HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 06 15 AIS for Metro Plan Amendment and Zone ChangeStaff Report and Findings
Springfield Planning Commission
Type I Amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram
Meeting Date: June 15, 2021
Case Number: 811-21-000097-TYP4
Applicant: AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC on behalf of Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC
Project Location: Northwest corner of the intersection of Marcola Road and 28th Street (Assessor’s Map
17-02-30-00, Portion of Tax Lot 1802).
Request
The City has received applications for a Type I Metro Plan diagram 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 Plan diagram 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 Plan diagram is processed as a
Type IV land use action that requires public hearings before the Springfield Planning Commission and City
Council.
The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would change the plan designation for approximately 1.14
acres of the subject property from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial, thereby increasing
the overall Commercial designation within the Marcola Meadows neighborhood to approximately 10.2
acres. Concurrent with this Metro Plan diagram amendment, an amendment to the Springfield Zoning Map
(Case 811-21-000096-TYP3) would change the zoning of the same 1.14 acres of the subject property from
MDR to Community Commercial.
The proposed Metro Plan diagram and zoning map amendments would allow for creation of a 1.17-acre
site with CC zoning at the southeast corner of the Marcola Meadows neighborhood, which the applicant
intends to develop as a medical clinic. The property subject to the proposed redesignation and rezoning
actions is immediately to the east of and abuts an existing 0.92-acre site with CC zoning just west of the
intersection of Marcola Road and 28th Street. The 0.92-acre site was previously created upon adoption of
Ordinance 6422 on November 2, 2020 and is intended to accommodate a future neighborhood convenience
store or similar commercial use. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zoning map
amendment would increase the size of the CC-zoned area to a total of 2.09 acres at the intersection of
Marcola Road and 28th Street. The Metro Plan diagram amendment and Zoning Map amendment will
require City approval of further modification to the Marcola Meadows Master Plan applicable to the site.
The applicant has depicted the conceptual modified Master Plan configuration on Sheet PO-07 of the
submitted plans (Attachment 4, Page 30).
The application was submitted on April 30, 2021 and the initial Planning Commission public hearing on
the proposed Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendments is scheduled for June 15, 2021.
Background
Through the Metro Plan amendment and zone change process, the subject property was zoned and
designated for commercial land use in 2007 via Ordinances 6195 and 6196. Ordinance 6196 required
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 17
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 (i.e. home improvement center) and retail village that included the subject
property. This configuration was changed to redesignate and rezone the subject site to MDR by adoption
of Ordinance 6422 in November 2020, leaving a single commercial site of 8.14 acres (intended for a church
use), and a second commercial site less than one acre immediately adjacent to the subject property.
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 on May 10, 2021, which is 36 days
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 June 15, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing
was mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on May 25, 2021 and
published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on June 7, 2021. Staff also posted notices of the
June 15, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing at two locations along the Marcola Road and 28th Street
frontages of the subject property, on the Development & Public Works office digital display, and on the City’s
webpage. A second round of notifications will be issued in August 2021 for the public hearing before the
City Council planned for September 7, 2021.
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 (HB 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. House Bill 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. House Bill 4212 overrides conflicting requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in
state law or in the Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan.
The June 15, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing is being conducted as an online meeting via Zoom
which allows members of the public to observe and listen to the meeting online using the following link:
https://zoom.us/j/92014521651?pwd=UWl1eGdpVzBlSUkrZDdXcnVjdDFlZz09 or by calling in to the
meeting at 1-971-247-1195 (Portland); 1-206-337-9723 (Seattle); or 1-877-853-5247 (US Toll-free) using
meeting I.D. 920 1452 1651. Members of the public may provide testimony to the Planning Commission
prior to the meeting by using the http://springfieldoregonspeaks.org web portal or by joining the online
meeting remotely. The public may also provide testimony by phone to the Planning Commission. Details
regarding how to join the online meeting were provided in the notification letter mailed to adjacent residents
and property owners, in the posted public hearing notices, in the Planning Commission meeting agenda, and
posted on the City’s website.
Criteria of Approval
Section 5.14-135 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review
of Metro Plan diagram amendments. The Criteria of approval are:
SDC 5.14-135 CRITERIA
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 17
A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the Springfield City Council and other applicable
governing body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the following criteria:
A. The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent with
the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
A. Consistency with Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals
Applicant’s Narrative: “As described in this written document, the Metro Plan Diagram amendment
to change the designation from Medium Density Residential to Commercial is in compliance with
the applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. Please see the narrative response above regarding
specific findings. The criterion is met.”
Finding 1: Of the 19 statewide goals, 13 are as “urban” goals applicable to any comprehensive plan
map amendments in 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 are to 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 to one 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.”
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 Plan diagram is subject 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 Planning Commission public hearing to consider
the proposed amendments has been scheduled for June 15, 2021. Mailed notification of the Planning
Commission public hearing was provided to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 17
subject property on May 25, 2021. The Planning Commission public hearing was advertised in the
legal notices section of the Register-Guard on June 7, 2021. Staff also posted notices of the scheduled
public hearing at two locations along the subject property frontages on Marcola Road and 28th Street.
The recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Springfield City Council will be included
with the AIS for consideration at the public hearing meeting that has been scheduled for September
7, 2021. Because of the nearly three-month delay between the two scheduled public hearing meetings,
staff will be completing another round of public notifications in August 2021 for the City Council
public hearing planned for September 7, 2021. The notice for this proposed Metro Plan diagram
amendment complies 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 June 15, 2021 is being conducted 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 their respective
comprehensive plans. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
long- range public policy document that establishes the broad 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 County to approve
the application because it describes the current and planned future site 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 and Financial Services; Lane County
Transportation, County Sanitarian; Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority; Comcast Cable;
CenturyLink; Lane Transit District; and ODOT Planning and Development, State Highway Division.
Additionally, notice was provided electronically to DLCD on May 10, 2021.
Finding 4: The Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan together make up the
acknowledged comprehensive plan for guiding land use planning in Springfield. The City has adopted
other neighborhood- or area-specific plans (such as Refinement Plans) that provide more detailed
direction for land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan and Springfield 2030
Comprehensive Plan. However, the subject property is not within an adopted neighborhood
refinement plan area.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 17
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 Element replaces the applicable
sections of the Metro Plan pertaining 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 Plan is specified in Chapter
IV Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements. The findings under Criteria B (below)
demonstrate that the proposed amendment will not make the adopted Metro Plan internally
inconsistent.
Finding 8: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals and
policies of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposal is
classified as a Type I amendment to the adopted Metro Plan diagram that is approved by Springfield
only in accordance with SDC 5.14-115.A. Type I Metro Plan amendments within City limits are not
approved or adopted by Lane County, contrary to the applicant’s narrative statement. The proposed
Metro Plan diagram amendment is processed as a Type IV land use action as described in SDC 5.1-
140 and 5.14-130. The process observed for the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is
consistent with the policies pertaining to Review, Amendments and Refinements. Additionally, the
proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment has been initiated in accordance with the provisions of the
City’s acknowledged comprehensive plan and development code. The proposed Metro Plan diagram
amendment is consistent with City 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: As noted by the applicant in their narrative, Goal 3 – Agricultural Land applies to areas
subject to farm zoning that are outside acknowledged urban growth boundaries (UGBs): “Agricultural
land does not include land within acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within
acknowledged exceptions 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 amendment is
inside the City’s acknowledged UGB and within the City limits. 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.”
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 17
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 Plan diagram amendment is inside the City’s UGB and
City limits. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 4 is not applicable.
Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open 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 applies to more
than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands, and establishes a
process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated. The subject site has not been identified as
a historic resource in the City’s Register of Historic Sites, nor as an open space resource in the
Willamalane Park & Recreation District Comprehensive Plan. There are no features within the subject
property that are identified in the City’s acknowledged Local Wetlands Inventory. As noted in the
applicant’s narrative, there are no identified or inventoried Goal 5 resources located within the subject
site. Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 5.
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 6 is implemented by Comprehensive Plan policies to protect air,
land, and water resources. Generally, these policies rely on coordination with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for their implementation. Specific standards related
to the project include requirements for addressing stormwater runoff, grading, and erosion control
standards that apply to site planning for specific project elements (e.g. professional medical office).
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 that is the subject of the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Commercial Designation 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.”
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 Plan diagram
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.”
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 17
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 ground that is not within the
mapped 100-year flood hazard area of the McKenzie River. Current and future development of the
Marcola Meadows neighborhood is 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.
Finding 14: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment has no effect on City ordinances, policies,
plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 7 requirements and siting standards for development
within hillside areas or the mapped flood hazard area of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 7.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 8 is facilitated by the 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan. Together with the Metro Plan, its provisions identify future needs for parks,
a natural area, and recreation facilities. T he amendments will not negatively affect the City’s
Comprehensive Plan with respect to Goal 8 and its development regulations governing recreational
needs (e.g. open space, park dedication, fee in-lieu-of requirements, etc.). Removing the MDR
designation from approximately 1 acre of the site will not impact Springfield’s current recreational
needs or future inventory of land for meeting these needs because there was not a recreational
facility planned or required to be sited at this location. An increase in commercial land supply will
expand the local amenities available to residents and visitors. 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.
Finding 16: The 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan identifies a potential collaborative
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 the Marcola Meadows neighborhood. Conceptual
planning for this park is already underway, but it does not impact the subject request to redesignate
approximately 1.14 acres of MDR to Commercial. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment
would not affect Willamalane’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or other ordinances, policies, plans, and
studies adopted to comply with Goal 8 requirements. Therefore, this action is consistent with the
City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8.
Goal 9 – Economic Development
Applicant’s Narrative: “This application involves a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MDR
to Commercial Designation on a portion of the Adjusted Tax Lot 1802 (e.g. ±1.138 acres).
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 17
Subsequently, a concurrent Zone Map Amendment is envisioned to change the anticipated use of
the subject site from MDR to Community Commercial (CC) District, with the intent of establishing a
professional and medical office building.
The City’s acknowledged Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic
Opportunities Analysis (CIBL-EOA) identified a 104-acre deficit of commercial and mixed-use
employment land, including a need for 31 sites 1 to 2 acres in size. As explained in the CIBL-
EOA, Springfield suggests that all land needs on sites smaller than five acres would be
accommodated through redevelopment. However, Table 4-4, Forecast of Employment Growth in
Building Type (Springfield UGB 2010-2030), suggests the commercial office building sector will
increase by 1.3 percent by the year 2030. Additionally, the table note states ‘we expect that medical
employment will grow faster than government employment, based on historical trends that show the
growing medical cluster in Springfield.’ This information suggests a site with these characteristics,
and ultimately the envisioned use of the site, will be in high demand.
Further, the CIBL-EOA details the types of businesses that may be attractive to Springfield. CIBL-
EOA Table 4-1, Existing and Potential Business Clusters in Springfield, lists Medical Services and
Back-Office Functions as growing clusters based on employment trends, the types of firms that
currently exist in Springfield, and forecasts from the Oregon Employment Department, etc.
Therefore, this application will meet the demands of a locally-significant industry by providing a
community commercial site that will not sit vacant.
The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (and subsequent Zone Map Amendment) from Medium
Density Residential to Commercial Designation will allow the envisioned use at similar intensities
to those currently allowed in the subject area (e.g. ±1.138 acres). For example, pursuant to SDC
Section 4.7-190, professional offices are an allowed use subject to special development standards in
the MDR District. In addition, while the Commercial Metro Designation is intended for a wide range
of business and services to serve nearby residents, the Community Commercial (CC) Springfield
Zoning District allows for a slightly refined variety of commercial uses intended to meet
neighborhood needs. As such, an increase in the CC District area will not curtail potential uses and
is anticipated to enhance the economic development opportunities in the Marcola Meadows area.
Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 9.”
Finding 17: Goal 9 – Economic Development findings must 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: The plan designation proposed for this property would result in a commercial retail/office
site of roughly 2.09 acres when combined with the adjoining property to the west.
Finding 19: The recent Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change adopted in Ordinance 6422
removed one commercial site in the 2-5 acre category from the City’s Commercial and Industrial
Buildable Lands Inventory (CIBL) and added a commercial site in the less than 1 acre category. Table
5-1 of the CIBL concluded that there was a surplus of 235 commercial sites less than one (1) acre, and
a deficit of two (2) commercial sites 2-5 acres, but a surplus of forty-four (44) industrial sites of that
size. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would reverse part of the effect of Ordinance
6422 on the City’s inventory of commercial sites that are less than five (5) acres. Since adoption of
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 17
the CIBL, there remains more than adequate surplus of commercial sites that are less than one (1)
acre. There also remains more than adequate surplus of redevelopable industrial sites that are 2-5
acres to accommodate the deficit in commercial sites that size. Therefore, this proposal is consistent
with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing
Applicant’s Narrative: “The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing
Element addresses Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing. This application involves a Metro Plan
Diagram Amendment from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial Designation on a
portion of the property (e.g. ±1.138 acres). It is assumed the redesignation of approximately 1 acre
of land from the City’s residential buildable land inventory under Goal 10 will not create a city-
wide deficit, as the 2010-2030 residential growth needs were met without expanding the UGB. As
such, Springfield’s current UGB was acknowledged in 2011 to provide a buildable land inventory
sufficient to meet the city’s housing needs for the entire planning period.
Furthermore, while the MDR District is a residential district, in this instance it allows the envisioned
commercial use in accordance with specific development standards (e.g. the lot is adjacent to a
Community Commercial District, abuts an arterial roadway, the office building is limited to specific
niche professionals, etc.). The planned Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MDR to Commercial
Designation will change the anticipated use of the property to commercial to allow the same
envisioned use (e.g. professional and medical offices). A subsequent Zone Map Amendment is
planned from MDR to CC. With that said, this application will seemingly allow commercial
development at a similar intensity to what would be permitted currently without a zone change (i.e.
pursuant to Section 4.7-190).
Ultimately, the redesignation of ±1.138 acres of MDR District will not create a deficit in the City’s
residential land. As discussed in the response to Goal 9, the medical sector is projected to grow
in this planning period in Springfield. This application will provide economic activity, jobs, and
additional system development charges (SDC) to a growing area. Therefore, this application is
consistent with Goal 10.”
Finding 20: 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 maintain
a sufficient buildable land base for projected housing needs over the forecast period. The City
monitors and updates the calculated acreage of residential buildable lands when redesignation and
rezoning actions affect the net acreage attributed to Low, Medium, and High-Density Residential uses.
Finding 21: The current MDR zoning district allows for a variety of housing forms, including single-
unit detached, duplex, attached, four-plex, row house, and low-rise apartment dwelling units.
Maintaining an adequate inventory of land for all forms of housing is consistent with Goal 10
requirements.
Finding 22: Finding 10 of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing Element identifies a 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
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 17
Comprehensive Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element are based on the conclusions of
the Springfield Housing Needs Analysis prepared by ECONorthwest in 2011.
Finding 23: 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 adopted Metro Plan amendments and zone changes have modified the surplus of MDR designated
land. Specifically, with the adoption of Ordinances 6378, 6395, 6400, 6418 and 6422, the 76-acres
of surplus MDR designation has increased by about 41 acres to approximately 117 acres. The
proposed Metro Plan amendment and zone change for 1.14 acres of the Marcola Meadows property
would reduce this calculated MDR surplus to a little less than 116 acres.
Finding 24: The MDR designation on the site is surplus to the City’s needs based on the Springfield
2030 Comprehensive Plan – Residential Land Use and Housing Element and changes to the inventory
of MDR designated land that have occurred in recent years (i.e. an increasing surplus of MDR land).
Because 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, 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 public
schools on a district-wide basis.’ Site improvements in conformance with an approved
comprehensive plan, as is the case here, result in orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services. Critical public facilities, including sanitary sewer, stormwater, potable
water, and emergency services, were shown to be available to this site based on previous application
approvals. The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation is consistent
with this notion and does not impair provision of necessary public facilities throughout the site.
Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 11.”
