Residential
Land andHousingAnalysis (RLHNA) serves as the City’s residential buildableland inventory
under Goal 10. As documentedin the RLHNA, there was a deficitin the HDR designation of 28
gross buildable acres needed to accommodate an additional 411 high-density multi- family
housing units. Additionally, Ordinance No. 6407 amended the Gateway RefinementPlan area by re-
designating 13.6acres of land from LDR to MUC, removing that area aspart of the City’s
residentialland inventory. As part of this application, the planned Metro Plan Diagram
Amendmentprovides approximately ±12.8 acresforhigh-density residential homes, a needed
housing element the City’s land inventory currently lacks.
While theMUC district is a mixed-use district, itallows residential uses at higher
residential densities. The planned Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MUCto MDRwill
change the anticipated use of the property to residentialfrom a variety of commercial useswith
provisions to include higher-density residential units. With that said, this application allows
needed housing at similar densities to what would bepermitted currently without a zone change.
Furthermore, the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment provides approximately ±15 acres for the siting
of a publicschool. According to the RLHNA,lands needed forpublic operations andfacilities
(including schools) were not addressed in the EOA, and thus suchland needs are addressed in the
RLHNA.
Asdocumented in2011, there was a deficitinlands needed for public operations and facilities,
including approximately 14 acres for schools. Educational land needs were based on the fact
that the Springfield School Districtwould need to add one 14-acre property based on population
growth – to be located in the Jasper-Natron area (in the southeast quadrant of the City).Based on
this analysis, the fact the school was never built, and the Marcola Meadows site location (in the
northwest quadrant of the City),itis anticipated the master plannedarea will incur a need for
additional schoolsto meet the City’s inventory for lands needed for public operations and
facilities. As such, the MDRdesignation will allow the property to be zoned PLO District to
provide a school. The residential re-designation of subjectsite will be easily integrated into the
vicinity, as the surrounding area to the north, east, and west is generally characterized as
residential.
As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment will increase the supply of
land available for housing at the MDR density and a school to meet the needsoflocal residents.
Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 10.
Nodal Development Overlay Removal
Removal of the ND Overlay willnot impactSpringfield’s abilityto provide for the housing needs of
citizens of the state. As statedin thiswritten document, this project involves a Metro Plan Diagram
Amendment from Commercial to Medium Density Residential – a district that requires a minimum
density of 14 units per net acre. Therefore, ND Overlay removal will not increase or decrease the
site’s residential density or impact Springfield’s ability to provide housing. Therefore,this
application is consistent with Goal 10.”
Finding 22: Goal 10 –Housing applies to the planning for –and provision of –needed housing
types, including multi-family and manufactured housing. Goal 10 requires the City to evaluate and
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 24 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 12 of 23
maintain a sufficient buildable land base for projected housing needs over the forecast period. The
City monitors and updatesthe calculated acreageof residential buildable lands whenredesignation
and rezoning actions affect the net acreage attributed to Low, Medium, and High Density
Residential uses.
Finding 23: The MDR zoning district allows for a variety of housing forms, including single-family
detached, duplex, attached, four-plex, row house, and low-rise apartment units. Maintaining an
adequate inventory of land for all forms of housing is consistent with Goal 10 requirements.
Finding 24:Finding 10 of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing Elementidentifiesa surplus of approximately 76 gross acres of MDR designation, and a
deficit of approximately 28 gross acres of HDR designation. The Residential Land Use and
Housing Element(Residential Finding 11, Page 11) goes on to state that the 28-acre deficit of HDR
designation will be met through redevelopment in Glenwood.The findings used in the Springfield
2030 Comprehensive Plan –Residential Land Use and Housing Elementare based on the
conclusions of the Springfield Housing Needs Analysispreparedby ECONorthwest in 2011.
Finding 25:The calculated surplus of 76 acres of MDR as determined by the 2011 Springfield
Housing Needs Analysis(Table S-5) represents a point-in-time figure because, subsequently, a series
of adoptedMetro Planamendments and Zone Changes havemodified the surplus of MDR
designated land. Specifically, with the adoption of Ordinances 6378, 6395, 6400 and 6418, the 76-
acres of surplus MDR designation has increased by about 4.43 acres to approximately 80.43 acres.
The proposed Metro Planamendment and Zone Change for 36.57 acres of the Marcola Meadows
property would further increase this calculated MDR surplus to approximately 117 acres.
Finding 26: The Springfield2030 Refinement Plan - Residential Land Use and Housing Element
classifies the northern half of the subject site as residential land subject to a Master Plan. According
to the 2011 Springfield Housing Needs Analysis,the area attributed to MDR land use within the
Marcola Meadows site was not calculated into the overall acreagerequired to meet expected
housing demandbecause there was an existing Master Plan in effect for the neighborhood.
However, the anticipated housing densities were factored into the projected City-wide residential
development capacity. Table S-3 of the Springfield Housing Needs Analysisdetermined that 518
dwelling units wereestimated for the MDR component of Marcola Meadows.Thistabulation
included the added density provisions of the Nodal Development overlay, which provides for 20%
increased dwelling unit densities over the base MDR zoning district.At the time of the 2011
Springfield Housing Needs Analysis, the MDRdistrictprovided for 10-20 dwelling units per acre,
with the Nodal Development overlay increasing this density to 12-24 dwelling units per acre.
Finding 27: Under the current Marcola Meadows Master Plan, a total of 420 dwelling units are to
be developed within the existing 55-acres of MDR-zoned and designated land. The applicant is
proposing to redesignate approximately 36.57 acres of the site from Commercial to MDR to
accommodate additional multi-unit residential dwellings and a public school. At full build-out of
the existing and proposed MDR-designated land, the applicant anticipates a range of approximately
750 to 1050 dwelling units. This projected dwelling unit count is based on the current 14-28
dwelling units per net acre prescribed bythe MDR zoning district (ref. SDC 3.2-205.C.1) and the
variety of housing forms to be constructed within the Master Plan area. The applicant’s projected
dwelling unit count does not factor in the added density provisions of the Nodal Development
overlay, which is proposed for removal.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 25 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 13 of 23
Finding 28: As proposed, the redesignation of 36.57 acres of Commercial to MDR would allow the
Marcola Meadows neighborhood to exceed the dwelling unit density anticipated by the Springfield
Housing Needs Analysis and, by extension, the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Residential
Land Use and Housing Element.Additionally, the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and
zone change would not adversely affect other City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to
comply with Goal 10 requirements.Therefore, this action has no adverse effect on the city’s
acknowledged compliance with Goal 10.
Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services
Applicant’s Narrative: “The Springfield Comprehensive Plan (2030 Refinement Plan) defines key
urban facilities and services as ‘those services and facilities that are necessary to serve planned
urban uses and densities in accordance with applicable Statewide Planning Goals,statutes and
administrative rules: wastewater services; stormwater services;transportation; solid waste
management; water service;fire and emergency medical services; police protection;
citywide park and recreation programs; electrical service; land use controls; communication
facilities; and publicschools on a district-wide basis.’ The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment
from MUC to MDR will allow a ±15-acresite envisioned to be zoned Public Land and Open Space
(PLO) District for the siting of a school. As stated above, according to the RLHNA, lands
needed for publicoperations and facilities(including schools)were not addressed in the EOA,
and thus suchland needs are addressed in the RLHNA and allocated to plan designations. In
order to apply PLO District to allow an educational facility, the land mustcarry Residential
designation in the Metro Plan. In this case, the planned MDR amendment willestablish consistency
throughout the subjectsite and allow development of a schoolamenity to meet the needs oflocal
residents.
Furthermore, site improvements in conformance with an approved comprehensive plan, asis the
case here, resultin orderly and efficient arrangement of publicfacilities and services. Critical
public facilities, including sanitary sewer, storm water, potable water, and emergency services,
were shown to be availableto this site based on previous application approvals. Therefore, this
application is consistent with Goal 11.
Nodal Development Overlay Removal
Theupdates to the Metro Plan Diagram reflect a less intenseland use plan than was previously
approved in 2008 or 2018 (i.e. school and church phases). Removal of the ND Overlay is consistent
with this notion and does not impair the ability to provide necessarypublic facilities to and through
the site. Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 11.”
Finding 29: Goal 11 –Public Facilities and Services addressesthe efficient planning and provision
of public services such as sewer, water,law enforcement, and fire protection. In accordance with
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
proposed redesignation and rezoning cannot result in permitted uses that will have anadverse effect
on the demand for public facilities and services provided to the subject property and adjacent
properties. This area of Springfield is already planned for a variety of residential, commercial,
industrial, and institutionaldevelopment and the public facilities serving this area have been
designed accordingly.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 26 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 14 of 23
Finding 30: The existing and proposed public facilities specific to the MarcolaMeadows site are
detailed in the approved Final Master Plan for the neighborhood.The current Master Plan
2
contemplates over 750dwelling units and up to 246,000 ftof commercial floor area in a mixed use
retail village. Existing and planned public facilities and services(including infrastructure to be
constructed in conjunction with the development of the Marcola Meadows neighborhood) were
evaluated with the Master Plan review and approval process, and deemed to be adequateto support
buildout of the siteunder the MDR and MUC zoning. The proposed redesignation of 36.57acres of
Commercial to MDR and the future introduction of institutional uses on the site will change the land
use characteristics and configuration for the Marcola Meadows neighborhood resulting in a reduced
demand on public facilities and services.Therefore, thechanges to the type and distribution of land
usesresulting from the proposed Metro Plan amendment willnot have an adverse impact to the
City’s sanitary or storm sewersystems, or other public infrastructure.
Goal 12 – Transportation
Applicant’s Narrative: “A \[Traffic Impact Assessment and\] Transportation Memorandum prepared
by Lancaster Mobley \[are\] included here as an exhibit which demonstrates compliance with Goal
12 and applicable State, County, and Citytransportation related requirements. Please refer to the
TIS for further information. The intended street and connectivity improvements encourage a safe,
convenient, and economictransportationsystem. Therefore, the application is consistent with Goal
12.
Findings for Transportation Planning Rule Compliance
OAR 660, Division 12, is the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule(the TPR) adopted by the
LCDC. The TPR implements Goal 12, Transportation, and is an independent approval standard in
addition to Goal 12 for map amendments. OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2) apply to amendments to
acknowledged maps, as is the case with this application.
The TPR requires a two-step analysis. First, under OAR 660-012-0060(1), the Applicantmust
determine if the application has a ‘significant affect,’ as that term is defined in OAR 660-012-
0060(1). The Citymay relyon transportation improvements found in Transportation System Plans
(TSPs), as allowed by OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a), (b), and (c), to show thatfailing intersections will
not be made worse or intersections not now failing will notfail.If there is a ‘significant affect,’
then the Applicant must demonstrate appropriate mitigation under OAR 660-012-0060(2), et seq.
This section of the Transportation Planning Rule requires coordination withaffected
transportations service providers. The City provides the roads that serve the subject property;
st
Marcola Road and 31 Street are designated as a Minor Arterial and a Major Collector,
respectively, in the City TSP and are under City jurisdiction. The City has a duty to coordinate
with transportation facility and service providers and otheraffected agencies, as applicable.
Therefore, the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060 (4) are met.”
Finding 31: The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Oregon Administrative Rule OAR 660-12-
0060, requires local governments to put in place mitigation measures as provided in the TPR
whenever an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or land use
regulation (including a zone change) would “significantly affect” an existing or planned
transportation facility.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 27 of 44
Attachment 1, Page 27 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 15 of 23
Finding 32: Under the TPR, a plan amendment or zone change may result in a “significant affect”
under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a) and (b) by changing the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility or by changing the standards implementing a functional classification
system. The subject application proposes to amend the Metro Plan diagram designation from
roughly equal Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Commercial designations with a Nodal
Development (ND) area overlay to majority MDR and minimal Commercial designation with
removal of the ND area overlay. The proposed amendments do 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 effect” under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a) or (b).
Finding 33: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.”
Finding 34: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 functionalclassification
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 35: 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.
Finding 36: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 37: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 TSPprioritizes 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.
st
Finding 38: Project R-28, Marcola Road to 31Street project, is listed as a “as development
occurs” in the Springfield TSP’s 20-year project list. This project is wholly contained within the
property proposed for this amendment and will be built as development occurs as outlined in the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan.
Finding 39:As required by SDC 5.22-110, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
addressing trip generation associated with the proposed zone change to show compliance with the
TPR at OAR 660-012-0060.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 28 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 16 of 23
Finding 40: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 the existing
zoning were compared to the proposed zoning under “worst case scenario” conditions.
Finding 41: The applicant used the reasonable worst case trip generation scenario provided for the
current plan designations adopted in 2007 as implemented by the uses approved in the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan. However, because that trip generation calculation did not account for the
traffic-lowering effects of the mixed use development required by the Master Plan, the applicant
applied an internal trip capture rate of 22%, which reasonably represents the mitigation on traffic
expected under the Master Plan. Thus, the total number of weekday trips generated by the existing
plan designations and zoning, under the reasonably-most traffic generative development scenario, is
22,095 trips.