Finding 25: Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision
of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. 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 an adverse 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
institutional development and the public facilities serving this area have been designed accordingly.
Finding 26: The existing and proposed public facilities specific to the Marcola Meadows site are
detailed in the approved Master Plan for the neighborhood. Modifications to the Master Plan resulted
in reduced demand on public services from what had been previously approved, particularly for the
transportation system (see Goal 12 below). The Master Plan currently contemplates between 750 -
1050 dwelling units, a church site and school site, and a 0.92-acre commercial site west of the
intersection of Marcola Road and 28th Street. Existing and planned public facilities and services
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 17
(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 adequate to support buildout of the site under the current MDR, PLO and CC zoning.
Under the current MDR designation, the subject property could be developed with 16 – 32 dwelling
units – each of which require associated water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electricity and
telecommunication service connections. The current proposal is to construct a medical clinic on the
same property, which requires the building to have only single connections to the utility system. The
proposed redesignation of 1.14 acres of MDR to Commercial will not have a significant impact on the
overall land use characteristics and configuration for the Marcola Meadows neighborhood, which
results in stable or slightly decreased demand on public facilities and services. Therefore, the changes
to the type and distribution of land uses resulting from the proposed Metro Plan amendment will not
have an adverse impact to the City’s sanitary or storm sewer systems, or other public infrastructure.
Goal 12 – Transportation
Applicant’s Narrative: “A Transportation Memorandum prepared by Lancaster Mobley, included
herein as Exhibit E, demonstrates compliance with Goal 12 and applicable State, County, and City
transportation-related requirements. Please refer to the Transportation Memorandum for further
information. The intended street and connectivity improvements encourage a safe, convenient, and
economic transportation system. 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 Land
Conservation and Development Commission (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 Applicant must determine if the application has a “significant effect,” as that term is
defined in OAR 660-012-0060(1). The City may rely on transportation improvements found in
Transportation System Plans (TSPs), as allowed by OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a), (b), and (c), to show
that failing intersections will not be made worse or intersections not now failing will not fail. If there
is a ‘significant effect,’ then the A pplicant must demonstrate appropriate mitigation under OAR
660-012-0060(2), et seq. This section of the Transportation Planning Rule requires coordination
with affected transportation service providers. The City provides the roads that serve the subject
property; Marcola Road and 28th 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 other affected agencies, as applicable. Therefore,
the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060 (4) are met.”
Finding 27: 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.
Finding 28: 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 proposed to amend the Metro Plan diagram designation from Medium Density
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 17
Residential (MDR) to Commercial designation. 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 affect” under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(a) or (b).
Finding 29: 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 30: 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 function classification of
the existing or planned transportation facilities, that degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it would not meet performance standards identified in the TSP, or that
degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise not projected
to meet the performance standards identified in the TSP.
Finding 31: As required by SDC 5.22-110, the applicant has submitted a memorandum addressing trip
generation associated with the proposed zone change to show compliance with the TPR at OAR 660-
012-0060.
Finding 32: The City’s Transportation Planning Engineer concurs with the applicant’s trip generation
methodology and findings. The applicant’s memorandum 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 “reasonable worst-case scenario” conditions.
Finding 33: The applicant used the reasonable worst-case trip generation scenario provided for the
current plan designations adopted under Ordinance 6422 for the existing plan designation and zoning
(see Finding 42 in Ordinance 6422, Exhibit F).
Finding 34: The applicant’s proposed zoning scenario is the reasonable most-traffic-generative uses
for the subject property. Specifically, the applicant assumes that the subject property would develop
as an approximately 10,000 square foot shopping center, which represents the reasonable most-traffic-
generative use that could be constructed on this site.
Finding 35: Under the applicant’s reasonable worst-case scenario, the proposed Metro Plan diagram
amendment and zone change would result in an increase of 41 peak hour trips and 380 daily trips as
compared to the existing designation and zoning.
Finding 36: The applicant’s memorandum cites the Oregon Highway Plan threshold of 400 Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) as deemed not to significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility.
This threshold only applies to state highway facilities that are subject to the Oregon Highway Plan and
does not apply to local facilities.
Finding 37: SDC 4.2-105.B.1 requires a traffic impact analysis (TIA) when a proposed change in land
use or intensification of an existing land use generates 100 or more trips during any peak hour, or 1000
or more trips per day. The scope of a TIA must include locations impacted by 20 or more peak hour
trips associated with trip generation. Therefore, generation of new trips that fall below these thresholds
is de minimis under the City’s acknowledged land use regulations.
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 17
Finding 38: Under the reasonable worst case scenario, the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment
and zone change would result in an increase of 41 peak hour trips and 380 daily trips as compared to the
existing designation and zoning. This is far below the thresholds of 100 peak hour trips and 1000 trips
per day for requiring traffic impact analysis according to the Springfield Development Code. There are
only two potential connections to the public street system from this site: a shared driveway onto Marcola
Road at the western boundary of the property, and (potentially) a shared driveway connection to the
future extension of Pierce Parkway to the northeast of the subject property. When distributed, the trips
generated from this proposed redesignation and rezoning would not create more than twenty (20) peak
hour trips at an intersection and thus would not be considered as significantly degrading the performance
of existing infrastructure. Therefore, the increase in trips proposed with this plan amendment and zone
change is de minimis and will not result in any significant affect listed under OAR 660-012-0060(2)(c).
Finding 39: As stated in Finding 41 in Ordinance 6422, Exhibit F, the plan designations adopted in
2007 for the entire Marcola Meadows Master Plan area would have generated 22,095 trips per day under
the reasonably most-traffic-generative development scenario under the then-existing plan designations.
As stated in Finding 42 in Ordinance 6422, Exhibit F, the existing plan designations adopted in
Ordinance 6422 would result in a total of 19,680 trips per day in the Master Plan area, which was a
decrease of 2,415 trips per day. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zoning map
amendment would add back only 380 trips per day. The traffic generated by the proposed designation
and zoning would remain less than the reasonably most-traffic-generative uses under the 2007 plan
designations.
Finding 40: Based on the above findings, the subject application proposed to amend the Metro Plan
diagram designation with a slightly higher proportion of commercial to Medium Density Residential
designation is de minimis. This proposed redesignation and zone change does not require analysis under
Development Code thresholds, will not 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. 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 41: The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has established that Goal 13 does not
require a specific energy analysis or other Goal 13 analysis for changes to a comprehensive plan
diagram or zoning. See Barnard Perkins Corp. v. City of Rivergrove, 34 Or LUBA 660 (1998).
Finding 42: The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning does not affect the City’s
ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. Converting 1.14
acres of the property from MDR to Commercial should not have an appreciable impact to energy
consumption. The developer will have an opportunity to incorporate suitable energy conservation
measures when detailed construction plans are prepared for the commercial development phase of
Marcola Meadows. The City’s building codes comply with all Oregon State Building Codes Agency
standards for energy efficiency in commercial building design. The City’s conservation measures
applicable to storm water management, temporary storage, filtration and discharge would apply to
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 17
any commercial 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 43: 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 planned
for residential land use on the subject property when completing its residential buildable land
inventory. As previously determined and stated above, a surplus of MDR land exists in the City’s
residential land inventory already. Consistent with provisions of Goal 14, the City is responding to a
request from a property owner to redesignate and rezone 1.14 acres of the subject property from
Medium Density Residential to Commercial use. Further, the proposed action affects property that
had been previously redesignated from Commercial to MDR in 2020 and therefore represents a minor
re-calibration of the commercial and residential land use mix in the neighborhood. The subject
property is within the existing UGB and is already annexed to the City. The proposed redesignation
and zone change does 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 lands described in [that goal]. Thus, the approval criteria have been omitted
for brevity.”
Finding 44: Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300
miles of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City limits
and UGB of Springfield. The subject site is not within the adopted Willamette River Greenway
Boundary area so this goal is not applicable; therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s
acknowledged compliance with Goal 15.
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 45: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and Ocean
Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including Springfield.
Therefore, 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 Plan diagram land use designation amendment from Medium
Density Residential to Commercial is consistent with all applicable statewide land use planning goals
in accordance with SDC 5.14-135.A.
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 17
B. Plan Inconsistency
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Applicant’s Narrative: “As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the planned Metro Plan Diagram
amendment will impact and amend the designation of a single property in Springfield. The
amendment will not create an internal inconsistency or conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan.
Therefore, this application provides the materials and analysis to support approval of the planned
amendments consistent with the regional planning framework documents. The criterion is met.”
Finding 46: The adopted Metro Plan and Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan are the principal
policy documents that create the broad framework for land use planning within the City of Springfield.
As explained herein, both are applicable to this application. The City’s adopted Zoning Map
implements the zoning designations of the Metro Plan diagram 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 Element are 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
Element replace 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 Element is not applicable to this application. The Economic Element is
applicable.
Finding 47: The City has previously determined that a surplus of MDR land exists within the
residential land inventory. The proposed redesignation and rezoning of this property from MDR to
Commercial would not appreciably diminish the opportunity for development of needed housing to
meet market demand and within multiple housing demographics – whether in the Marcola Meadows
neighborhood or elsewhere within the City.
Finding 48: In accordance with Chapter IV – Metro Plan Review, 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. To that end, provisions of Chapter IV, Policy 7.a, allow for
property owners to initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram to reflect a change in
circumstances or need.
Finding 49: There are no conflicts created by this proposed diagram amendment based on needed
residential land inventories or needed employment land inventories. The development of this land
with commercial uses does not conflict with other land use elements in the Metro Plan including
residential, industrial, park and open space, or government and education. Adoption of the
amendment to the Metro Plan diagram will not result in an internal inconsistency.
Finding 50: Because the City has adopted the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Economic Element,
the Commercial Element of the Metro Plan no longer applies to this proposal. For the above reasons,
Criteria B.1 is met.
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 17
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 Medium Density Residential to a Commercial District.
The envisioned Zoning Map Amendments associated with the site amend the MDR District to a new
CC District, consistent with the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan 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. Therefore, the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment is consistent with the approval
criterion of Section 5.14-135 and should be approved.”
Finding 51: The applicant is proposing to redesignate the southeast corner of the Marcola Meadows
property from MDR to Commercial to facilitate construction of a medical clinic fronting onto the
intersection of Marcola Road and 28th Street. The type of commercial use anticipated for this location
(i.e. health care facility) is specifically identified as being desirable for commercial land use within
the plan area.
Finding 52: The Economic Element policies and implementation actions of the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan – Economic Element apply to the subject site. In accordance with Policy E.1, the
proposed redesignation is consistent with the City’s desire to ensure an adequate supply of land that
is suitably planned and zoned to provide commercial sites of varying locations, configurations, size
and characteristics.
Finding 53: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and zone change is consistent with Policy
E.5 whereby commercial sites are created as “short term supply” for near-term development, and in
response to changing market conditions. Redesignating and rezoning the subject parcel to
Commercial represents an opportunity site for a medical specialty clinic to potentially relocate into
the Springfield market.
Finding 54: The redesignation and rezoning of the subject parcel will facilitate development of a
commercial use that provides for the installation of shared access and parking facilities for the two
adjoining commercial sites that can be developed in the near-term.
Finding 55: In accordance with Policy E.6, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure and modify the
Master Plan for the Marcola Meadows neighborhood to create another commercial development site
that meets current market demand. The intent is to provide a buildable commercial property for
immediate transfer to a prospective buyer. To do so, redesignation and rezoning of the subject parcel
is necessary.
Finding 56: In accordance with Policy E.7, the applicant is proposing changes to the land use
composition of the neighborhood to focus new commercial development on the existing street
frontages and at the major intersection where infrastructure is already in place to stimulate further
development of the entire site.
Finding 57: Based on the foregoing, the proposal to redesignate and rezone the subject property from
MDR to Commercial is consistent and compatible with the adopted policies of the Metro Plan and the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan – Economic Element. The action also restores additional
commercial land use to the neighborhood to meet current marking demand and in response to an
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 17
opportunity for securing a health care specialty clinic at the southeast corner of the Marcola Meadows
neighborhood.
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 Plan diagram amendment
is consistent with the applicable criteria.
Staff has provided two orders and recommendations for consideration and action by the Planning
Commission (Attachments 6 & 7): the first is to recommend support for the proposed Metro Plan
amendment for 1.14 acres of Medium Density Residential designated land to Commercial; and the second
is to recommend support for rezoning of the same 1.14 acres of property from MDR to Community
Commercial (CC). The adopted orders and recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for
review and consideration at the public hearing meeting currently scheduled for September 7, 2021.
Attachment 1, Page 17 of 17
Staff Report and Findings
Springfield Planning Commission
Zone Change Request
Hearing Date: June 15, 2021
Case Number: 811-21-000096-TYP3
Applicant: AKS Engineering & Forestry LLC on behalf of Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC
Property Owner: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood LLC
Site: Northwest corner of the intersection of Marcola Road and 28th Street (Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-00,
Portion of Tax Lot 1802).
Request
Rezone approximately 1.14 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Community Commercial (CC).
Site Information/Background
The application was initiated and accepted as complete on April 30, 2021, and the initial Planning
Commission public hearing on the matter of the zone change request is scheduled for June 15, 2021. The
zone change request is being processed concurrently with a Metro Plan diagram amendment submitted
under separate cover, Case 811-21-000097-TYP4. The City Council will be reviewing both applications
and the Planning Commission’s recommendations at a public hearing currently scheduled for September 7,
2021.
The property that is subject of the Zone Change request is comprised of a vacant, 1.17-acre parcel located
at the northwest corner of the intersection of Marcola Road and 28th Street. The parcel was created earlier
in 2021 upon recordation of a property line adjustment affecting two adjoining parcels within the Marcola
Meadows development area (Case 811-20-000200-TYP1). A recent comprehensive plan amendment and
rezoning action for the entire Marcola Meadows property (Cases 811-20-000117-TYP3 & 811-20-000118-
TYP4) created a sliver of commercial zoning and designation inside the western boundary of the subject
parcel. As a result, the subject zoning map amendment affects 1.14 acres of the 1.17-acre site (Map 17-02-
30-00, Portion of Tax Lot 1802).
The subject site has corner frontage on Marcola Road along the southern boundary and 28th Street along the
eastern boundary. The property immediately to the west is zoned and designated for Community
Commercial (CC) use and the property to the north is zoned and designated for Medium Density Residential
(MDR) use.
The applicant is proposing the zone change from MDR to CC to facilitate future construction of a medical
clinic at the corner of Marcola Road and 28th Street. The submitted Zoning Map amendment and
accompanying Metro Plan diagram amendment (Case 811-21-000097-TYP4) would require a subsequent
Final Master Plan modification to bring the neighborhood Master Plan into conformity with the
comprehensive plan and zoning map changes proposed herein.
Notification and Written Comments
Notification of the June 15, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing was sent to all property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the site on May 25, 2021. Newspaper notice of the public hearing meeting was
published in the legal notices section of the Register Guard on June 7, 2021. Staff responded to emails and
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 7
telephone inquiries requesting additional information about the proposal but no written comments were
submitted.
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 (HB 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. House Bill 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. House Bill 4212 overrides conflicting requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in
state law or in the Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan.
Since issuance of the Executive Order and adoption of HB 4212, the City of Springfield has conducted regular
and public hearing meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council using online virtual meeting
platforms. The June 15, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing is being conducted as an online meeting
via Zoom which allows members of the public to observe and listen to the meeting online using the following
link: https://zoom.us/j/92014521651?pwd=UWl1eGdpVzBlSUkrZDdXcnVjdDFlZz09 or by calling in to
the meeting at 1-971-247-1195 (Portland); 1-206-337-9723 (Seattle); or 1-877-853-5247 (US Toll-free)
using meeting I.D. 920 1452 1651. Members of the public may provide testimony to the Planning
Commission prior to the meeting by using the http://springfieldoregonspeaks.org web portal or by joining the
online meeting remotely. The public may also provide testimony to the Planning Commission by phone.
Details regarding how to join the online meeting were provided in the notification letter mailed to adjacent
residents and property owners, in the posted public hearing notices, in the Planning Commission 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 amendment requests. The Criteria of Zoning Map
amendment approval criteria are:
SDC 5.22-115 CRITERIA
C. Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval:
1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram;
2. Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development
Plans and functional plans; and
3. The property is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and transportation
networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation networks are planned
to be provided concurrently with the development of the property.
4. Legislative Zoning Map amendments that involve a Metro Plan Diagram amendment shall:
a. Meet the approval criteria specified in Section 5.14-100; and
b. Comply with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060, where applicable.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 7
Proposed Findings In Support of Zone Change Approval
Criterion: Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval:
1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram;
Applicant’s Narrative: “This application involves amendments to 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 Zoning Map as initiated by this application. Upon approval, ±1.138 acres of the Marcola
Meadows Master Plan site will be designated CC. The planned Master Plan Diagram designation
and amended zoning is consistent with the adopted Metro Plan policies and diagram as discussed
in the concurrent application (containing responses to Statewide Planning Goals, Springfield
Comprehensive Plan, and Metro Plan elements). As such, it is understood that prior to the approval
of the Zoning Map Amendments the Metro Plan Diagram designation of the property shall be
approved/amended. The approval criterion can be satisfied.”
Finding 1: Metro Plan Chapter IV, Policy 7.a states: “A property owner may initiate a [Type I Metro
Plan diagram] 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 Plan diagram amendment in accordance
with provisions of SDC 5.14-100 (Case 811-21-000097-TYP4). Upon adoption of the amending
Ordinance, the Metro Plan diagram would be amended and the requested zone change from MDR to
CC would be consistent with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Prior or concurrent
amendment of the Metro Plan diagram will be required for the subject zone change request to be
approved.
Finding 3: The proposed zone change is consistent with provisions of the Metro Plan whereby zoning
can be monitored and adjusted as necessary to meet current urban land use demands. The requested
change from MDR to CC would facilitate the future review and approval of modifications to the
neighborhood Master Plan. Additionally, the requested rezoning would allow for a recalibration of
the amount and type commercial uses to be incorporated within the Marcola Meadows neighborhood.
Finding 4: The subject site is adjacent to property that is zoned and designated for Light Medium
Industrial (LMI) use to the east and property that is zoned and designated for Heavy Industrial (HI)
use to the southeast and south. Community Commercial zoning abuts the site along the western
boundary, and MDR zoning abuts the site along the northern boundary. The proposed Zone Change
from MDR to CC is consistent and compatible with existing multi-unit residential, commercial and
industrial uses in the vicinity. It also provides for commercial land use at Marcola Road and 28th
Street where industrial zoning occupies the other three corners of the intersection.
Finding 5: 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 meet the 20-year
projected housing demand. The proposed rezoning should not affect the ability of the City in general
or the Marcola Meadows site specifically to address projected housing demand and the need for
adequate public facilities and services to serve new development areas. The applicant’s stated intent
for the proposed rezoning of approximately 1.14 acres of the site is to facilitate modifications to the
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 7
neighborhood Master Plan and to permit future construction of a medical clinic at the Marcola Road
and 28th Street corner frontage. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will accommodate planned changes
to the timing, location, and configuration of commercial development and associated infrastructure
within the site to meet current land use demand.
Finding 6: The policies of the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Residential Land Use and
Housing Element and Economic Element also apply to the subject site. The Residential Land Use and
Housing Element of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan updates and refines, but does not replace,
the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan.
Finding 7: The City recently completed a comprehensive review of the Marcola Meadows
neighborhood with the adoption of Ordinance 6422 in November 2020. At that time, the developer
had redesignated and rezoned approximately 45.6 acres of commercially-designated land zoned
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), to a combination of MDR, Public Land and Open Space (PLO) and
about 9 acres of CC. The current proposal seeks to convert just over one acre of the newly-adopted
MDR area to CC zoning.
Finding 8: In accordance with the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Economic Element, Policy
E.1, the City shall:
“Designate an adequate supply of land that is planned and zoned to provide sites of varying
locations, configurations, size and characteristics as identified and described in the Economic
Opportunity Analysis to accommodate industrial and other employment over the planning
period. These sites may include vacant undeveloped land; partially developed sites with potential
for additional development through infill development; and sites with redevelopment potential.”
Finding 9: In accordance with the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Economic Element, Policy
E.5, the City shall:
“Provide an adequate, competitive short-term supply of suitable land to respond to economic
development opportunities as they arise. ‘Short-term supply’ means suitable land that is ready
for construction within one year of an application for a building permit or request for service
extension. ‘Competitive Short-term Supply’ means the short-term supply of land provides a
range of site sizes and locations to accommodate the market needs of a variety of industrial and
other employment uses.”
Finding 10: In accordance with the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Economic Element,
Policy E.6, the City shall: “Facilitate short term and long term redevelopment activity and increased
efficiency of land use through the urban renewal program, updates to refinement plans and the
development review process.”
Finding 11: The subject site has an approved development Master Plan that functions as a specific
area plan. Upon rezoning of the 1.14 acres from MDR to CC, the applicant will be able to update the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan to reflect the changes and, subsequently, submit detailed development
plans for the site in accordance with Policy E.6.
Finding 12: Rezoning the subject site from MDR to CC is consistent with Policies E.1, E.5 & E.6 of
the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Economic Element because it provides a development-
ready site tailored to a specific user looking to build at a specific location. Additionally, the proposed
rezoning acknowledges that despite the recent redesignation and rezoning action for the Marcola
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 7
Meadows neighborhood completed in late 2020 with adoption of Ordinance 6422, local conditions
favor reinstating some commercial acreage that was converted to multi-unit residential and
institutional land uses.
Finding 13: The proposed rezoning enlarges an existing area of CC zoning near the intersection of
Marcola Road and 28th Street, which the developer has identified for a potential medical clinic use.
Finding 14: Rezoning 1.14 acres of the subject property from MDR to CC is consistent with the
requested Metro Plan diagram amendment initiated by the applicant in accordance with Case 811-21-
000097-TYP4.
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 maps and provisions of the SDC. The subject site is not associated with a Refinement Plan
or Conceptual Development Plan. As shown on the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit A), the subject
site is within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan and designed to facilitate economic opportunities
within an existing Commercial Phase in the southeastern corner of the site. As described herein
and shown on the materials provided, the approval criterion is satisfied.”
Finding 15: The property is not within an adopted neighborhood Refinement Plan or Plan District.
Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
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, public facilities will be provided to serve
the site, including but not limited to stormwater management, sanitary sewer, municipal water, and
franchise utilities. The site is planned to be served by a comprehensive street network that includes
new public roadways and improvements. The subject site has frontage on both Marcola Road and
28th Street and this project provides applicable improvements that will benefit the local community.
Infrastructure is planned to be completed concurrent with the build out of each associated phase. The
approval criterion is met.”
Finding 16: The property requested for Zone Change has frontage on Marcola Road (which is
classified as an arterial street), and 28th Street (classified as a collector street). Along the southern
boundary of the property, Marcola Road is developed with one vehicle travel lane and bicycle lane in
each direction and a bi-directional center turn lane. Along the eastern boundary of the property, 28th
Street is developed with one vehicle travel lane and bicycle lane in each direction and a bi-directional
center turn lane. Further improvements to the Marcola Road and 28th Street frontages of the property
– such as sidewalks, street trees, and curbside planter strip – will be completed as urban development
progresses on the site.
Finding 17: The approved Master Plan for the Marcola Meadows neighborhood describes the existing
and planned public streets and utilities that will be extended to serve the entire development area. A
full suite of public utilities and services with sufficient capacity to support the requested rezoning
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 7
from MUC to MDR, PLO and CC will be available within 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
Marcola Meadows site just north of the subject property. As development proceeds on the
southern half of 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.
The public sewer trunk line has adequate capacity for future buildout of the Marcola Meadows
neighborhood, including the subject parcel.
• Storm Sewer: There are public storm sewer lines that run along the Marcola Road frontage
and 28th Street frontage of the subject site. Additionally, a public stormwater drainage channel
(known locally as the Pierce ditch) runs east-west across the Marcola Meadows development
area to the north of the subject site. As future development occurs the developer will be
responsible for installing new public and private stormwater facilities to serve this site.
• Water: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Water service is located along the public street
frontages of the property. Public water line installation and looping will be required as
successive development phases are constructed within the Marcola Meadows development
area.
• Electricity: SUB Electric has overhead electrical facilities along the Marcola Road frontage
of the property. The planned electrical facilities are suitable for future development of the site
with commercial uses.
• Telecommunications: Comcast and CenturyLink have telecommunication facilities along the
Marcola Road and 28th Street frontages of the property. The existing and planned facilities
are suitable for future development of the site with commercial uses.
Finding 18: Future development of the subject site with commercial uses would be subject to the land
use approval process outlined in SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review), and will require approval of a
Master Plan Modification under SDC 5.13-135. The Final Master Plan and Site Plan Review
procedures will detail the design and configuration of the commercial site and associated building(s),
the location of utility connections, and conformance with the criteria of approval for a Master Plan
Modification and Site Plan Review.
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. Please see the Transportation Memorandum within Exhibit
E.”
Finding 19: The applicant has submitted a concurrent Metro Plan Diagram amendment
application (Case 811-21-000097-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.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 7
Finding 20: The applicant has initiated an amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram to change
the designation for approximately 1.14 acres of the site from MDR to Commercial under
separate cover (Case 811-21-000097-TYP4). Upon redesignation to commercial, the subject
site is proposed for rezoning from MDR to Community Commercial.
Finding 21: The requested Zone Change is being undertaken as a site-specific change in
compliance with provisions of the adopted Metro Plan and 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). The findings in the applicant’s Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and the
findings under Goal 12 provided in the concurrent Metro Plan diagram amendment take into
account the proposed zone change from MDR to CC for the property. 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 a zone change
request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from the Code
section is cited below:
5.22-120 CONDITIONS
The Approval Authority may 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 a portion of the Marcola Meadows site as
initiated by Planning Actions 811-21-000096-TYP3 and 811-21-000097-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 that the zone change request was initiated in accordance with provisions of the City’s
Development Code. The Planning Commission is requested to review and deliberate on the totality of the
submitted information and to vote on a recommendation of support for the proposal attached hereto.
Because the applicant has initiated a concurrent Metro Plan diagram amendment (Case 811-21-000097-
TYP4), the comprehensive plan amendment will need to be completed prior to or concurrent with approval
of the zone change. Provisions for concurrent amendment of the Metro Plan diagram will be incorporated
into the amending Ordinance presented to the City Council for consideration.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 7
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO METRO PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
SITE
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 7
811-21-000097-TYP4 – PROPOSED METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT
MARCOLA ROAD AT 28TH STREET (MAP 17-02-30-00, PORTION OF TL 1802)
SITE Loch Dr Marcola Rd
W St 31st Street 28th St V St
Pierce Parkway
U St
R St
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 7
CURRENT METRO PLAN DESIGNATION
SITE
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 7
PROPOSED METRO PLAN DESIGNATION
SITE
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 7
PROPOSED DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY AT 28TH STREET AND MARCOLA ROAD
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-02-30-00, PORTION OF TAX LOT 1802)
LEGEND
Low Density Residential (LDR) Parks and Open Space
Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Commercial (C)
Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
Heavy Industrial (HI)
W St Loch Dr 28th St Marcola Rd 31st Street V St
U St
Pierce Pkwy 23rd St R St
Lomond Ave
SITE
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 7
CURRENT ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT 28TH STREET AND MARCOLA ROAD
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-02-30-00, PORTION OF TAX LOT 1802)
ZONING MAP LEGEND
Low Density Residential (LDR) Public Land and Open Space (PLO)
Medium Density Residential (MDR) Marcola Meadows Master Plan Boundary
Community Commercial (CC)
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC)
Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
Heavy Industrial (HI)
N
W St Loch Dr SITE 28th St Marcola Rd 31st Street V St
U St
Pierce Pkwy 23rd St R St
Lomond Ave
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 7
PROPOSED ZONING FOR PROPERTY AT 28TH STREET AND MARCOLA ROAD
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-02-30-00, PORTION OF TAX LOT 1802)
ZONING MAP LEGEND
Low Density Residential (LDR) Public Land and Open Space (PLO)
Medium Density Residential (MDR) Marcola Meadows Master Plan Boundary
Community Commercial (CC)
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC)
Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
Heavy Industrial (HI)
31st Street N
W St Loch Dr 28th St Marcola Rd
V St
U St
Pierce Pkwy 23rd St R St
Lomond Ave
SITE
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 7
Marcola Meadows
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment Application
(Affecting a Portion of Tax Lot 1802)
Date: April 2021
Submitted to: City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Owner/Applicant: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC
27375 SW Parkway Avenue
Wilsonville, OR 97020
AKS Job Number: 7736
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 97
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................2
II. Site Description/Setting ..........................................................................................................2
III. Applicable Review Criteria ......................................................................................................3
OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES (The Goals) .....................................3
Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) ......................................................................................................... 4
Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) ........................................................................................................... 4
Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality)........................................................................... 4
Goal 8 (Recreational Needs) ......................................................................................................... 5
Goal 9 (Economic Development) .................................................................................................. 5
Goal 10 (Housing) .......................................................................................................................... 6
Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) ......................................................................................... 6
Goal 12 (Transportation) ............................................................................................................... 7
FINDINGS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE .............................................. 7
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) ......................... 10
Chapter II – Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy Framework .................. 10
G. Metro Plan Diagram ............................................................................................................ 10
Land Use Designations ........................................................................................................ 10
Commercial ......................................................................................................................... 10
Neighborhood Commercial Facilities .................................................................................. 10
FINDINGS FOR METRO PLAN COMPLIANCE ................................................................................ 11
SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 REFINEMENT PLAN) ............................................ 11
ECONOMIC ELEMENT .................................................................................................................. 11
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING GOALS ................................................ 11
Goal EG-1 ................................................................................................................................. 11
Policy E.6 12
Goal EG-3 ................................................................................................................................. 12
Policy E.16 12
Policy E.18 12
Goal EG-4 ................................................................................................................................. 13
Policy E.23 13
Goal EG-5d .............................................................................................................................. 13
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE ........................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 5 THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS .................................... 14
Section 5.2-100 Public Hearings Process ............................................................................ 14
5.2-110 Hearing Body Jurisdiction ................................................................................ 14
Section 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments ....................................................................... 14
5.14-110 Review ............................................................................................................. 14
5.14-115 Metro Plan Amendment Classifications .......................................................... 15
5.14-135 Criteria ............................................................................................................. 15
IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 16
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 97
Exhibits
Exhibit A: City Application Forms and Checklists
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans
Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information
Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor’s Map
Exhibit E: Transportation Memorandum
Exhibit F: Area Legal Description
Exhibit G: Property Line Adjustment/Record of Survey (CSF: 45334)
Tables
Table 1: Description of Surrounding Area .................................................................................................... 2
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 97
Marcola Meadows
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment Application
(Affecting a Portion of Tax Lot 1802)
Submitted to: City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Applicant/Property Owner: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC
27375 SW Parkway Avenue
Wilsonville, OR 97020
Applicant’s Consultant:
AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC
12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100
Tualatin, OR 97062
Contact: Chris Goodell, AICP, LEEDAP
Email: chrisg@aks-eng.com
Phone: (503) 563-6151
Applicant’s Transportation
Engineer:
Lancaster Mobley
321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: Todd Mobley
Email: todd@lancastermobley.com
Phone: (503) 248-0313
Site Location: North of Marcola Road and west of 28th Street
Property Description: A portion of Adjusted Tax Lot 1802 (Adjusted Tract 2 of
Lane County Survey File No. 45334)
Site Size: ±1.138 acres
Springfield
Land Use District:
Existing: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Future: Community Commercial (CC)
Metro Plan Diagram Designation:
Existing: Medium Density Residential
Future: Commercial
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 97
I. Executive Summary
This application is necessitated by planned changes in land use for the southeastern portion of the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan. A Metro Plan Diagram Amendment converting the site from Medium
Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial Designation and a subsequent Zone Map Amendment are
planned to provide additional land for a commercial phase of Marcola Meadows. The site is envisioned as
a medical office space and establishing an efficient commercial layout will provide employment
opportunities to a growing area.