Finding 42: The applicant’s proposed zoning scenario is the reasonable most-traffic generative uses
for the subject property. For the property proposed to be redesignated and rezoned to MDR without
the Nodal Development Overlay, the applicant assumed development of 1,931 apartments under the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Code 221. This calculation assumes development of 3-10 story
podium apartments at the maximum density allowed in the MDR plan designation and zoning
district. It is reasonable to assume 3-10 story podium apartments as opposed to 1-2 story garden
style apartments because construction of 1-2 story apartments in the MDR zoning district generally
cannot achieve the maximum density allowed in that zone. For the commercially-designated and
2
zoned property, the applicant assumes development of an approximately 100,000 ftshopping center
in the remaining nearly 9-acre commercial site and a 16-pump gas station at the less than one acre
commercial site. Both scenarios represent the reasonable most-traffic generative use that could be
constructed on these sites.
Finding 43: The applicant’s TIS demonstrates that the proposed zoning will generate a total of
19,680 trips, which is 2,415 fewertrips compared to the existing zoning under a “worst case
scenario” condition. Thus, the applicant’s TIS demonstrates that the proposed amendments will not
degrade the performance of an existing or planned facility such that is does not meet the
performance standards in the Springfield TSP or Oregon Highway Plan. Thus, the proposed
amendments do not result in a “significant affect” under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(c).
Finding 44: Based on the above findings, the subject application proposingto amend the Metro Plan
diagram designation with a significantly higher proportion of MDR to commercial designation with
the removal of the ND area overlay will not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with OAR 660-012-0060 and SDC
5.22-115C.4.b, and no additional mitigation is required under the TPR.
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) is not applicable because the amendment
does not affect the City or County goals or policies governing energy conservation.”
Finding 45:The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has established that Goal 13 does not
require aspecific energy analysis or other Goal 13 analysis for changes to a comprehensive plan
diagram or zoning. SeeBarnard Perkins Corp. v. City of Rivergrove, 34 Or LUBA 660 (1998).
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 29 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 17 of 23
Finding 46: The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoningdoes not affect the City’s
ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. Converting
36.57 acres of the property from Commercial to MDR should not have an appreciable impact to
energy consumption and, in fact, could offer opportunities for increased residential energy
efficiency byimplementing green building concepts. The developer will have an opportunity to
incorporate suitableenergy conservation measures when detailed construction plans are prepared for
the various subdivision and site development phases of Marcola Meadows. The City’s building
codes comply with all Oregon State Building Codes Agency standards for energy efficiency in
residential building design. The site’s solar access is not compromised by surrounding
development. The City’s conservation measures applicable to storm water management, temporary
storage, filtration and discharge would apply to multi-unit residential uses 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: “Goal 14 (Urbanization) is not applicable because this application does not
involve expansion of the Springfield UGB, and thus analysis of the transition of rural to urban land
uses is not relevant.”
Finding 47: Goal 14 –Urbanization requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and
to incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The City already
plannedfor residential land use onapproximately half ofthe subject property when completing its
residential buildable land inventory.Consistent with provisions of Goal 14,the City is responding
to a request from a property owner to redesignate and rezone 36.57 acres of thesubject property
from Commercial to medium densityresidential use. The subject property is within the existing
UGB and is already annexed to the City. The proposed redesignation and zone changedoes 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: “Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway\[is\]not applicable because the
subject site does not contain landsdescribed in \[that goal\].Thus, the approval criteria have been
omitted for brevity.”
Finding 48: 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 UGBof 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.
Goals 16-19 Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources
Applicant’s Narrative:“Goals 16 (Estuarine Resources), 17 (Coastal Shorelands), 18 (Beaches and
Dunes), and 19 (Ocean Resources) are not applicable because the subject site does not contain
lands described in those goals. Thus, the approval criteria have been omitted for brevity.”
Finding 49: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and
Ocean Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 30 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 18 of 23
Springfield. Therefore,in the same way that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply in Springfield, Goals 16-19
do not apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: The proposed Metro Plandiagramland use designation amendment from Commercial
to Medium Density Residentialand removal of the Nodal Development Area are consistent withall
applicable statewide land use planning goalsinaccordance withSDC 5.14-135.A.
B.Plan Inconsistency
1.In those cases where the Metro Planapplies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the
Metro Planinternally inconsistent.
Applicant’s Narrative: “As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the planned Metro Plan Diagram
amendment will impact and amend the designation of a single propertyin Springfield. The
amendmentwill not create an internal inconsistency or conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan.
Additionally, the planned “overlay removal” to amend the ND Overlay on the Metro Plan Diagram
will not create an internal inconsistency because the futurebasezonedesignations (i.e. CC,MDR,
andPLO) willcontinue to provide development standards for thesite. Therefore, this application
provides thematerials and analysis to support approval of the planned amendments consistent with
the regional planning framework documents. The criterion is met.”
Finding 50: The adopted Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan arethe principal
policy documents that create the broad framework forland use planning withinthe City of
Springfield. As explained herein, both are applicable to this application. The City’s adopted Zoning
Map implements the zoning designationsof the Metro Plandiagram and localized Refinement
Plans, which are adopted amendments to the Metro Plan. The subject property is not within an
adopted neighborhood refinement plan area. The policies and implementation actions of the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Elementare intended to
refine and update(as opposed to replace) the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro Plan’s
Residential Land Use and Housing Element.The Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan –
Economic Element and Urbanization Elementreplace the applicable sections of the Metro Plan
pertaining to employment lands and urbanizable lands. Because the subject property is within the
existing UGB and annexed to the City limits, the Urbanization Elementis not applicable to this
application. The Economic Elementis applicable.
Finding 51: The proposal is consistent with the Residential Land Use and Housing Elementof the
adopted Metro Planincluding policies pertaining to residential land supply and demand. In
accordance with Policy A.4, the City is to use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities,
rezoning, redevelopment, and infill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand. The proposed
redesignation and rezoning of this property would create an opportunity for development of
additional single-detached and multi-unit housing to meet market demand and within multiple
housing demographics. The projected 20-year housing demand cannot be made up with a single
housing form such as single-detached dwellings on medium-sized lots. Provision of a range of
housing types is consistent with the City’s goals of fostering housing choice and affordability,
encouraging housing diversity, and addressing needed housing for all income levels.