The Marcola Meadows Master Plan, as illustrated on the updated Preliminary Plans, contains a variety of
housing types and neighborhood amenities to serve diverse housing demands and accommodate
residents. Through the recent public hearing process for the Master Plan update, the Springfield Planning
Commission expressed a desire to retain some of the commercial/employment land along Marcola Road.
Notions of retaining a strong commercial presence in the southern portion of the site were contemplated
at that time by the property owner, however, due to unresolvable schedule constraints could not be
accommodated at the time. This discussion resonated with the property owner/applicant who had the
desire to address and incorporate the commission’s comments. As a result, the Master Plan has been
modified to incorporate additional commercial space along Marcola Road. This Metro Plan Diagram
amendment application to update the use of land within the Master Plan is a direct result of the comments
provided by City officials through the public hearing process.
In this instance, through amendment of ±1.138 acres of MDR to Commercial Metro Designation, the site
will have the opportunity to enhance an employment corridor on Marcola Road. As shown on the
Conceptual Final Master Plan (Exhibit B), a church, school, and neighborhood market are approved site
elements along Marcola Road. The approved commercial phase of the Master Plan is designated
Commercial on the Metro Plan and is adjacent to the subject site of this application (a portion of Adjusted
Tax Lot 1802). Therefore, the amendment of the subject site to Commercial Designation is an ideal
location to attract visitors, residents, and businesses alike due to the ease of multi-modal connectivity and
planned infrastructure elements within the Master Plan.
II. Site Description/Setting
The Marcola Meadows Master Plan site includes a total area of ±100 acres. The subject site of this
application (a portion of Adjusted Tax Lot 1802) includes a total area of ±1.138 acres, and its configuration
is based on a previously approved and recorded property line adjustment (PLA) (Lane County Survey File
No. 45334, recorded March 8, 2021). The application includes a copy of the recorded final survey (Exhibit
G).
The property is flat and currently exists as a grassy field. It is vacant and fronts on Marcola Road to the
south and 28th Street to the east. The property is currently classified within Medium Density Residential
Designation in the Metro Plan and is within MDR Springfield Zoning Districts. This application is
accompanied by a concurrent Zone Map Amendment to Community Commercial (CC) Springfield Zoning
District. The surrounding property characteristics are summarized in Table 1, below.
Attachment 4, Page 5 of 97
Table 1: Description of Surrounding Area
III. Applicable Review Criteria
The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment is consistent with relevant goals and policies within the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the City of Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan
and satisfies the Springfield Development Code’s (SDC) applicable approval criteria for amendments. This
application includes the City application forms, written materials, and preliminary plans necessary for City
staff to review and determine compliance with the applicable approval criteria. The evidence supports
the City’s approval of the application.
OREGON STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES (The Goals)
The following Oregon Statewide Planning Goals are applicable to this action:
• Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement
• Goal 2 – Land Use Planning
• Goal 6 – Air, Land, and Water Resources Quality
• Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
• Goal 9 – Economic Development
• Goal 10 – Housing
• Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services
• Goal 12 – Transportation
Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Goal 4 (Forest Lands) are not applicable to lands within the City’s
acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and have been omitted for brevity.
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.
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.
Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) is not applicable because the amendment does not affect the City or County
goals or policies governing energy conservation.
Goal 14 (Urbanization) is not applicable because this application does not involve expansion of the
Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and thus analysis of the transition of rural to urban land uses
is not relevant.
Area Jurisdiction Zoning Land Uses
North
(Marcola Meadows)
City of Springfield Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
Multi-Family Residential
South City of Springfield Low Density Residential
(LDR)
Single-Family Residential
East City of Springfield Light Medium Industrial
(LMI)
Industrial
West
(Marcola Meadows)
City of Springfield Community Commercial
(CC)
Commercial Retail
Attachment 4, Page 6 of 97
Goals 15 (Willamette River Greenway), 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.
Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement)
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Response: 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.
Goal 2 (Land Use Planning)
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and
actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
Response: 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 their respective comprehensive
plans. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the long-
range public policy document that establishes the broad 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 County to approve
the application because it describes the current and planned future site characteristics
and applies the relevant approval criteria to those characteristics. Therefore, following
the application process will ensure consistency with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality)
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Response: Goal 6 is implemented by Comprehensive Plan policies to protect air, land, and water
resources. Generally, these policies rely on coordination with the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) for their implementation. Specific standards related to the
project include requirements for addressing stormwater runoff, grading, and erosion
control standards that apply to site planning for specific project elements (e.g.
professional medical office). 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 that is the subject
of the Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial
Designation 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.
Attachment 4, Page 7 of 97
Goal 8 (Recreational Needs)
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate,
to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Response: Goal 8 is facilitated by the 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
Together with the Metro Plan, its provisions identify future needs for parks, a natural
area, and recreation facilities. The amendments will not negatively affect the City’s
Comprehensive Plan with respect to Goal 8 and its development regulations governing
recreational needs (e.g. open space, park dedication, fee in-lieu-of requirements, etc.).
Removing the MDR designation from approximately 1 acre of the site will not impact
Springfield’s current recreational needs or future inventory of land for meeting these
needs because there was not a recreational facility planned or required to be sited at this
location. An increase in commercial land supply will expand the local amenities available
to residents and visitors. Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 8.
Goal 9 (Economic Development)
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
Response: This application involves a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MDR to Commercial
Designation on a portion of the Adjusted Tax Lot 1802 (e.g. ±1.138 acres). Subsequently,
a concurrent Zone Map Amendment is envisioned to change the anticipated use of the
subject site from MDR to Community Commercial (CC) District, with the intent of
establishing a professional and medical office building.
The City’s acknowledged Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and
Economic Opportunities Analysis (CIBL-EOA) identified a 104-acre deficit of commercial
and mixed-use employment land, including a need for 31 sites 1 to 2 acres in size. As
explained in the CIBL-EOA, Springfield suggests that all land needs on sites smaller than
five acres would be accommodated through redevelopment. However, Table 4-4,
Forecast of Employment Growth in Building Type (Springfield UGB 2010-2030), suggests
the commercial office building sector will increase by 1.3 percent by the year 2030.
Additionally, the table note states “we expect that medical employment will grow faster
than government employment, based on historical trends that show the growing medical
cluster in Springfield.” This information suggests a site with these characteristics, and
ultimately the envisioned use of the site, will be in high demand.
Further, the CIBL-EOA details the types of businesses that may be attractive to Springfield.
CIBL-EOA Table 4-1, Existing and Potential Business Clusters in Springfield, lists Medical
Services and Back-Office Functions as growing clusters based on employment trends, the
types of firms that currently exist in Springfield, and forecasts from the Oregon
Employment Department, etc. Therefore, this application will meet the demands of a
locally-significant industry by providing a community commercial site that will not sit
vacant.
The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (and subsequent Zone Map Amendment) from
Medium Density Residential to Commercial Designation will allow the envisioned use at
similar intensities to those currently allowed in the subject area (e.g. ±1.138 acres). For
Attachment 4, Page 8 of 97
example, pursuant to SDC Section 4.7-190, professional offices are an allowed use subject
to special development standards in the MDR District. In addition, while the Commercial
Metro Designation is intended for a wide range of business and services to serve nearby
residents, the Community Commercial (CC) Springfield Zoning District allows for a slightly
refined variety of commercial uses intended to meet neighborhood needs. As such, an
increase in the CC District area will not curtail potential uses and is anticipated to enhance
the economic development opportunities in the Marcola Meadows area. Therefore, this
application is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 (Housing)
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Response: The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
addresses Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing. This application involves a Metro Plan
Diagram Amendment from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial
Designation on a portion of the property (e.g. ±1.138 acres). It is assumed the
redesignation of approximately 1 acre of land from the City’s residential buildable land
inventory under Goal 10 will not create a city-wide deficit, as the 2010-2030 residential
growth needs were met without expanding the UGB. As such, Springfield’s current UGB
was acknowledged in 2011 to provide a buildable land inventory sufficient to meet the
city’s housing needs for the entire planning period.
Furthermore, while the MDR District is a residential district, in this instance it allows the
envisioned commercial use in accordance with specific development standards (e.g. the
lot is adjacent to a Community Commercial District, abuts an arterial roadway, the office
building is limited to specific niche professionals, etc.) The planned Metro Plan Diagram
Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation will change the anticipated use of the
property to commercial to allow the same envisioned use (e.g. professional and medical
offices). A subsequent Zone Map Amendment is planned from MDR to CC. With that said,
this application will seemingly allow commercial development at a similar intensity to
what would be permitted currently without a zone change (i.e. pursuant to Section 4.7-
190).
Ultimately, the redesignation of ±1.138 acres of MDR District will not create a deficit in
the City’s residential land. As discussed in the response to Goal 9, the medical sector is
projected to grow in this planning period in Springfield. This application will provide
economic activity, jobs, and additional system development charges (SDC) to a growing
area. Therefore, this application is consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services)
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
Response: 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
Attachment 4, Page 9 of 97
waste management; water service; fire and emergency medical services; police
protection; citywide park and recreation programs; electrical service; land use controls;
communication facilities; and public schools on a district-wide basis.” Site improvements
in conformance with an approved comprehensive plan, as is the case here, result in
orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. Critical public facilities,
including sanitary sewer, stormwater, potable water, and emergency services, were
shown to be available to this site based on previous application approvals. The Metro Plan
Diagram Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation is consistent with this notion
and does not impair provision of necessary public facilities throughout the site. Therefore,
this application is consistent with Goal 11.
Goal 12 (Transportation)
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Response: A Transportation Memorandum prepared by Lancaster Mobley, included herein as Exhibit
E, demonstrates compliance with Goal 12 and applicable State, County, and City
transportation-related requirements. Please refer to the Transportation Memorandum
for further information. The intended street and connectivity improvements encourage a
safe, convenient, and economic transportation system. Therefore, the application is
consistent with Goal 12.
FINDINGS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE
Response: OAR 660, Division 12, is the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (the TPR) adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission (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 Applicant
must determine if the application has a “significant effect,” as that term is defined in OAR
660-012-0060(1). The City may rely on transportation improvements found in
Transportation System Plans (TSPs), as allowed by OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a), (b), and (c),
to show that failing intersections will not be made worse or intersections not now failing
will not fail. If there is a “significant effect,” then the Applicant must demonstrate
appropriate mitigation under OAR 660-012-0060(2), et seq.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) 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 as
provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Attachment 4, Page 10 of 97
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification
system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the
adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the
amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not
limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it would not meet
the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to
not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
(…)
(4) Determinations under sections (1)–(3) of this rule shall be
coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.
(a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant
effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under
subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and services
set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below.
(b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services:
(A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services
that are funded for construction or implementation
in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital
improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider.
(B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local transportation system
plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved. These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for which: transportation systems
development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established
Attachment 4, Page 11 of 97
prior to development; a development agreement has
been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the
improvement have been adopted.
(C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO)
area that are part of the area's federally-approved,
financially constrained regional transportation system plan.
(D) Improvements to state highways that are included
as planned improvements in a regional or local
transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT provides a written statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided
by the end of the planning period.
(E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services that are included as planned improvements in a regional or
local transportation system plan or comprehensive
plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s) responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a
written statement that the facility, improvement or
service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements
included in (b)(A)–(C) are considered planned facilities,
improvements and services, except where:
(A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation
measures are sufficient to avoid a significant
adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and
(E) of this section; or
(B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are
also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section.
(d) As used in this section and section (3):
(A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and
relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan;
(B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105,
205 and 405; and
(C) Interstate interchange area means:
(i) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or
planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or
Attachment 4, Page 12 of 97
(ii) The interchange area as defined in the
Interchange Area Management Plan
adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.
(e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided
pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (c)(A) provided by
ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is
a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In
the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)-
(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that
requires application of the remedies in section (2).
Response: This section of the Transportation Planning Rule requires coordination with affected
transportation service providers. The City provides the roads that serve the subject
property; Marcola Road and 28th 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 other affected
agencies, as applicable. Therefore, the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060 (4) are met.
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN)
Chapter II – Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy Framework
…
G. Metro Plan Diagram
Land Use Designations
…
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial Facilities
Oriented to the day-to-day needs of the neighborhood served, these facilities are usually centered on a supermarket as the principal tenant. They are also characterized by convenience goods outlets (small grocery, variety, and hardware stores); personal services (medical and dental offices, barber shops); laundromats, dry cleaners (not
plants); and taverns and small restaurants. The determination of the appropriateness of specific sites and uses or additional standards is left to the local jurisdiction. Minimum location standards and site criteria include:
1. Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support
population. For a full-service neighborhood commercial center at the high end of the size criteria, an adequate support population would be about 4,000 persons (existing or anticipated) within an area conveniently accessible to the site. For smaller sites or more limited services, a smaller support population or service area
may be sufficient.
Response: As shown on the Conceptual Final Master Plan (Exhibit B), the subject site is within a
master planned area anticipated and planned to increase in residential population. The
commercial lot will be conveniently accessible for nearby residents and support the local
community.
Attachment 4, Page 13 of 97
2. Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs and
landscaping, particularly between the center and adjacent residential property, as
well as along street frontages next door to outdoor parking areas.
Response: As shown on the Conceptual Final Master Plan (Exhibit B), the subject site is planned to
be designed appropriately with adequate parking, landscaping, and other required
elements.
3. Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and bicycle
access without conflict with moving traffic at intersections and along adjacent
streets.
Response: This application involves property within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. As such,
access was previously designed, restricted, and approved for various site elements which
take access on Marcola Road. With that said, sufficient frontage and shared, joint access
with the approved Commercial, School, and Multi-Family Phases in the southeast corner
of the site will provide safe and efficient transportation circulation on-and-off site.
4. The site shall be no more than five acres, including existing commercial development. The exact size shall depend on the numbers of establishments associated with the center and the population to be served.
Neighborhood commercial facilities may include community commercial centers when the latter meets applicable location and site criteria as listed above, even though community commercial centers are generally larger than five acres in size.
In certain circumstances, convenience grocery stores or similar retail operations
play an important role in providing services to existing neighborhoods. These types of operations which currently exist can be recognized and allowed to continue through such actions as rezoning.
Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the subject site is less than 5 acres in size, including
the approved Commercial Phase, adjacent to the east property line of the subject site.
FINDINGS FOR METRO PLAN COMPLIANCE
Response: SDC 5.22-115 requires compliance with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan when the
City amends its acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations. This
application envisions amending the City’s acknowledged Zoning Map in a way that is
inconsistent with the Metro Plan Diagram and therefore requires a concurrent Metro Plan
Diagram Amendment. Please see responses to Section 5.14-115 in this narrative
addressing the planned amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram. This application involves
a concurrent amendment resulting in compliance with the Metro Plan and SDC.
SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 REFINEMENT PLAN)
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING GOALS
Response: The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (from Medium Density Residential to Commercial
Designation) is consistent with, but not limited to, the following Springfield
Comprehensive Plan (2030 Refinement Plan) goals and policies.
Goal EG-1
Attachment 4, Page 14 of 97
Broaden, improve, and diversify the state and regional economy, and the Springfield economy
in particular, while maintaining or enhancing environmental quality and Springfield’s natural
heritage.
Policy E.6
Where possible, concentrate development on sites with existing infrastructure on sites
where infrastructure can be provided relatively easily and at a comparatively low cost.
Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the Commercial Phase in the southern portion of the
site will create economic opportunities and attract businesses in the community. This
application provides support for a growing local industry (commercial office building
sector) and is at an ideal location along the now-vacant Marcola Road corridor. As
described in this written document, under Statewide Planning Goal 9, the CIBL-EOA
concluded that land needs on sites smaller than 5 acres would be accommodated through
redevelopment. However, the CIBL-EOA also suggests the commercial office building
sector will increase 1.3 percent by the year 2030.
With that said, approval of this application will allow the subject site to concentrate
commercial land use on a site with planned infrastructure. As illustrated on the
Conceptual Final Master Plan (Exhibit B), the Marcola Meadows Master Plan has an
approved Commercial Phase on site, envisioned as a local neighborhood market. As
shown on the materials, shared driveway access, on-site circulation, parking, etc. is
feasible for the subject site and will significantly aid in the design and cost of needed
infrastructure improvements. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the goal
above.
Goal EG-3
Strengthen and maintain strong, connected employment centers and economic corridors to
support small, medium, and large businesses.
Policy E.16
Consider the economic opportunities provided by transportation corridors and seek to maximize economic uses in corridors that provide the most optimal locations and best
exposure for existing and future commercial and industrial uses.
Response: The Marcola Meadows Master Plan site has sat vacant for many years despite proximity
to an optimal transportation corridor that provides exposure and visibility. The lack of
interest in future mixed-use commercial activity, (prior to the preceding amendments of
Local Case File No. 811-20-000225-TYP3), necessitated a broader consideration of uses
for this area to maximize feasible economic opportunities. Through the public
engagement and hearing process for the Master Plan, notions of strengthening a
commercial presence in the southern portion of the site were discussed and considered.
In this instance, through amendment of ±1.138 acres of MDR designated land to
Commercial, the site will have the opportunity to strengthen an employment corridor on
Marcola Road. The subject site is an ideal location to attract visitors, residents, and
businesses alike due to the ease of multi-modal connectivity on Marcola Road.
Policy E.18
Attachment 4, Page 15 of 97
Coordinate transportation and land use corridor planning to include design elements
that support Springfield’s economic and community development policies and
contribute to community diversity and inclusivity.
Implementation Strategy 18.7
Prioritize improvements that would complete local connections to local
shopping and service opportunities.
Response: This area has been identified as appropriate for commercial and residential uses in the
Metro Plan. The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation
will change the anticipated use of the portion of the property from residential to
commercial. While the MDR District is a residential district, in this instance it allows the
envisioned commercial use in accordance with specific development standards (e.g. the
lot is adjacent to a Community Commercial District, abuts an arterial roadway, the office
building is limited to specific niche professionals, etc.) The planned Metro Plan Diagram
Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation will change the anticipated use of the
property to commercial to allow the same envisioned use (e.g. professional and medical
offices). A subsequent Zone Map Amendment is planned from MDR to CC.
With that said, this application will seemingly allow commercial development at a similar
intensity to what would be permitted currently without a zone change (i.e. pursuant to
Section 4.7-190). Site improvements in conformance with an approved comprehensive
plan, as is the case here, result in orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services, establishing consistency with the adjacent area. Therefore, this application
supports Springfield’s community development policies and provides an ideal
employment site to the Marcola Road corridor.
Goal EG-4
Establish, strengthen and maintain viable commercial centers to improve the community’s access to goods and services.
Policy E.23
Identify and target commercial activities that will generate living-wage employment opportunities and/or meet daily needs of local residents.
Response: The site is planned with a commercial phase to implement viable commercial activities
that will serve local residents. As discussed in this written document, the commercial
building office sector is proven to generate living-wage employment opportunities.
Further, as stated in the CIBL-EOA, office spaces are in high demand in Springfield, with
businesses currently searching for development opportunities. Therefore, the subject site
is not anticipated to sit vacant. Due to adjacent elements of the Marcola Meadows Master
Plan, an additional commercial property will establish and strengthen a sense of place for
the community to access services and local employment opportunities.
Goal EG-5d
Be Prepared – Contribute to development of the region’s physical, social, educational, and workforce infrastructure to meet the needs of tomorrow.
Policy E.39
Provide adequate infrastructure efficiently and distribute cost fairly.
Attachment 4, Page 16 of 97
Policy E.40
Provide the services, infrastructure, and land needed to attract the identified industry
clusters, especially where they can increase economic connectivity among businesses.
Response: As illustrated on the Conceptual Final Master Plan (Exhibit B), the Marcola Meadows
Master Plan intends to provide adequate infrastructure. With that said, approval of this
application will allow the subject site to concentrate commercial land use on a site with
planned commercial improvements. As shown on the Preliminary Plans (Exhibit B), the
approved Commercial Phase on site, envisioned as a local neighborhood market, includes
shared driveway access, on-site circulation, parking, etc. It is feasible for the subject site
to be incorporated into this vision and the design and cost of needed infrastructure
improvements will be significantly minimized. Further, a cluster of commercial businesses
will attract more consumers and increase economic connectivity among businesses.
Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the goal above.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 5 THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS
Section 5.2-100 Public Hearings Process
5.2-110 Hearing Body Jurisdiction
A. The Planning Commission shall hear:
1. Type II review procedure administrative appeals within the city limits;
2. Type III review procedure quasi-judicial applications within the city limits;
3. Type IV review procedure legislative applications that require a recommendation to the City Council; and
4. Appeals as may be assigned by the City Council.
B. The Hearings Official shall hear:
1. Type II review procedure administrative appeals within the City’s urbanizable area and appeals of all expedited land division
actions as defined in ORS 197.360;
2. Type III review procedure quasi-judicial applications within the City’s urbanizable area; and
3. Appeals as may be assigned by the City Council.
C. The City Council shall hear:
1. Type III review procedure quasi-judicial appeals within the city limits; and
2. Type IV review procedure legislative applications final decisions.
Response: This application involves a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment. It is understood the
application will be processed through a Type IV review procedure.
Section 5.14-100 Metro Plan Amendments
…
5.14-110 Review
Attachment 4, Page 17 of 97
A. A Development Issues Meeting is encouraged for citizen-initiated
amendment applications.
Response: The Applicant has discussed this application with City Staff through email
correspondence.
B. Metro Plan amendments are reviewed under Type IV procedures as specified in Section 5.1-140.
Response: This application should be reviewed under Type IV procedure as specified in Section 5.1-
140.
…
5.14-115 Metro Plan Amendment Classifications
A proposed amendment to the Metro Plan shall be classified as Type I, Type II or Type III depending upon the number of governing bodies (Springfield, Eugene and Lane County) required to approve the decision.
A. A Type I amendment requires approval by Springfield only:
1. Type I Diagram amendments include amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram for land inside Springfield’s city limits.
Response: The subject property is currently within Springfield’s city limits. Therefore, this application
is a Type I Diagram Amendment and requires approval by Springfield only.
…
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
Response: As described in this written document, the Metro Plan Diagram amendment to change
the designation from Medium Density Residential to Commercial is in compliance with
the applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. Please see the narrative response above
regarding specific findings. The criterion is met.
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the planned Metro Plan Diagram amendment will
impact and amend the designation of a single property in Springfield. The amendment
will not create an internal inconsistency or conflict with the remainder of the Metro Plan.
Therefore, this application provides the materials and analysis to support approval of the
planned amendments consistent with the regional planning framework documents. The
criterion is met.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 4, Page 18 of 97
Response: This Metro Plan Diagram Amendment shifts an underutilized portion of the Marcola
Meadows site designated with Medium Density Residential to a Commercial District. The
envisioned Zoning Map Amendments associated with the site amend the MDR District to
a new CC District, consistent with the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan 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. Therefore, the Metro Plan
Diagram Amendment is consistent with the approval criterion of Section 5.14-135 and
should be approved.
IV. Conclusion
The required findings have been made and this written narrative and accompanying documentation
demonstrate that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Springfield
Development Code and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The evidence in the record
supports approval of the application and the City can rely upon it for its approval of the application.
Attachment 4, Page 19 of 97
Exhibit A: City Application Forms and Checklists Exhibit A: City Application Forms and Checklists
Attachment 4, Page 20 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 21 of 97
THE APPLICATION PACKET
A COMPLETE APPLICATION CONSISTS OF:
1.A complete application page (all of the sections on the opposite side of this page must
be filled out).
2.A statement containing Findings of Fact addressing the Criteria of Approval found
in Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.14-135. In order for the Planning Commission
and the City Council to consider an amendment of a plan text and/or diagram, there must be
Findings of Fact submitted by the applicant. The Findings of Fact must show reason for the
request consistent with the Criteria of Approval (shown below). If insufficient or unclear
information is submitted by the applicant, the request may be denied or delayed.
The application must include requirements for addressing specific statewide goals that the
Oregon legislature has said must be part of the amendment analysis. In particular,
Statewide Planning Goal 9 Economy and Goal 10 Housing must be addressed for impact
on buildable lands inventories, and a Goal 12 Transportation analysis must address
criteria contained in OAR 660-012-060(1) and (2) of the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR) . Goals 9, 10 and 12 are three of several "Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals"
that must be specifically addressed in criteria (A) of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC) 5.14-135.A. These specific items must be included in the application submittal to be
considered a complete application.
In reaching a decision on these actions, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall
adopt findings which demonstrate conformance to the following Criteria of Approval (SDC
5.14-135.
A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the Springfield City Council And other
applicable governing body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the following criteria.
A. The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not
make a Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be
consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. (6331)
3.A map to scale depicting the existing and proposed diagram change. (If applicable)
4.The application fee.Refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the
appropriate fee.A copy of the Fee Schedule is available at the Development & Public
Works Department.
Revised 1/2017
Attachment 4, Page 22 of 97
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans
Attachment 4, Page 23 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 24 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 25 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 26 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 27 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 28 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 29 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 30 of 97
Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information
Attachment 4, Page 31 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 32 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 33 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 34 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 35 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 36 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 37 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 38 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 39 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 40 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 41 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 42 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 43 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 44 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 45 of 97
Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor's Maps Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor’s Maps
Attachment 4, Page 46 of 97
****+++++***+*+++++***
+********+*(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(
(
(
(
((((
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(
(
(
(
(
((((((((
(
(
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR)))((((((((((((((((RR145'1996-226.65'6S 51°59'30" ES 1°35'24" WR=136.42'203.12'WESTR=365.0'LC=260.42'227.67'278.61'S 89°27'00" ES 89°27' EN1°34'0"E3631132.22'McKENZIERIVER64.44'58.54'298.30'S 83°53'32" ES88°26'0"E168.45'550'644.13'192930 '2000110'N 0°11'21" E336.32'437.93'418.92'150.34'220.45'189.90'SE COR.E SCOTT SR.D.L.C. 8230309.86'298.30'PCL 2262.92'7'TRACT 179'298.30'150.00'190.1'N07°56'09"W98.89'N 83°12'24" W 298.3'LOT 1 30.25WESTROPEN 87°44'0" W2013.4'30463.42'70'P0850N87°46'56"WS86°1'55"EN58°48'59"W148.84'320.58'115'25100.52'2100176.24'25'N57°53'20"ES77°17'34"EN 83°12'24" W S 1°35'24" W PCL. 220'1378.8'259.09'NNE COR.D.L.C. 8074.4'2050'300'N 01°36'54" ESOUTH 503.36'N 89°58'05" EP0862SECTION LINER=402.24'270.23'143.18'EAST 778.8'N59°26'33"E2419472.25'S.43645197'N6 0°36'20"W
170030'4EAST 465.29'125'1089.4'550.66'CENTENNIALN 0°11'21" ES81°24'36"EFORMERLY SPRR320'125'SOUTH302.35'S77°32'15"E300.09'2103334.73'S 52°23'20" W152.00'TRACT 6S81°15'36"E511.46'104.38'448.55'376.46'S.40060659.75'125.72'135.12'N 62°57'30" W299.6'N 01°36'54" E298.3'308.00'SW COR.F. SCOTTDLC 82125'145'460'131.28'397.14'388.49'EUGENE - SPRINGFIELDN88°26'0"WS 88°18'6" E S89°50'27"E 804.89'R=60'N 44°30'46" EINT. ELL. COR.P. COMEGYSD.L.C. 80207.88'251.99'1996-180.36'351.7'S 01°36'54" WTRACT 2220.46'439.86'2S 74°13'6" ER=840'30N88°15'6"E274.52''N18°24'2"W
PCL. 1S0°33'W200.82'PCL. 1185.23'8204.0'L=164.28'140'10'73.66'29NNW COR.L COMEGYSD.L.C. 81190'LOT 2 14.35PCL. 2125'304.38'189.90'100.00'415.56'S0°33'W 307.5'140.82'FORMERLY SPRR99-P131219.3'45'S 1°34'0" WS16°23'52"E
S 4°35'24" W25159'ROAD BY DEED 1880/9360016P2685392.82'S81°15'36"E145'N75°15'27"EPOINT IS CALLED 2611.6'FROM SW COR FELIX SCOTTDLC No 51 PER CS.5039ALSOCALLED 15 LINKS = 9.9' EAST OFWEST LINE DLC No 82 174.4'8.69'195.92'550'LOT 5 4.0311.27'122.33'N1°36'54"E351.7'433.28'OLYMPIC STREET100.06'N 89°50'25"W178.4'S 38°30'0" WS86°3'44"EN 57°28'11" W150.00'S 1°34'0" W120.24'N1°36'54"E144 .00 'N0°9'35"E 326.19'D.L.C. LINES75°33'56"ER=402.24'217.77'R=926.47'84.58'110'NORTH 288.45'S 89°39'0" E125'69.05'S30°51 '32"E
298.30'298.3'S 87°14'52" ES89°57'13"W 319.97'S 4°35'24" WN26°00'W
UNION PACIFIC RR46.46'N 74°46'11" W N 66°5'16" ESOUTHERN PACIFIC121.51'104 .96'51'S49°21'19"E
7N1°34'0"ER=369.02'32N 89°58'05" E62.95'WEST LINE FELIX SCOTT DLC No 82N88°26'0"WS 43°54'5" WSW CORW COMEGYSDLC 59FORMERLY SPRRN1°47'30"ETRACT 5298.3'NORTH470.83'494.31'S 88°26' W 400'N34°51'06"W 348.48'308.53'470.85'-299.15'N 1°19'0" E3PCL 3S 10°50'45" E
1/4 COR375.27'N 34°1'54" ENORTH453.8'40.06'275'LOT 3 5.21S.31894148.4'152.91'N 0°20'0" E190.48'579.59'230.78'N88°26'0"WLC=387.45'146.53'N29°45'45"W
N51°37'45"W101.3'156.87'731.71'INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 2(152.00')S 00°33' WSOUTHS 65°59'32" E800160'50'19N 0°11'21" E355.41'124.16'622.44'(PLAT)456.24'237.54'SE COR.D.L.C. 5991.84'388.16'N 88°37'30" E126.35'231.05'82'748.66'PCL. 3R=362.24'INT. ELL. COR.W. COMEGYSD.L.C. 59S 1°34'0" WS 39°5'30" WR=354.27'19.17'201.43'SLOUGH278.36'5LOT 4 16.679.56'GAPLOT 6NE CORP COMEGYSDLC 8090'294.3'159'S 2°53'0" W122.17'LC=360.02'396.61'SITES30304.37'S73°33'48"WPCL 1410.28'N 88°37'30" ES 89°50'25" E104.83'31208.1'N89°50'25"W 472.16'42nd TREET189.25'310.31'203.3'S51°02'47"WINDUSTRIAL76'N26°31'55"E 436.19'S.36980EAST LINE FELIX SCOTT DLC No 527'470.17'65.36'N52°41'35"W
179.28'TRACT 3NE COR.W. COMEGYSD.L.C. 59WEST81.67'139.53'29N47°57'59"E8.2320'S81°41'45"EN80°30'41"E88.81'I.P.373.94'274.52'150'98.62'I - 105 HIGHWAYS 88°24'36" E419.82'COUNTY ROAD NO. 278120.34'1324.14'S 88°26' WN 1°19'0" E75'5'376.34'N 1°57'55" E43.28'N 81° 42' 34" E2393.65'2016-INITIALPOINTS02°02'08"W833.64'N87°04'24"W762.99'1131.52'55.99'738.61'N01°58'02"E 909.63'792.89'438.19'PARCEL 3PARCEL 2PARCEL 1S. 451802020-P297218002.08 AC7.32 AC0.96 AC0.14 AC4.41 AC6.83 AC5.94 AC0.96 AC1.31 AC1.2 AC1.04 AC1.03 AC1.24 AC1.3 AC1.88 AC0.09 AC1.88 AC2.19 AC1.12 AC1.87 AC1.33 AC2.61 AC1.67 AC1.09 AC0.48 AC2.68 AC2.6 AC4.16 AC3.07 AC1.46 AC0.59 AC0.97 AC2.11 AC15.72 AC5.38 AC0.41 AC5.22 AC1.98 AC4.71 AC0.99 AC15.54 AC2.68 AC0.61 AC2.67 AC4.3 AC0.61 AC7.18 AC0.28 AC0.3 AC0.02 AC4.99 AC1.68 AC1.62 AC0.5 AC0.17 AC66.38 AC2.1 AC0.38 AC4.06 AC1.03 AC1.56 AC4.22 AC0.06 AC22.52 AC15.47 AC1.26 AC1.68 AC1.02 AC1.08 AC1 AC59.7 AC15.01 AC13.75 AC220020022102210440225004002001190319261911192119231925192819331938193419351924192719371936194319404031932193119421930194119071922191219021909191819131916191419191917190190219151900901193990390490019108016006046024018025012006011015001006031000192024002105210721062108180318011802019-01019-00019-01019-09SEE MAP17022900SEE MAP17023034SEE MAP17021900SEE MAP17023043SEE MAP17023021SEE MAP17032544SEE MAP17021934SEE MAP17023012SEE MAP17023044SEE MAP17032541SEE MAP17032514SEE MAP17021933SEE MAP17032444SEE MAP17022000SEE MAP17023122SEE MAP17021943SEE MAP17032542SEE MAP17023023SEE MAP17023121SEE MAP17033611SEE MAP17023111SEE MAP17032543SEE MAP17023222SEE MAP17023200SEE MAP17023112SEE MAP17032511SEE MAP17032512SEE MAP17023100FOR ASSESSMENT ANDTAXATION ONLYSECTION 30 T.17S. R.2W. W.M.Lane County1" = 400'CANCELLED29011100110111021200130014001401150016011606170019041905190819292000210021012106220123003002007008002103180017023000SPRINGFIELDSPRINGFIELD17023000LCATSKP - 2021-02-01 11:40REVISIONS06/29/2010 - LCAT155 - CONVERT MAP TO GIS07/06/2010 - LCAT167 - CANCEL TL 700/800 INTO RIVER HEIGHTS12/06/2011 - LCAT142 - ADDED CANC 700, 800 TO MAP06/16/2016 - LCAT142 - CANC. TL 2103 TO 2016-P268509/08/2016 - LCAT155 - COR VAC CO RD 221; AC COR 220006/22/2020 - LCAT148 - LLA BETWEEN TL 1800 & 17032511 TL 230002/01/2021 - LCAT148 - CANC TL 1800 INTO 2020-P297202/01/2021 - LCAT148 - PTN OF 1803 INTO MARCOLA MEADOWS PH 1A *******FFF.SSCCOOTTTTTDDDLC8214433.2888'55.99'***SWCOR.1224444443399'SUBJECTSITEAttachment 4, Page 47 of 97
Exhibit E: Transportation Memorandum Exhibit E: Transportation Memorandum
Attachment 4, Page 48 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 49 of 97
March 16, 2021
Page 2 of 7
The proposed change in zoning for the property could accommodate the reasonable worst-case development
scenario described below:
a. 89.37 gross acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR)
i. Potential 1,906 Dwelling Units of Multi-Family Residential
b. 10.08 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 109,770 Square Feet of Shopping Center
c. 0.92 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 16-Fueling Position Gas Station with Market
Currently, the 1.17-acre portion of the project site to be rezoned is designated Medium Density Residential
(MDR). This is proposed to be amended to Community Commercial (CC). It should be noted that the uses
described above within the MDR and CC zoning districts were reviewed previously as part of the 2020 Master
Plan Amendment application. The City concurred with the application that the described uses represent
reasonable worst-case land uses.