Finding 52: The proposal is consistent with the residential density policies of the Metro Plan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element, including Policies A.10, A.11 and A.12 which
encourage higher density residential development in areas with existing infrastructure and facilities,
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 31 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 19 of 23
close to existing employment and commercial services, proximate to transportation systems and
public transit, and in conjunction with services and amenities. The subject site currently has
frontage on an arterial and a collector street and it will be developed with an internal street network
providing connections to the local and regional transportation network as successive development
phases are completed. The site is also within walking distance of shopping, services, commercial
and industrial employers, major transportation corridors, transit stops, and a varietyof urban
amenities. The applicant is proposing to redesignate the southeast corner of the Marcola Meadows
property from Commercial to MDR in order to create future multi-unit residential sites close to the
th
intersection of Marcola Road and 28Street. Thehousing form anticipated for this location isof a
higher density than the rest of the Marcola Meadows site and especially the adjacent neighborhoods
to the east and west. This redesignation is therefore consistent with the three Metro Plan policies
that support higher density development in this type of location.
Finding 53: The proposal is consistent with the residential housing type and tenure policies of the
Metro PlanResidential Land Use and Housing Element, including Policies A.17 and A.18 which
provide for a full range of housing types, densities, sizes and locationsand encourage a mix of
structure types and densities within residential designations. Currently, theproperty is vacant and
an initial 29-lot subdivision phase is under construction in the northeast corner of the site; this
subdivision phase is outside of the area proposed for redesignation and rezoning. The proposed
redesignation would allow for modifications to the development Master Plan, and for up to 200
additional multi-unit dwellingsto be developedon the property upon build-out of the Marcola
Meadows neighborhood. Provision of multi-unit dwellings as a different form of housing on the site
is consistent with the City’s policies that encourage diversity of housing types and affordability.
Finding 54: In accordance with Chapter IV –Metro PlanReview, Amendments, and Refinements,
the City’s Comprehensive Plan is not designed or intended to remain static and unyielding in its
assignment of land use designations. Indeed, the years-long saga of the Marcola Meadows property
is a prime example of why redesignation of a vacant site needs to be considered after previous
visions for the neighborhood failed to materialize. To that end, provisions of Chapter IV, Policy 7.a,
allow for property owners to initiate an amendment to the Metro Plandiagram to reflect a change in
circumstances or need. The applicant is proposing to amend the Metro Plandesignation for 36.57
acres of the subject property from Commercialto MDR and to concurrently rezone the affected area
from MUCto20.74 acres of MDR and 15.83 acres of PLO. A portion of the site currently
designated as Commercial (approximately 9.06 acres) would be rezoned from MUC to Community
Commercial. There are no conflicts created by this proposed diagram amendment based on needed
residential land inventoriesor needed employment land inventories. The development of this land
with residentialand institutional uses does not conflict with other land use elements in the Metro
Planincluding commercial, industrial, park and open space, or government and education.
Adoption of the amendment to the Plan diagram will not result in an internal inconsistency.
Finding 55:Concurrent with redesignating approximately 36.57 acres of the Marcola Meadows site
from Commercial to MDR, the applicant is also proposing to amend the Metro Plandiagram by
removing the Nodal Development overlay that applies to approximately 81.37 acres of the 100.3-
acre site. The Nodal Development area is depicted on the current Metro Plandiagram and cannot
be modified or removed through a zone change alone.
Finding 56: The regional Transportation System Planor TransPlan adopted in conjunction with the
Metro Plancontains policies on nodal development. TransPlan Land Use Policy #1 provides for
application of the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 32 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 20 of 23
potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern.The Marcola Meadows site is
identified as part of Area 7C on the map of Potential Nodal Development Areaswithin the Eugene-
Springfield metro area (TransPlan - Appendix A).
Finding 57: The provisions of TransPlan allow local discretion to select areas most appropriate for
nodal development,although no specific locations are emphasized aside from downtownareas.In
accordance with guidance from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD), TransPlan includes a policy requiring the adoption of nodal development protections no
later than threeyears after the adoption of TransPlanin 2002. Despite being shown on the map of
potential nodal development areas, the Marcola Meadows site was first designated as a Nodal
Development area in 2007 – more than threeyears after the adoption of TransPlan – so application
of the Nodal Development designation to the Marcola Meadows site was not adopted as part of the
three-year implementation requirement.
Finding 58:Marcola Meadows is part of a larger area in the vicinity identified for potential nodal
development in the 2002 TransPlan, but the map of potential nodal development areas also includes
numerous other areas throughout Springfield that have not subsequently been required to apply the
nodal development overlay. The TransPlan map of potential nodal development sites is based on
landuse patterns that are conducive to this form of development, but it does not preclude the
application of nodal development to other sitesthat have similar land use characteristics.Similarly,
TransPlan does not regulate or preclude the modification or removal of a Nodal Development area
when changes to the underlying zoning affect its“nodal” characteristics such as reducing or
eliminating mixed use zoning, frequent transit service, or large-scale employment uses.
Finding 59: TransPlanLand Use Policy #1 affords substantial latitude and discretion to the local
jurisdiction to determine appropriate nodal development areas. Additionally, the TransPlan policies
and the City’s TSP do not precludethe City from modifying or rescinding the Nodal Development
designation for a site in conjunction with a Metro Plan amendment, especially if the site was not
afforded nodal development protections within three years of TransPlan adoption in 2002. .
Finding 60:Although it is identified in TransPlan, the Marcola Meadows Nodal Development
overlay was not implemented in conjunction with the protection of potential nodal development
areas as described in TransPlan policies. Instead, the Nodal designation for Marcola Meadows was
amechanism to allocate commercial vehicle trips and dwelling unit densities (discussed in the Goal
10and 12 findings above), and also factored into the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the
neighborhood Master Plan when it was originally approved in 2008. The original TIS considered
the property’s zoning and designation for Campus Industrial uses and the proposed change to a
combination of commercial and medium density residential uses. In conjunction with the 2008
Master Plan approval, the Nodal Development overlay was used as a technique to capture more
internal vehicle trips within the development area thereby reducing the traffic impacts to the local
transportation system. The 2008 TIS demonstrated that there wasa potential affecton the existing
andplanned transportation facilities unless the Nodal Development overlay was implemented and
the development area did not exceed the maximum threshold number of vehicle trips allocated to the
site. Additionally, the planned transportation facilities to be constructed with build-out of the
Master Plan area also were to serve asmitigation against significant affect.
Finding 61: Since the time of the 2008 TISfor Marcola Meadowsthere have been a number of
changes to the City’s Transportation System Plan along with modified requirements to meet the
state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). As an example,the TPR no longer requires or references
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 33 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 21 of 23
Nodal Development areas. To remove the Nodal overlay, under OAR 660-012-0060, the applicant
needs to show that the reasonable worst case scenario of development with the
commercial/residential zoning but without the Nodal Development overlay restrictions does not
create a significant affect, as compared to reasonable worst case development with the ND overlay
in place.The TPR requirements are addressed in the findings listed under Goal 12.
Finding 62: The applicant’s proposal to amend the Metro Plan diagram with a significantly higher
proportion of MDR to commercial designation and to remove the Nodal Developmentdesignation
does not conflict with the provisions of TransPlan or the City’s TSP.
Finding 63: For the above reasons, Criteria B.1 ismet.
2.In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent
with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Narrative: “This Metro Plan Diagram Amendment shifts an underutilized portion of
the Marcola Meadows site designated with Commercial area to Medium Density Residential area.
Theenvisioned Zoning Map Amendments associated with the site amend the MUC District to a new
MDRDistrict, consistentwith theSpringfield 2030 ComprehensivePlan designation. The Metro
Plan Diagram amendment is consistent with the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies as demonstrated in this written document; please see the narrative component above,
regarding specific findings.The justification for removing the ND Overlay on the Metro Plan
Diagram, as currently designated on site, is discussed in depthin this written document. The
specific goals and policies reflected in the Comprehensive Plan do not inherently warrant the ND
Overlay to be placed on site. In this instance, through the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment process,
theNDOverlay was consistent with thegoal ofoffsetting transportation impacts associated with the
dense development. In contrast, other nodes in Springfieldweredesignated to identify major
transportation projects needed to serve the area. Because this ND Overlay was placed in
conjunction with the MarcolaMeadows Master Plan approval, the ND Overlay should be
reevaluated to reflect the envisioned use of the site. With a significant downzone, decrease in
average daily trips, and general land use amendments shifting the site(from mixed-use commercial)
to residential are taken into consideration, the siteis no longer consistent with the ND Overlay
3.3-1000 of the SDC).
(pursuant to SectionTherefore, the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and
‘overlay removal’ is consistent with the approval criterion ofSection 5.14-135 and should be
approved.”
Finding 64: The Economic Element policies and implementation actions of the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan –Economic Elementapply to the subject site. The proposed Metro Plan
amendment and zone change is consistent with Policy E.5 whereby smaller commercial sites are
created as “short term supply” for near-term development. The applicant has indicated that a
prospective use has been secured for the 8.14-acre parcel at the southwest corner of the Marcola
Meadows neighborhood. However, under the current MUC zoning the planned institutional (i.e.
church) use is not allowable on the site. Although the underlying Commercial designation is not
changing, the reconfiguration of the commercially designated and zoned land on the property will
allow for the creation of twosmallercommercial sites that can be developedin the near-term.
Finding 65: In accordance with Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan –Economic ElementPolicy E.6,
the applicant is proposing to reconfigure and modify the Master Plan for the Marcola Meadows
neighborhood to create development sites that meet current market demand. The intent is to provide
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 34 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 22 of 23
buildable commercial and institutional properties for immediatetransfer to prospective buyers. In
order to do so, redesignation and rezoning of the southern 45.3 acres of the property is necessary.
Additionally, in accordance with Policy E.7, the applicant is proposing changes to the land use
composition of the neighborhood to focus new development on the existing street frontages where
infrastructure is already in place in order to stimulate further development of the entire site.
Finding 66: In accordance with Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan –Economic Element Policy E.24,
the applicant is proposing to redesignate and rezone 36.57acres of the property to remove the
underlying Commercial designation and replace it with Medium Density Residential designation.
The applicant argues in their narrative and in ongoing discussions with staff that a combination of
factors have prevented any development of the planned Mixed Use Commercial node at the Marcola
Meadows site, including the lack of direct access to Highway 126, existing commercial and
industrial development in the vicinity, a collapse of the commercialland market for larger retailers,
and a combination of lack of demand and prohibitive up-front cost for full development of the retail
and higher-density residential “village” originally envisioned in 2008. Theapplicant argues that
because the site has remained vacant for more than 12 years it is time to change the land use
configuration for the site.
Finding 67:The Residential Land Use and Housing policies and implementation actions of the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan –Residential Land Use and Housing Element also apply to the
subject site. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with Policy H.3for the
following reasons: there is existing Medium Density Residential designated land in the northern
half of the site and the proposal would add approximately 36.57 acres to this total; the site abuts a
thst
collector street along the eastern boundary (28 / 31Street) and an arterial street along the southern
th
boundary (Marcola Road); Lane Transit District operates standard bus service along 28Street and
Marcola Road thereby providing service within ¼ mile walking distance of the neighborhood; and
the site is located within ¼ to ½-mile walking distance of shopping, services, employers and
recreational amenities.
Finding 68:As a result of theproposed removal of the Nodal Development Overlay from the
property, Policy H.3, Implementation Action 3.3 - Increase Opportunities for Mixed Use Nodal
Developmentis not achievable on the site. Theproposed redesignation from Commercial to MDR
allows the applicant to concurrently rezone all of the Mixed Use Commercial land on the property to
a combination of Community Commercial, MDR and PLO. The two proposed actions – if done in
concert – would effectively eliminate the mixed use designation, zoning, and characteristics of the
site. Therefore, Policy H.3, Implementation Action 3.3 would no longer apply to the site. However,
Implementation Action 3.3 does not contain any specific requirements applicable to Marcola
Meadows; the action specifically identifies areas in Springfield such as Gateway, Downtown,
Glenwood, and frequent transit networks as being the targets of this action. The Marcola Meadows
site is not within the geographic areas of Gateway, Downtown, or Glenwood, and is not along a
Frequent Transit Corridor identified in the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan.
Finding 69:In accordance with Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing ElementPoliciesH.4and H.5,theapplicant is requesting that the Nodal Development
Overlay is removed from the property. The applicant argues that the ND overlay adds a layer of
design standards and other considerations that could potentially increase the cost of development
and provision of needed housing. For this site, the ND overlay represents a potential regulatory
barrier tothe efficient siting and construction of higher-density housing units. The applicant
contends that removal of the ND overlay, in conjunction with the proposed redesignation and
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 35 of 44
EXHIBIT F, Page 23 of 23
rezoning of an additional 36.57 acresfrom Commercial to MDR, is a necessary step to facilitate a
future Master Plan modification to accommodate additional multi-unit residential dwellingson the
site.