Figure 1 below displays a vicinity map of the project site. Site plans showing the current and proposed zoning
are attached to this memorandum.
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Project Site
Springfield City Limits
Attachment 4, Page 50 of 97
March 16, 2021
Page 3 of 7
Trip Generation
A comparison of reasonable worst-case development under both the current and proposed zoning
designations was conducted and is presented. Only a small portion (1.17-acre) of the master plan that is
currently zoned MDR will be converted to CC. It was found that the change in zoning would result in only a
small increase in trips relative to the 2020 zoning scenario, but still a significant decrease compared to the 2008
zoning. which allows a wide range of trip-intensive commercial land uses, Table 1 compares the reasonable
worst-case scenario trip generation from the legacy 2008 master plan modification, the existing 2020 master
plan modification, and the currently-proposed zoning. The trip generation calculations for 2008 approved
master plan were adjusted for pass-by trips and internal trip capture. The 2008 approved master plan is
provided as a reference point, whereas the 2020 approved master plan represents the currently adopted master
plan.
Pass-by trips are trips already present on the transportation system that leave the adjacent roadway (such as
Marcola Road and 31st Street) to patronize the land use prior to continuing in their original direction of travel.
Pass-by trips do not add additional vehicles to the surrounding transportation system; however, they do add
additional turning movements at site access intersections.
Internal trip capture is the portion of trips generated by a mixed-use development that both begin and end
within the development. The importance of internal trip capture is that those trips satisfy a portion of the total
development’s trip generation and they do so without using the external road system. A mixed-use
internalization credit of approximately 22% was applied to the commercial and residential trips, using the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Internalization methodology. The average land
use interchange distances (walking distance in feet) were estimated based on the approximate distance between
major land use area centroids. This was estimated at 1,000 feet between residential and commercial land uses,
and at 500 feet between office and retail uses.
No pass-by trip credit or internal trip capture was included for the current 2020 zoning plan and for the
proposed 2021 zoning configuration in order to maintain a conservative analysis. The PM peak hour trips and
total daily trips under the proposed 2021 zoning configuration are anticipated to be less than the previously
approved 2008 master plan, and marginally higher than the 2020 master plan.
Detailed trip generation worksheets and internalization calculation worksheets can be found in an attachment to
this memorandum.
Attachment 4, Page 51 of 97
March 16, 2021
Page 4 of 7
Table 1: Zone Change Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation Summary
Zoning Gross
Acres Land Use ITE Evening Peak Hour Weekday
Code In Out Total Total
2008 Zoning4
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 - 1,094 Dwelling Units
Apartment 220 402 217 619 6,725
Community
Commercial (CC) - 171,000 Square Foot
Improvement Store 862 201 218 419 5,096
Mixed-Use
Commercial (MUC) -
350,000 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 701 730 1,431 15,331
50,000 Square Foot
General Office 710 23 112 135 782
Internal Trip Capture (~22%) -292 -292 -584 -5,8403
Total Trips, Existing Zoning 1,035 985 2,0204 22,0954
2020 Zoning5
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 90.54 1,931 Dwelling Units
Multi-Family 221 475 317 792 10,504
Community
Commercial (CC)
8.91 97,030 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 276 276 552 5,890
0.92 16-Fueling Position Gas
Station w/ Market 945 114 110 224 3,286
Total Trips, Proposed Zoning 865 703 1,568 19,680
Proposed 2021 Zoning
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 89.37 1,906 Dwelling Units
Multi-Family 221 469 312 781 10,368
Community
Commercial (CC)
10.08 109,770 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 302 302 604 6,406
0.92 16-Fueling Position Gas
Station w/ Market 945 114 110 224 3,286
Total Trips, Proposed Zoning 885 724 1,609 20,060
Net Increase in Trips (2008) -150 -261 -411 -2,035
Net Increase in Trips (2020) 20 21 41 380
1 = Assumes maximum density of 28 dwelling units/net acre. Net acreage = Gross Acreage – Passive Area (i.e. Right-of-way & Open Space)
2 = Assumes 25% Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
3 = Assumes PM peak hour traffic accounts for 10% of total ADT (Average Daily Traffic).
4 = The 2008 zoning designation trip generation values were derived from the previously-approved and adopted Ordinance No. 6195
Exhibit A Table 4: Gross Trips – Amended Zoning Worst Case. This ordinance was approved on June 18th, 2007.
5 = The 2020 zoning designation trip generation values were derived from the currently-approved and adopted Marcola Meadows Zone
Change Memorandum Table 1: Zone Change Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation Summary. This memorandum was approved
February 17th, 2021.
Attachment 4, Page 52 of 97
March 16, 2021
Page 5 of 7
Transportation Planning Rule
The primary purpose of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) is to account for the potential transportation
impacts associated with any amendments to adopted plans and land use regulations. Since this project involves
a proposed change in zoning, the TPR must be addressed. Relevant TPR sections are quoted in italics below,
with a response immediately following each section.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
1. 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 as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Response: The proposed zone change and overlay removal will not change the functional classification of any
transportation facilities.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Response: The standards that implement the functional classification system are contained in the TSP and will
not change as part of this proposal.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of
the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement
that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would
not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Response: Regarding Subsection (c) it is noted that the state clarified the threshold at which a project would
“significantly affect” traffic vis a vis mobility targets through Oregon Highway Plan Action 1F.5. The
relevant section is quoted on the following page:
Attachment 4, Page 53 of 97
March 16, 2021
Page 6 of 7
If an amendment subject to OAR 660-012-0060 increases the volume to capacity ratio further, or degrades the
performance of a facility so that it does not meet an adopted mobility target at the planning horizon, it will
significantly affect the facility unless it falls within the thresholds listed below for a small increase in traffic.
In applying “avoid further degradation” for state highway facilities already operating above the mobility targets in
Table 6 or Table 7 or those otherwise approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission, or facilities projected
to be above the mobility targets at the planning horizon, a small increase in traffic does not cause “further
degradation” of the facility. The threshold for a small increase in traffic between the existing plan and the
proposed amendment is defined in terms of the increase in total average daily trip volumes as follows:
• Any proposed amendment that does not increase the average daily trips by more than 400.
As described above, the projected daily increase in traffic resulting from the proposed site plan is 380 trips more
than the worst-case development scenario under the existing Institutional zoning. This is below the 400-trip
threshold that is considered a “small increase,” and thus cannot “significantly affect” mobility targets based upon
Action 1F.5. To ensure that the site cannot be redeveloped in a manner that does “significantly affect” mobility
targets, the applicant proposes a trip cap of 400 total daily trips for the parcel as a condition of approval for the
zone change. This represents a net increase of 380 trips more than the worst-case development scenario under
the current 2020 Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning, again less than the 400-trip threshold that is the
maximum “small increase” per this Action.
Conclusion
The proposed zone changes will not change the existing or planned functional classification of any transportation
facilities, will result in a net decrease in potential trip generation from the original 2008 zoning, and will not result
in a significant effect from the current 2020 zoning as defined by the TPR; therefore, no mitigations are necessary.
Attachment 4, Page 54 of 97
March 16, 2021
Page 7 of 7
Attachments
Attachment 4, Page 55 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 56 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 57 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 58 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 59 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 60 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 61 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 62 of 97
Land Use:Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Land Use Code:221
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Dwelling Units
Variable Value:1906
Trip Rate:0.32 Trip Rate:0.41
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 165 445 610 Trip Ends 469 312 781
Trip Rate:5.44 Trip Rate:4.91
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 5,184 5,184 10,368 Trip Ends 4,679 4,679 9,358
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
73%60% 40%
50% 50%50%50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
27%
Attachment 4, Page 63 of 97
Land Use:Shopping Center
Land Use Code:820
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Variable Value:
Trip Rate:3 Trip Rate:4.21
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 178 151 329 Trip Ends 231 231 462
Trip Rate:37.75 Trip Rate:46.12
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 2,072 2,072 4,144 Trip Ends 2,531 2,531 5,062
Source: Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition
46%50% 50%
109.770
50% 50%50%50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
54%
Attachment 4, Page 64 of 97
Land Use:Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market
Land Use Code:945
Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Vehicle Fueling Positions
Variable Value:16
Trip Rate:12.47 Trip Rate:13.99
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 102 98 200 Trip Ends 114 110 224
Trip Rate:205.36 Trip Rate:19.28
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 1,643 1,643 3,286 Trip Ends 154 154 308
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
51% 49%51% 49%
WEEKDAY SATURDAY, Peak Hr of Generator
50% 50%50% 50%
Attachment 4, Page 65 of 97
Goal 12 encourages development that avoids principal reliance on one mode of transportation. Mixed
use development is intended to bring people closer to where they shop and work and create, and to
support pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods where walking. bicycling and transit use are attractive
transportation choices. The subject property is located in proposed TransPlan Node 7C.
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-12-0000 - 660-12-0070), adopted in 1991,and last
amended in March 2005 implements Goal 12. The intent of the Transportation Rule.is to "...promote the
development of safe, convenient and economic transporlation systems that are designed to
reduce reliance on the automobile..." The Metro Plan is Springfield's comprehensive plan
acknowledged LCDC in 1982. TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area's adopted TSP
Transportation System Plan) is the transportation element of the Metro Plan. DLCD acknowledged the
current TransPlan in 2001. The Metro Plan was also amended at that time to include the Nodal
D~velopment Area land use designation. Both documents implement Goal 12 and the Transportation
Rule in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. .
TIA Review Discussion
As discussed in the applicant's submittal above, OAR 660-012-0060 requires a determination as to
whether the proposed amendment would "significantly affect" a transportation facility.
The approach taken in the TIA compares traffic generation estimates for development of the subject site.
under "Current" versus "Amended" designation/zoning, assuming "reasonable worst case" development
scenarios. The TIA concludes that the worst-case development scenario under the "Amended"
designation/zoning would generate 50% more daily vehicle trips and 27% more PM Peak-hour trips than
under the "Current" designation/zoning. The report then analyzes a development scenario that would be
less intensive than the "Amended" debignation/zoning worst case but substantially more intensive than
the "Current" designation/zoning.
Based on analysis of the "Amended Zoning Capped" scenario, the applicant concludes that by limiting
development to the level assumed in that scenario, and requiring minor mitigation in conformance with
OAR 660-012-0060(3), the city can find the proposed PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060.
The three developmeht scenarios analyzed have assumed land use and trip generation estimates as
shown in the following tables.
Table 3: Gross Trips - Current Zoning ,
Current Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zonim:J Code)
Rate Trips Rate Trips
MDR Apartment (220) 714.0 Dwelling 6.22 4441 0.57 410
Units
Shopping Center 1000 SF
CC (820) 130.0 GFA 61.95 8054 5.73 744
CI Research & 33.6 Acres 79.61 2675 15.44 519
Development (760)
CI Business Park (770) 22.4 Acres
147.91 3313 16.82 3Tl
Total
18,483 2,050
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 41
Attachment 4, Page 66 of 97
Table 4: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Worst Case
Amended Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour .
Zoning , Code)
Rate Trios Rate Trios
MDR Apartment (220) 10"94.0 Dwelling 6.15 6725 0.57 619
Units
Improvement Store 1000 SF
CC (862) 171.0 GFA 29.80 5096 2.45 419
Shopping Center
1000 SF
MUC (820)
350.0 .. GFA 43.80 15331 4.09 1431
50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
General Office (710) GFA I
Total
27,935 2,604
Table 4C: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Capped
Amended Land Use (ITE Code). Size I Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zoning Rate Trips Rate Trios
Single-Family Residential 230 9.73 2237 0.99 227
MDR (210) 100 Dwelling 6.42 642 0.60 60
Townhouses (230) 400 Units 6.39 255L1Q,,= 0.59 238
Apartment (220)
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 1000 SF 29.80 5096 2.45 419
GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 350.0 GFA 49.28 .12320 4.31 1146 -
General Office (710) 50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
GFA
Total
23,631 2,225
The above development scenarios can be compared with the assumed land uses presented in the
submitted "Preliminary Plan Illustration:
Preliminary Plan Illustration
Amended Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Zoning
Single-Family Residential 192
MDR (210) 123 Dwelling
Townhouses (230) 174
Units
Apartment (220)
1000 SF
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 200.0 GFA
General Office (710) 38.7 1000 SF
GFA
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 48
Attachment 4, Page 67 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 68 of 97
August 21, 2020
Page 2 of 6
The proposed change in zoning for the property could accommodate the reasonable worst-case development
scenario described below:
a. 90.54 gross acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR)
i. Potential 1,931 Dwelling Units of Multi-Family Residential
b. 8.91 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 97,030 Square Feet of Shopping Center
c. 0.92 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 16-Fueling Position Gas Station w/ Market
Currently, the project site is a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC). This
is proposed to be revised to a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Community Commercial (CC). In
addition, a portion of the site currently has a Nodal Development (ND) overlay, which is proposed to be
removed.