Finding 70: In accordance with Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing ElementPolicy H.7, the City shall “continue to develop and update regulatory options and
incentives to encourage and facilitate development of more attached and clustered single-family
housing types in the low density and medium density districts.” Implementation Actions 7.1 and 7.2
2
call for the creation of small lots in the 3,000 ftminimum size range to support development of a
mix of housing types and smaller single-detached housing forms. The applicant has submitted
22
subdivision plans for single-detached housing lots ranging from 3,000 ftto 5,000 ftwhich meets
this policy action. The initial subdivision phase previously approved and currently under
construction will be the first example of smaller lots created within the MDR district thatfulfill this
housing need.
Finding 71: In accordance with Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing ElementPolicy 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
transit service that provides access to employment center, shopping, health care, civic, recreational
and cultural services.” The subject site has an approved development Master Plan that functions as
a specific area plan. Additionally, the Marcola Meadows site is served by existing transit stops, and
is in close proximity to employment centers, shopping, and a wide variety of services. Upon
redesignation of the 36.57 acres from Commercial to MDR the applicant will be able to modify the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan consistent with this policy.
Finding 72: In accordance with Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing ElementPolicy H.12, the City shall “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.” The
requested Metro Planamendment is being done to facilitate modifications to the approved Master
Plan for the neighborhood. As the applicant points out in their narrative, development has stalled-
out on the 100+ acre site and is encumbered by the Nodal Development overlay and a very large
area of mixed use commercial zoning. The applicant is proposing to change the land use
configuration of the neighborhood by converting much of the mixed use commercial area to
institutional and medium density residential uses. To achieve this vision, the underlying designation
needs to be changed from commercial to residential.
Finding 73:Based on the foregoing, the proposal to redesignate and rezone the subject property
from Commercial to a combination of MDR, PLO and CCis consistent and compatible with the
adopted policies of the Metro Plan, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan– Economic Element, and
the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land and Housing Element.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the applicant’s narrative, the findings herein, testimony submitted into the record,the criteria of
SDC 5.14-135 for approving amendments to the Metro Plan, the proposed Metro Plandiagram
amendmentand the removal of the Nodal Development area,areconsistent with the applicable criteria.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 36 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 1 of 8
Staff Reportand Findings
Springfield City Council
Zone Change Request
Hearing Date: November 2, 2020
CaseNumber:811-20-000117-TYP3
Applicant: AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC on behalf of Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC
Property Owner: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC
thst
Site: Marcola Road at 28/ 31Street (Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 2300 & Map 17-03-25-11,
Tax Lot 1800).
Request
Rezone approximately 45.63acres of Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) to 20.74acres of Medium Density
Residential (MDR); 15.83 acres of Public Land and Open Space (PLO); and 9.06acres of Community
Commercial (CC); and remove the Nodal Development overlay district from 81.37 acres of the property.
Site Information/Background
The application was initiated and accepted as complete onJune 17, 2020,and the initial Planning
Commission public hearing on the matter of the Zone Change request was held on September 22, 2020.
The Zone Change request is being processed concurrently with a Metro PlanDiagram amendment
submitted under separate cover, Case 811-20-000118-TYP4. The City Council reviewed both
applications and the Planning Commission’s recommendations at a public hearing held onOctober 19,
2020.
Theproperty that issubject of the Zone Change request is comprised of a vacant, 100.3-acre field located
thst
north of Marcola Road and west of 28and 31Streets. The property is commonly referred to as the
Marcola Meadows site based on a development Master Plan for the neighborhood approved in 2008. In
aggregate, the total area proposed for rezoning is about 45.63acres.
thst
The subject site has frontage on Marcola Roadalong the southern boundaryand 28/31Street along the
eastern boundary. TheEWEB right-of-way and recreational pathway abuts the site to the north. Existing
residential and commercial development abuts the western boundary of the property.
Approximately the northern one-half of the subject property is zoned and designated MDRin accordance
with the Metro Plandiagramand the Springfield Zoning Map. The southern one-half of the property
(approximately) is designated Commercial and zoned Mixed Use Commercial. A Nodal Development
(ND) overlay applies to approximately 81.37acres of the property; however, the configuration of the ND
overlayis articulated to exclude a former 19-acrehome improvement centersite from the southwest
quadrant of the property. The applicant is proposing the zone change from MUCtoa combination of
MDR, PLO and CC and to remove the Nodal Development overlay in its entirety to facilitate future
Master Plan modifications for the neighborhood.The original Master Plan contemplated a major
commercial village along the Marcola Road frontage and the new developer’s vision would replace this
with primarily residential and institutional (i.e. church and school) uses.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 37 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 2 of 8
Notification and Written Comments
Notification of the October 19, 2020 City Council public hearing was sent to all property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the siteon September 11, 2020.Notification of the October 19, 2020 City
Council public hearing was published in the September 16, September 18 and October 5,2020editions of
theRegister-Guard.An extra notice was published in the Register Guard on September 18, 2020 to update
the online meeting link for the Planning Commission public hearing meetingthat was rescheduled due to
the Holiday Farm fire. The meeting information for the October 19, 2020 City Council public hearing
meeting was included in this notice. Staff responded to emailsand telephone callsrequesting additional
information about theproposal, but no written comments were received for the September 22, 2020
Planning Commission public hearing.At the October 19, 2020 City Council public hearing, no verbal or
written testimony was submitted aside from the applicant’s presentation of the proposals.
On April 16, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 20-16, which requires governing bodies to hold
public meetings and hearings by telephone, video, or through other electronic or virtual means whenever
possible. On June 30, 2020, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 4212, which waives requirements under
the Oregon Public Meetings Law and other statutes to facilitate public meetings online or by phone. Under
HB 4212, the governing body must make available a method by which the public canlisten to or virtually
attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs. HB 4212 allows governing bodies to accept
public testimony by telephone or video conferencing technology, or to provide a means to submit written
testimony (including email or other electronic methods) that the governing body can consider in a timely
manner. HB 4212 overrides conflicting requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in state law or in the
Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan.
The October 19, 2020public hearing was conducted as an online meeting via video conferencing
technology that allowedmembers of the public to register for participating in the meeting online by using
the following link: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2435551706434375694 and using Webinar
ID 833-548-027. After registering, participants received a confirmation email containing information
about joining the webinar. The public could also listen to the public hearing meeting by calling 1-951-
384-3421 or the toll-free number (1-877-309-2071) and entering Webinar ID 535-706-169.Members of
the public were provided the opportunity to submittestimony to the City Council by observing the online
meeting at City Hall in Council chambers, or by joining the online meeting remotely. The public could
listen to the meeting by phone but could not provide testimony by phone. Details regarding how to join the
online meeting wereprovided in the City Council meeting agenda and posted on the City’s website.
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 amendmentrequests. The Criteria of Zoning Map
amendmentapproval criteria are:
SDC 5.22-115CRITERIA
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
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 38 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 3 of 8
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.
Proposed Findings In Support of Zone Change Approval
Criterion: Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval:
1.Consistency with applicable Metro Planpolicies and the Metro Plandiagram;
Applicant’s Narrative: “This application involves amendmentsto the Springfield Zoning Map
and Metro Plan Diagram; as such, planned zoning updates must be consistent with the intended
Metro Plan Diagram designation. Findings within the application materials support approval to
amend the Metro Plan Diagram as initiated by this application. Upon approval, ±36 acresof the
MarcolaMeadows Master Plan site will be designated MDR. The planned MasterPlan Diagram
designation and amended zoning (to MDR,PLO, and CC)is consistent with the adopted Metro
Plan policies and diagram. Additionally, findings within this written narrative support removal
of the ND Overlay (i.e. ±81 acres of the Marcola MeadowsMaster Plan site) through the Metro
Plan Diagram Amendment and subsequent ZoneMap Amendment process. As such, itis
understood that prior to the approval of the Zoning Map Amendments, the Metro Plan Diagram
designation of the property shall be approved/amended as initiated by this application. The
approval criterion can be satisfied.”
Proposed Rezoning of MUC to MDR, PLO and CC; Removal of Nodal Development Overlay
Finding 1:Metro Plan Chapter IV, Policy 7.a states: “A property owner may initiate a \[Type I
Metro Plandiagram\] amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments
are subject to the limitations for such amendments set out in the development code of the home
city.”
Finding 2: The property owner initiated a concurrent Metro PlanDiagram amendment in
accordance with provisions of SDC 5.14-100 (Case 811-20-000118-TYP4). Upon adoption of the
amending Ordinance, the Metro PlanDiagram would be amended and the requested zone change
from MUC to MDR, PLO and CCwould be consistent with the provisions of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan. Prior or concurrent amendment of the Metro PlanDiagram will be required
for the subject zone change request to be approved.
Proposed Rezoning of MUC to MDR, PLO and CC
Finding 3:The proposed zone change is consistent with provisions of the Metro Planwhereby
zoning can be monitored and adjusted as necessary to meet current urban land use demands. The
requested change from MUC to a combination of MDR, PLO and CCwould facilitate the future
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 39 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 4 of 8
review and approval of modifications to the neighborhood Master Plan. Additionally, the requested
rezoning would allow for replacement ofmixed use commercial uses with institutional uses (i.e.
church and school) and multi-unit residential dwellings.
Finding 4:The subject site is adjacent to property that iszoned and designatedLDRto the east,
west and south. Community Commercial zoning abuts the site at the southwest corner, and
th
industrial zoning is located across Marcola Road and 28Street to the southeast of the site. The
proposed Zone Change from MUC to a combination of MDR, PLO and CC is consistent and
compatible with existing residential, commercial and industrial uses in the vicinity.
Proposed Rezoning of MUC to MDR and PLO
Finding 5: In accordance with provisions of the Metro Plan, approximately 32% of residentially
designated land is used by other public and institutional uses, including parks and schools. Policy
G.22 of the Metro Plan requires that the City and the School District undertake comprehensive
planning actions to plan for and set aside sufficient land for school needs. This includes identifying
new school sites in developing neighborhoods to serve the existing and future population. For the
Marcola Meadows neighborhood, the Springfield School District has identified the need for a new
school facility to serve the futureresidents –one that will complement and not replace the existing
schools to the north of the site (Briggs Elementary and Yolanda Middle School). Upon
redesignation of a portion of the site from Commercial to MDR, the PLO zoning district can be
applied to a proposed 15-acre school site in the southwest quadrant of the property. Use of the PLO
zoning district for public schools is consistent with the provisions of the Metro Planwhereby
residentially designated land is used for allowable (and anticipated) non-residential purposes.
Proposed Rezoning of MUC to MDR; Proposed Removal of Nodal Development Overlay
Finding 6: In accordance with Policy A.4 of the Metro Plan, the City shall use annexation,
provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning, redevelopment, and infill to meetthe
20-year projected housing demand. The proposed rezoning is a mechanism to address projected
housing demand and the need for adequate public facilities and services to serve the Marcola
Meadows site. The applicant’s stated intent for the proposed rezoning of approximately 45.3 acres
of the site is tofacilitate modifications to the neighborhood Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed
rezoning will accommodate future changes to the timing, location, and configuration of development
phases and associated infrastructurewithin the site in order to meet current housing demand.
2.Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development
Plans and functional plans;
Applicant’s Narrative: “This written document demonstrates compliance with the applicable Plan
District mapsand provisions of the SDC. In regard to removal of the ND Overlay, Section 3.3-1000
isaddressed to assert consistent and adequate improvements will be implemented on site by
removing the regulatory barrier. The subject site is not associated with a RefinementPlan or
Conceptual Development Plan. Furthermore, removal of the Nodal DevelopmentOverlay will not
impact consistency with the plans listed above. The approval criterion is satisfied.”
Proposed Rezoning of MUC to MDR, PLO and CC
Finding 7: Theproperty is not within an adopted neighborhood Refinement Plan.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 40 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 5 of 8
Finding 8: Thepolicies of theSpringfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing Element apply to the subject site. The Residential Land Use and Housing Elementof the
City’s 2030 Refinement Plan updates and refines, but does not replace, the Residential Land Use and
Housing Element of the Metro Plan.
Finding 9: In accordance with Policy H.10, through the updating and development of each
neighborhood refinement plan, districtplan or specificarea plan, the City shallamendland use
plans toincreasedevelopmentopportunities for quality affordable housing in locations servedby
existingand planned frequent transitservicethat provides accesstoemploymentcenters,
shopping, healthcare,civic,recreationalandculturalservices. The subject site has an approved
development Master Plan that functions as a specific area plan. Additionally, the Marcola Meadows
siteis served by existing transit stops, and is in close proximity to employment centers, shopping,
and a wide variety of services. Upon rezoning of the 45.63 acres from MUC to a combination of
MDR, PLO and CC the applicant will be able to modify the Marcola Meadows Master Plan
consistent with this policy.
Finding 10: The proposed rezoning creates additional MDR land near the intersection of Marcola
th
Road and 28Street, which the developer has identified for potentialmulti-unit residential buildings
–a type of housing form that is needed in the community.
Finding 11:Rezoning of 36.57 acres of thesubject property from MUC to a combination of MDR
and PLO and removing the Nodal DevelopmentOverlay is consistent with the requested Metro Plan
diagram amendments initiated by the applicant in accordance with Case 811-20-000118-TYP4.