Figure 1 below displays a vicinity map of the project site. Site plans showing the project phasing, current and
proposed zoning, and the ND overlay are attached to this memorandum.
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Project Site
Springfield City Limits
Attachment 4, Page 69 of 97
August 21, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Trip Generation
A comparison of reasonable worst-case development under both the current and proposed zoning
designations was conducted and is presented. Because a large portion of the site is currently zoned MUC, which
allows a wide range of trip-intensive commercial land uses, and the proposed zoning includes lower trip
generators (i.e. CC and MDR), it was found that the change in zoning would result in a net decrease in trips.
Table 1 compares the reasonable worst-case scenario trip generation from the 2018 master plan modification
and the currently-proposed zoning. The trip generation calculations for 2018 approved master plan were
adjusted for pass-by trips and internal trip capture.
Pass-by trips are trips already present on the transportation system that leave the adjacent roadway (such as
Marcola Road and 31st Street) to patronize the land use prior to continuing in their original direction of travel.
Pass-by trips do not add additional vehicles to the surrounding transportation system; however, they do add
additional turning movements at site access intersections.
Internal trip capture is the portion of trips generated by a mixed-use development that both begin and end
within the development. The importance of internal trip capture is that those trips satisfy a portion of the total
development’s trip generation and they do so without using the external road system. A mixed-use
internalization credit of approximately 22% was applied to the commercial and residential trips, using the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Internalization methodology. The average land
use interchange distances (walking distance in feet) were estimated based on the approximate distance between
major land use area centroids. This was estimated at 1,000 feet between residential and commercial land uses,
and at 500 feet between office and retail uses.
No pass-by trip credit or internal trip capture was included for the proposed zoning configuration in order to
maintain a conservative analysis. The PM peak hour trips and total daily trips under the proposed zoning
configuration are anticipated to be less than the previously approved master plans.
Detailed trip generation worksheets and internalization calculation worksheets can be found in an attachment to
this memorandum.
Attachment 4, Page 70 of 97
August 21, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Table 1: Zone Change Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation Summary
Zoning Gross
Acres Land Use ITE Evening Peak Hour Weekday
Code In Out Total Total
Existing Zoning3
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 - 1,094 Dwelling Units
Apartment 220 402 217 619 6,725
Community
Commercial (CC) - 171,000 Square Foot
Improvement Store 862 201 218 419 5,096
Mixed-Use
Commercial (MUC) -
350,000 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 701 730 1,431 15,331
50,000 Square Foot
General Office 710 23 112 135 782
Internal Trip Capture (~22%) -292 -292 -584 -5,8403
Total Trips, Existing Zoning 1,035 985 2,0204 22,0954
Proposed Zone
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 90.54 1,931 Dwelling Units
Multi-Family 221 475 317 792 10,504
Community
Commercial (CC)
8.91 97,030 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 276 276 552 5,890
0.92 16-Fueling Position Gas
Station w/ Market 945 114 110 224 3,286
Total Trips, Proposed Zoning 865 703 1,568 19,680
Net Increase in Trips -170 -282 -452 -2,415
1 = Assumes maximum density of 28 dwelling units/net acre. Net acreage = Gross Acreage – Passive Area (i.e. Right-of-way & Open Space)
2 = Assumes 25% Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
3 = Assumes PM peak hour traffic accounts for 10% of total ADT (Average Daily Traffic).
4 = The current zoning designation trip generation values were derived from the previously-approved and adopted Ordinance No. 6195
Exhibit A Table 4: Gross Trips – Amended Zoning Worst Case. This ordinance was approved on June 18th, 2007.
Transportation Planning Rule
The primary purpose of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) is to account for the potential transportation
impacts associated with any amendments to adopted plans and land use regulations. Since the proposed
change in zoning as well as removal of the ND overlay, the TPR must be addressed. Relevant TPR sections are
quoted in italics below, with a response immediately following each section.
Attachment 4, Page 71 of 97
August 21, 2020
Page 5 of 6
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
1. 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 as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Response: The proposed zone change and overlay removal will not change the functional classification of any
transportation facilities.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Response: The standards that implement the functional classification system are contained in the TSP and will
not change as part of this proposal.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of
the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement
that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would
not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Response: The proposed zone change and overlay removal will result in a net decrease in potential trip
generation from the site. Therefore, the proposal will not result in a significant effect as defined by
the TPR and no mitigations are necessary.
Conclusion
The proposed zone changes and Nodal Development overlay removal will not change the existing or planned
functional classification of any transportation facilities, will result in a net decrease in potential trip generation, and
will not result in a significant effect as defined by the TPR; therefore, no mitigations are necessary.
Attachment 4, Page 72 of 97
August 21, 2020
Page 6 of 6
Attachments
Attachment 4, Page 73 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 74 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 75 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 76 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 77 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 78 of 97
Goal 12 encourages development that avoids principal reliance on one mode of transportation. Mixed
use development is intended to bring people closer to where they shop and work and create, and to
support pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods where walking. bicycling and transit use are attractive
transportation choices. The subject property is located in proposed TransPlan Node 7C.
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-12-0000 - 660-12-0070), adopted in 1991,and last
amended in March 2005 implements Goal 12. The intent of the Transportation Rule.is to "...promote the
development of safe, convenient and economic transporlation systems that are designed to
reduce reliance on the automobile..." The Metro Plan is Springfield's comprehensive plan
acknowledged LCDC in 1982. TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area's adopted TSP
Transportation System Plan) is the transportation element of the Metro Plan. DLCD acknowledged the
current TransPlan in 2001. The Metro Plan was also amended at that time to include the Nodal
D~velopment Area land use designation. Both documents implement Goal 12 and the Transportation
Rule in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. .
TIA Review Discussion
As discussed in the applicant's submittal above, OAR 660-012-0060 requires a determination as to
whether the proposed amendment would "significantly affect" a transportation facility.
The approach taken in the TIA compares traffic generation estimates for development of the subject site.
under "Current" versus "Amended" designation/zoning, assuming "reasonable worst case" development
scenarios. The TIA concludes that the worst-case development scenario under the "Amended"
designation/zoning would generate 50% more daily vehicle trips and 27% more PM Peak-hour trips than
under the "Current" designation/zoning. The report then analyzes a development scenario that would be
less intensive than the "Amended" debignation/zoning worst case but substantially more intensive than
the "Current" designation/zoning.
Based on analysis of the "Amended Zoning Capped" scenario, the applicant concludes that by limiting
development to the level assumed in that scenario, and requiring minor mitigation in conformance with
OAR 660-012-0060(3), the city can find the proposed PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060.
The three developmeht scenarios analyzed have assumed land use and trip generation estimates as
shown in the following tables.
Table 3: Gross Trips - Current Zoning ,
Current Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zonim:J Code)
Rate Trips Rate Trips
MDR Apartment (220) 714.0 Dwelling 6.22 4441 0.57 410
Units
Shopping Center 1000 SF
CC (820) 130.0 GFA 61.95 8054 5.73 744
CI Research & 33.6 Acres 79.61 2675 15.44 519
Development (760)
CI Business Park (770) 22.4 Acres
147.91 3313 16.82 3Tl
Total
18,483 2,050
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 41
Attachment 4, Page 79 of 97
Table 4: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Worst Case
Amended Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour .
Zoning , Code)
Rate Trios Rate Trios
MDR Apartment (220) 10"94.0 Dwelling 6.15 6725 0.57 619
Units
Improvement Store 1000 SF
CC (862) 171.0 GFA 29.80 5096 2.45 419
Shopping Center
1000 SF
MUC (820)
350.0 .. GFA 43.80 15331 4.09 1431
50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
General Office (710) GFA I
Total
27,935 2,604
Table 4C: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Capped
Amended Land Use (ITE Code). Size I Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zoning Rate Trips Rate Trios
Single-Family Residential 230 9.73 2237 0.99 227
MDR (210) 100 Dwelling 6.42 642 0.60 60
Townhouses (230) 400 Units 6.39 255L1Q,,= 0.59 238
Apartment (220)
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 1000 SF 29.80 5096 2.45 419
GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 350.0 GFA 49.28 .12320 4.31 1146 -
General Office (710) 50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
GFA
Total
23,631 2,225
The above development scenarios can be compared with the assumed land uses presented in the
submitted "Preliminary Plan Illustration:
Preliminary Plan Illustration
Amended Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Zoning
Single-Family Residential 192
MDR (210) 123 Dwelling
Townhouses (230) 174
Units
Apartment (220)
1000 SF
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 200.0 GFA
General Office (710) 38.7 1000 SF
GFA
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 48
Attachment 4, Page 80 of 97
Land Use:Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Land Use Code:221
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Dwelling Units
Variable Value:1931
Trip Rate:0.32 Trip Rate:0.41
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 167 451 618 Trip Ends 475 317 792
Trip Rate:5.44 Trip Rate:4.91
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 5,252 5,252 10,504 Trip Ends 4,741 4,741 9,482
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
27% 73%60% 40%
50% 50%50%
Attachment 4, Page 81 of 97
Land Use:Shopping Center
Land Use Code:820
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Variable Value:
Trip Equation:T=2.76(X)+77.28 Trip Equation:Ln(T)=0.72Ln(X)+3.02
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 186 159 345 Trip Ends 276 276 552
Trip Equation:Ln(T)=0.68Ln(X)+5.57 Trip Equation:Ln(T)=0.62Ln(X)+6.24
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 2,945 2,945 5,890 Trip Ends 4,374 4,374 8,748
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
50% 50%50%
97.030
50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
54% 46%50% 50%
Attachment 4, Page 82 of 97
Land Use:Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market
Land Use Code:945
Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Vehicle Fueling Positions
Variable Value:16
Trip Rate:12.47 Trip Rate:13.99
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 102 98 200 Trip Ends 114 110 224
Trip Rate:205.36 Trip Rate:19.28
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 1,643 1,643 3,286 Trip Ends 154 154 308
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
WEEKDAY SATURDAY, Peak Hr of Generator
50% 50%50% 50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
51% 49%51% 49%
Attachment 4, Page 83 of 97
Project Name:Organization:
Project Location:Performed By:
Scenario Description:Date:
Analysis Year:Checked By:
Analysis Period:Date:
ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office 135 23 112
Retail 1850 902 948
Restaurant 000
Cinema/Entertainment 000
Residential 619 402 217
Hotel 000
All Other Land Uses2 000
Total 2604 1327 1277
Veh. Occ. % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ. % Transit % Non-Motorized
Office 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Retail 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Restaurant 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Residential 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Hotel 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
All Other Land Uses2 1.00 0%0%1.00 0%0%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 500 1000
Retail 1000
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential 1000
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 20 0 2 0
Retail 7 0 185 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 9 69 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
All Person-Trips 2,604 1,327 1,277 Office 70%20%
Internal Capture Percentage 22% 22%23% Retail 10%20%
Restaurant N/A N/A
External Vehicle-Trips3 2,020 1,035 985 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A
External Transit-Trips4 0 0 0 Residential 47%36%
External Non-Motorized Trips4 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A
1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Informational Report , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site-not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator
3Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use
4Person-Trips
Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas Transportation Institute
0
0
0
Origin (From)Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0
0
Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix*
Origin (From)Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance)
Base Year
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate)
Land Use Development Data (For Information Only)Estimated Vehicle-Trips
2018 Master Plan Zoning 8/4/2020
NCHRP 8-51 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Marcola Meadows Lancaster Mobley
Springfield, Oregon Nick Mesler
Attachment 4, Page 84 of 97
Project Name:
Analysis Period:
Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips*
Office 1.00 23 23 1.00 112 112
Retail 1.00 902 902 1.00 948 948
Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 402 402 1.00 217 217
Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 20 4 2 0
Retail 19 275 229 47
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 9 69 46 7
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 66 0 16 0
Retail 7 0 185 0
Restaurant 7 451 64 0
Cinema/Entertainment 1 36 0 16 0
Residential 13 69 0 0
Hotel 0 18 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 16 7 23 7 0 0
Retail 89 813 902 813 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 187 215 402 215 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 22 90 112 90 0 0
Retail 192 756 948 756 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 78 139 217 139 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site-not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator
Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips)
Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
0
Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination)
Origin (From)
2Person-Trips
0
0
Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips)
Destination Land Use
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Marcola Meadows
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends
Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips
Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin)
Origin (From)Destination (To)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Cinema/Entertainment
0
38
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P
Attachment 4, Page 85 of 97
Exhibit F: Area Legal Descriptions Exhibit F: Area Legal Descriptions
Attachment 4, Page 86 of 97
AKS Job #7736
EXHIBIT A
Commercial Area Description
(Future Metro Plan Diagram Designation)
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 Instrument Number 2021-014290, Lane County Deed Records, and being
more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 2-1/2” 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
88°02’28” West along said easterly extension and centerline, 90.71 feet; thence leaving said
centerline North 01°57’32” East, 45.00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Marcola
Road and the Point of Beginning; thence North 88°02’28” West along said northerly right-of-way
line, 237.98 feet; thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line North 01°58’31” East, 199.71
feet; thence South 88°02’28” East, 140.78 feet; thence South 63°55’23” East, 143.04 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 along the arc of a 505.00
foot radius curve left (the radius point of which bears South 81°53’33” East) through a central
angle of 6°12’38”, 54.74 feet (chord bears South 05°00’08” West, 54.71 feet); thence South
01°53’48” West, 55.99 feet; thence South 46°53’48” West, 43.28 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contains 1.138 acres, more or less.
The Basis of Bearings for this description is Lane County Survey File No. 45334.