Finding 12: Rezoning of 9.06 acres of the subject property from MUC to CC and removing the
Nodal Development overlay is consistent with the requested Zoning Map amendment and the
provisions of the underlying Commercial designation for these areas.
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: “As shown on the Preliminary Plans,publicfacilities will be provided to
serve the site, including but not limited to stormwater management,sanitary sewer, municipal
water, andfranchise utilities. The siteis plannedto be served by a comprehensive street network that
includes new public roadways and improvements. Infrastructureis planned to be completed
concurrent with the build out of each associated phase. Removal of the ND Overlay will not
impact Springfield’s or the Applicant’s ability to provide adequate public facilities,services, and
transportation elementsto the site. The approval criterion is met.”
Finding 13:Theproperty requested for Zone Change has frontage on MarcolaRoad(which is
thst
classified as an arterial street), and 28/ 31Street (classified as a collector street). Along the
southern boundary of the property, MarcolaRoadis developed with one vehicle travel lane and
bicycle lane in each direction and a bi-directional center turn lane. Along the eastern boundary of
thst
the property, 28/ 31Street is developed with one vehicle travel lane and bicycle lane in each
direction and a bi-directional centerturn lane. Along the northeast edge of the site –north of U
st
Street – 31Street tapers to a two-lane street with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Improvements to the
st
Marcola Road and 31Street frontages of the property will be completed as urban development
progresses on the site.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 41 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 6 of 8
Finding 14: The approved Master Plan for the Marcola Meadows neighborhood describesthe
existing and planned public streets and utilities that will be extended to serve the development area.
A full suite of public utilitiesand serviceswith sufficient capacity to support the requested rezoning
fromMUC to MDR, PLO and CCwill be availablewithin or on the perimeter of the subject
property including the following:
Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing sanitary sewer trunk line that runs east-west through
the southern one-half of the property. Additionally, there is an existing sanitary sewer pump
st
station near the intersection of 31and W Streets that will serve the initial Phase 1A
subdivision area that is currently under construction. As development proceeds on the
Marcola Meadows site, the developer will be responsible for installing new sanitary sewer
lines that connect with the main trunk line running across the property. Staff has determined
that the public sewer trunk line has adequate capacity for future development on the
property.
Storm Sewer: There are public storm sewer lines that run along the MarcolaRoad frontage
th
and portions of the 28 Street frontageof the subject site. Additionally, a public stormwater
drainage channel (known locally as the Pierce ditch) runs east-west across the site. The
developer will be responsible for installing new public stormwater facilities and
rehabilitating portions of the Pierce ditch to serve the Marcola Meadows development area.
Water:Springfield Utility Board (SUB)Water service is located on the southern and eastern
edges of the property. Public water line installation and looping will be required as
successive development phases are constructed on the site.
Electricity: SUB Electric has overhead electrical facilities along the Marcola Road and
st
portions of the 31Street frontages of the property. The planned electricalfacilities are
suitable for future development of the site with a combination of residential, institutional and
commercial uses.
Telecommunications: Comcast and CenturyLink have telecommunication facilities along
thst
the Marcola Road and 28/ 31Streetfrontages of the property. The existing and planned
facilities are suitable for future development of the site with a combination of residential,
institutional and commercial uses.
Future development of the Marcola Meadows sitewithcommercial, institutional and multi-unit
residentialuses would be subject to the land use approvalprocess outlined in Section 5.17-100 of
the City’s Development Code. Site Plan Review procedures will detail the design of commercial,
institutional and multi-unit residential construction, the location of utility connections,and
conformance with the criteria of approval for Site Plan Review. However, to maintain conformity
with the requested rezoning, the Marcola Meadows Master Plan will need to be modified to reflect
the underlying changes to the zoning configuration for the site.
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.
Applicant’s Narrative: “The criteria above are not applicable. As noted above, this
application includes a Quasi-judicial Zoning Map Amendment and involves a Metro Plan
Diagram Amendment. Nonetheless, this written narrative demonstrates compliance with
Section 5.14-100 and the TPR.”
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 42 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 7 of 8
Finding 15: The applicant has submitted a concurrent Metro PlanDiagram amendment
application (Case 811-20-000118-TYP4) under separate cover. The applicant’s submittal
materials, narrative, and staff findings and recommendations demonstrate compliance with
the Metro Plan amendment provisions of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and SDC 5.14-135.
Finding 16: The applicant has initiated an amendment to the Metro PlanDiagram to change
the designation for approximately 36.57 acres of the site from Commercial to MDR under
separate cover (Case 811-20-000118-TYP4). Commercial designation is being retained for
about 9.06 acres of the site; these areas are proposed for rezoning from MUC to Community
Commercial.
Finding 17: The requested Zone Change is being undertaken as a site-specific change in
compliance with provisions of the adopted Metro Planand the City’s Development Code.
Oregon Administrative Rules (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). Thefindings in the applicant’s Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)and the
findings under Goal 12in the concurrent Metro Plan Diagram amendmenttake into account
the proposed zone change from MUC to CC for the property not affected by the Metro Plan
diagram amendment. Based on those findings, which are incorporated by reference herein,
no significant affect will occur and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.
Therefore, the proposed rezoning complies with OAR 660-012-0060.
Conclusion:Based on the above-listed criteria,the criteria for rezoning have been met.
Conditions of Approval
SDC Section 5.22-120 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to aZone
Change request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from
the code sectionis cited below:
5.22-120 CONDITIONS
The A
pproval Authoritymay attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow
the Zoning Map amendment to be granted.
Recommended Condition of Approval:
Upon adoption of an Ordinance to redesignate and rezone portions of the Marcola Meadows site as
initiated by Planning Actions 811-20-000117-TYP3 and 811-20-000118-TYP4, the applicant shall
initiate modifications to the Master Plan for the neighborhood. The Master Plan modifications
shall provide for conformity of the development configuration, timing, phasing,and provision of
public utilities and services with adopted changes to the underlying zoning on the site.
Staff advises thatthe Zone Change request was initiated in accordance with provisions of the City’s
Development Code.The City Councilis requested to review and deliberate on the totality of the
submitted information and to vote on adopting the implementing Ordinanceattached hereto(Attachment
1).Because the applicant has initiated aconcurrent Metro Plan diagram amendment (Case 811-20-
0000118-TYP4), the comprehensive plan amendment will need to be completed prior to or concurrent
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 43 of 44
EXHIBIT G, Page 8 of 8
with approval of the Zone Change. Provisions for concurrent amendment of the Metro Plandiagramhave
been incorporated into the amending Ordinance as presented to the City Council for consideration.
Ordinance No. 6422 Page 44 of 44