04/16/2021
Attachment 4, Page 87 of 97
MARCOLA ROAD
28TH S
T
R
E
E
T
COMMERCIAL AREA B
Attachment 4, Page 88 of 97
Exhibit G: Property Line Adjustment/Record of Survey (CSF: 45334) Exhibit G: Property Line Adjustment/ Record of Survey (CSF: 45334)
Attachment 4, Page 89 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 90 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 91 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 92 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 93 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 94 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 95 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 96 of 97
Attachment 4, Page 97 of 97
Marcola Meadows
Zoning Map Amendment Application
(Affecting a Portion of Tax Lot 1802)
Date: April 2021
Submitted to: City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Owner/Applicant: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC
27375 SW Parkway Avenue
Wilsonville, OR 97020
AKS Job Number: 7736
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 93
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................2
II. Site Description/Setting ..........................................................................................................2
III. Applicable Review Criteria ......................................................................................................3
FINDINGS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE .............................................. 3
FINDINGS FOR METRO PLAN COMPLIANCE .................................................................................. 6
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) ...........................6
Chapter II – Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy Framework .................... 6
G. Metro Plan Diagram .............................................................................................................. 6
Land Use Designations .......................................................................................................... 6
SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 REFINEMENT PLAN) ..............................................8
ECONOMIC ELEMENT .................................................................................................................... 8
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING GOALS .................................................. 8
Goal EG-1 ................................................................................................................................... 8
Policy E.6 8
Goal EG-3 ................................................................................................................................... 8
Policy E.16 8
Policy E.18 9
Goal EG-4 ................................................................................................................................... 9
Policy E.23 9
Goal EG-5d .............................................................................................................................. 10
Policy E.39 10
Policy E.40 10
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE ........................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 3 LAND USE DISTRICTS ................................................................................................ 10
Section 3.1-100 Official Zoning Maps................................................................................. 10
3.1-110 Zoning Map Amendments ............................................................................... 10
Section 3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts .................................................................... 10
3.2-305 Establishment of Commercial Zoning Districts ................................................ 10
3.2-310 Schedule of Use Categories ............................................................................. 11
3.2-315 Base Zone Development Standards ................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 5 THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS .................................... 13
Section 5.2-100 Public Hearings Process ............................................................................ 13
5.2-110 Hearing Body Jurisdiction ................................................................................ 13
Section 5.22-100 Zoning Map Amendments ...................................................................... 13
5.22-105 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 13
5.22-110 Review ............................................................................................................. 13
5.22-115 Criteria ............................................................................................................. 14
5.22-120 Conditions ........................................................................................................ 15
IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 15
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 93
Exhibits
Exhibit A: City Application Forms and Checklists
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans
Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information
Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor’s Maps
Exhibit E: Transportation Memorandum
Exhibit F: Property Line Adjustment/Record of Survey (CSF: 45334)
Tables Table 1: Description of Surrounding Area .................................................................................................... 3
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 93
Marcola Meadows
Zoning Map Amendment Application
(Affecting a Portion of Tax Lot 1802)
Submitted to: City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Applicant/Property Owner: Marcola Meadows Neighborhood, LLC
27375 SW Parkway Avenue
Wilsonville, OR 97020
Applicant’s Consultant:
AKS Engineering & Forestry, LLC
12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 100
Tualatin, OR 97062
Contact: Chris Goodell, AICP, LEEDAP
Email: chrisg@aks-eng.com
Phone: (503) 563-6151
Applicant’s Transportation
Engineer:
Lancaster Mobley
321 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: Todd Mobley
Email: todd@lancastermobley.com
Phone: (503) 248-0313
Site Location: North of Marcola Road and west of 28th Street
Property Description: A portion of Adjusted Tax Lot 1802 (Adjusted Tract 2 of
Lane County Survey File No. 45334)
Site Size: ±1.138 acres
Springfield
Land Use District:
Existing: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Future: Community Commercial (CC)
Existing Metro Plan Diagram Designation:
Existing: Medium Density Residential
Future: Commercial
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 93
I. Executive Summary
This application is necessitated by planned changes in land use for the southeastern portion of the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan to provide land for a commercial phase of Marcola Meadows. A
concurrent Metro Plan Diagram Amendment converting the site from Medium Density Residential (MDR)
to Commercial Designation is also planned. The site is envisioned as a medical office space and
establishing an efficient commercial layout will provide employment opportunities to a growing area.
The Marcola Meadows Master Plan, as illustrated on the updated Preliminary Plans, contains a variety of
housing types and neighborhood amenities to serve diverse housing demands and accommodate
residents. Through the recent public hearing process for the Master Plan update, the Springfield Planning
Commission expressed a desire to retain some of the commercial/employment land along Marcola Road.
Notions of retaining a strong commercial presence in the southern portion of the site were contemplated
at that time by the property owner, however, due to unresolvable schedule constraints could not be
accommodated at the time. This discussion resonated with the property owner/applicant who had the
desire to address and incorporate the commission’s comments. As a result, the Master Plan has been
modified to incorporate additional commercial space along Marcola Road. This Zone Map Amendment
application to update the use of land within the Master Plan is a direct result of the comments provided
by City officials through the public hearing process.
In this instance, an employment corridor on Marcola Road will be enhanced by converting ±1.138 acres
of MDR-zoned land to Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District through amendment of the Master
Plan. As shown on the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit B), a church, school, and neighborhood market are
approved site elements along Marcola Road. The approved commercial phase of the Master Plan is
designated Community Commercial on the Springfield Zoning Map and is adjacent to the subject site of
this application (a portion of Adjusted Tax Lot 1802). Therefore, the subject site is an ideal location to
attract visitors, residents, and businesses alike due to the ease of multimodal connectivity and planned
infrastructure elements within the Master Plan.
II. Site Description/Setting
The Marcola Meadows Master Plan site includes a total area of ±100 acres. The subject site of this
application (a portion of Adjusted Tax Lot 1802) includes a total area of ±1.138 acres, and its configuration
is based on a previously approved and recorded property line adjustment (PLA) (Lane County Survey File
No. 45334, recorded March 8, 2021). The application includes a copy of the recorded final survey (Exhibit
F).
The property is flat and currently exists as a grassy field. It is vacant and fronts on Marcola Road to the
south and 28th Street to the east. The property is currently classified with Medium Density Residential
(MDR) City zoning and Metro Plan designations, and this application involves a concurrent Metro Plan
Diagram amendment to Commercial. The surrounding property characteristics are summarized in Table
1, below.
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 93
Table 1: Description of Surrounding Area
III. Applicable Review Criteria
The Zone Map Amendment is consistent with relevant goals and policies of the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the City of Springfield’s Comprehensive Plan and
satisfies the Springfield Development Commission’s (SDC’s) applicable approval criteria for amendments.
This application includes the City application forms, written materials, and preliminary plans necessary for
City staff to review and determine compliance with the applicable approval criteria. The evidence supports
the City’s approval of the application.
FINDINGS FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE COMPLIANCE
Response: A Transportation Memorandum prepared by Lancaster Mobley, included herein as Exhibit
E, demonstrates compliance with applicable State, County, and City transportation-
related requirements. Please refer to the Transportation Memorandum (Exhibit E) for
further information.
OAR 660, Division 12, is the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (the TPR) adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission (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 Applicant
must determine if the application has a “significant affect,” as that term is defined in OAR
660-012-0060(1). The City may rely on transportation improvements found in
Transportation System Plans (TSPs), as allowed by OAR 660-012-0060(3)(a), (b), and (c),
to show that failing intersections will not be made worse or intersections not now failing
will not fail. If there is a “significant affect,” then the Applicant must demonstrate
appropriate mitigation under OAR 660-012-0060(2), et seq.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) 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 as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
Area Jurisdiction Zoning Land Uses
North (Marcola Meadows) City of Springfield Medium Density Residential (MDR) Multi-Family Residential
South City of Springfield Low Density Residential
(LDR)
Single-Family Residential
East City of Springfield Light Medium Industrial
(LMI)
Industrial
West
(Marcola Meadows)
City of Springfield Community Commercial
(CC)
Commercial Retail
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 93
under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification
system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions
measured at the end of the planning period identified in the
adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment
includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
(…)
(4) Determinations under sections (1)–(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.
(a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing transportation facilities and services and on the
planned transportation facilities, improvements and services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below.
(b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities, improvements and services:
(A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or regionally adopted
transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or program of a transportation service provider.
(B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services
that are authorized in a local transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 93
in place or approved. These include, but are not
limited to, transportation facilities, improvements
or services for which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local improvement district or reimbursement
district has been established or will be established
prior to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund the improvement have been adopted.
(C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services
in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) area that are part of the area's federally-approved, financially constrained regional transportation
system plan.
(D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan
when ODOT provides a written statement that the
improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.
(E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or
other transportation facilities or services that are
included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or
transportation service provider(s) responsible for
the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility, improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the
end of the planning period.
(c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(A)–(C) are considered planned facilities, improvements and services, except where:
(A) ODOT provides a written statement that the
proposed funding and timing of mitigation measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system,
then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section; or
(B) There is an adopted interchange area management
plan, then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and (E) of this section.
(d) As used in this section and section (3):
(A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that are authorized in an adopted transportation system
plan or comprehensive plan;
(B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 93
(C) Interstate interchange area means:
(i) Property within one-quarter mile of the
ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or
(ii) The interchange area as defined in the
Interchange Area Management Plan adopted as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.
(e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided
pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or (c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall be conclusive in determining
whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is
a planned transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities,
improvements and services identified in paragraphs (b)(A)-
(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of the remedies in section (2).
RESPONSE: This section of the Transportation Planning Rule requires coordination with affected
transportations service providers. The City provides the roads that serve the subject
property; Marcola Road and 28th 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 other affected
agencies, as applicable. Therefore, the criteria of OAR 660-012-0060 (4) are met.
FINDINGS FOR METRO PLAN COMPLIANCE
Response: SDC 5.22-115 requires compliance with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan when the
City amends its acknowledged Zoning Map and land use regulations. This application
envisions amending the City’s acknowledged Zoning Map in a way that is inconsistent with
the Metro Plan Diagram and therefore requires a concurrent Metro Plan Diagram
Amendment. Please see the following narrative component, as well as responses to
Section 5.22-115 in this document addressing the criteria of approval for the planned
amendments to Springfield’s acknowledged Zoning Map. This application involves
concurrent amendments resulting in compliance with the Metro Plan and SDC.
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN)
Chapter II – Fundamental Principles and Growth Management Policy Framework
…
G. Metro Plan Diagram
Land Use Designations
…
Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial Facilities
Oriented to the day-to-day needs of the neighborhood served, these facilities
are usually centered on a supermarket as the principal tenant. They are also
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 93
characterized by convenience goods outlets (small grocery, variety, and
hardware stores); personal services (medical and dental offices, barber shops);
laundromats, dry cleaners (not plants); and taverns and small restaurants. The determination of the appropriateness of specific sites and uses or additional standards is left to the local jurisdiction. Minimum location standards and site
criteria include:
1. Within convenient walking or bicycling distance of an adequate support population. For a full-service neighborhood commercial center at the high end of the size criteria, an adequate support
population would be about 4,000 persons (existing or anticipated)
within an area conveniently accessible to the site. For smaller sites or more limited services, a smaller support population or service area may be sufficient.
RESPONSE: As shown on the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit B), the subject site is within a master
planned area anticipated and planned to increase in residential population. The
commercial lot will be conveniently accessible for nearby residents and support the local
community.
2. Adequate area to accommodate off-street parking and loading needs
and landscaping, particularly between the center and adjacent residential property, as well as along street frontages next door to outdoor parking areas.
RESPONSE: As shown on the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit B), the subject site is planned to be
designed appropriately with adequate parking, landscaping, and other required elements.
3. Sufficient frontage to ensure safe and efficient automobile, pedestrian and bicycle access without conflict with moving traffic at
intersections and along adjacent streets.
RESPONSE: This application involves property within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. As such,
access was previously designed, restricted, and approved for various site elements which
take access on Marcola Road. With that said, sufficient frontage and shared, joint access
with the approved Commercial, School, and Multi-Family Phases in the southeast corner
of the site will provide safe and efficient transportation circulation on and off site.
4. The site shall be no more than five acres, including existing commercial development. The exact size shall depend on the numbers of establishments associated with the center and the population to be served.
Neighborhood commercial facilities may include community commercial centers when the latter meets applicable location and site criteria as listed above, even though community commercial centers are generally larger than five acres in size.
In certain circumstances, convenience grocery stores or similar retail operations play an important role in providing services to existing neighborhoods. These types of operations which currently exist can be recognized and allowed to continue through such actions as
rezoning.
RESPONSE: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the subject site is less than 5 acres in size, including
the approved Commercial Phase, adjacent to the east property line of the subject site.
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 93
SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 REFINEMENT PLAN)
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING GOALS
Response: The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment (from Medium Density Residential to Commercial
Designation) is consistent with, but not limited to, the following Springfield
Comprehensive Plan (2030 Refinement Plan) goals and policies.
Goal EG-1
Broaden, improve, and diversify the state and regional economy, and the Springfield economy in particular, while maintaining or enhancing environmental quality and Springfield’s natural heritage.
Policy E.6
Where possible, concentrate development on sites with existing infrastructure on sites where infrastructure can be provided relatively easily and at a comparatively low cost.
Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, the Commercial Phase in the southern portion of the
site will create economic opportunities and attract businesses in the community. This
application provides support for a growing local industry (commercial office building
sector) and is at an ideal location along the now-vacant Marcola Road corridor. As
described in this written document, under Statewide Planning Goal 9, the Commercial
and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis (CIBL-EOA)
concluded that land needs on sites smaller than 5 acres would be accommodated through
redevelopment. However, the CIBL-EOA also suggests the commercial office building
sector will increase 1.3 percent by the year 2030.
With that said, approval of this application will allow the subject site to concentrate
commercial land use on a site with planned infrastructure. As illustrated on the
Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit B), the Marcola Meadows Master Plan has an approved
Commercial Phase on site, envisioned as a local neighborhood market. As shown on the
materials, shared driveway access, on-site circulation, parking, etc. is feasible for the
subject site and will significantly aid in the design and cost of needed infrastructure
improvements. Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the goal above.
Goal EG-3
Strengthen and maintain strong, connected employment centers and economic corridors to support small, medium, and large businesses.
Policy E.16
Consider the economic opportunities provided by transportation corridors and seek to
maximize economic uses in corridors that provide the most optimal locations and best exposure for existing and future commercial and industrial uses.
Response: The Marcola Meadows Master Plan site has sat vacant for many years despite proximity
to an optimal transportation corridor that provides exposure and visibility. The lack of
interest in future mixed-use commercial activity, (prior to the preceding amendments of
Local Case File No. 811-20-000225-TYP3), necessitated a broader consideration of uses
for this area to maximize feasible economic opportunities. Through the public
engagement and hearing process for the Master Plan, notions of strengthening a
Attachment 5, Page 11 of 93
commercial presence in the southern portion of the site were discussed and considered.
In this instance, an employment corridor on Marcola Road will be enhanced by converting
±1.138 acres of MDR-zoned land to Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District through
amendment of the Master Plan. The subject site is an ideal location to attract visitors,
residents, and businesses alike due to the ease of multimodal connectivity on Marcola
Road.
Policy E.18
Coordinate transportation and land use corridor planning to include design elements that support Springfield’s economic and community development policies and
contribute to community diversity and inclusivity.
Implementation Strategy 18.7
Prioritize improvements that would complete local connections to local shopping and service opportunities.
Response: This area has been identified as appropriate for commercial and residential uses in the
Metro Plan. The Metro Plan Diagram Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation
will change the anticipated use of the portion of the property from residential to
commercial. While the MDR District is a residential district, in this instance it allows the
envisioned commercial use in accordance with specific development standards (e.g. the
lot is adjacent to a Community Commercial District, abuts an arterial roadway, the office
building is limited to specific niche professionals, etc.) The planned Metro Plan Diagram
Amendment from MDR to Commercial Designation will change the anticipated use of the
property to commercial to allow the same envisioned use (i.e. professional and medical
offices). A subsequent Zone Map Amendment is planned to re-zone the site from MDR to
CC.
With that said, this application will seemingly allow commercial development at a similar
intensity to what would be permitted currently without a zone change (i.e. pursuant to
Section 4.7-190). Site improvements in conformance with an approved comprehensive
plan, as is the case here, result in orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services, establishing consistency with the adjacent area. Therefore, this application
supports Springfield’s community development policies and provides an ideal
employment site to the Marcola Road corridor.
Goal EG-4
Establish, strengthen and maintain viable commercial centers to improve the community’s access to goods and services.
Policy E.23
Identify and target commercial activities that will generate living-wage employment
opportunities and/or meet daily needs of local residents.
Response: The site is planned with a commercial phase to implement viable commercial activities
that will serve local residents. As discussed in this written document, the commercial
building office sector is proven to generate living-wage employment opportunities.
Further, as stated in the CIBL-EOA, office spaces are in high demand in Springfield, with
businesses currently searching for development opportunities. Therefore, the subject site
Attachment 5, Page 12 of 93
is not anticipated to sit vacant. Due to adjacent elements of the Marcola Meadows Master
Plan, an additional commercial property will establish and strengthen a sense of place for
the community, enhancing access to services and local employment opportunities.
Goal EG-5d
Be Prepared – Contribute to development of the region’s physical, social, educational, and workforce infrastructure to meet the needs of tomorrow.
Policy E.39
Provide adequate infrastructure efficiently and distribute cost fairly.
Policy E.40
Provide the services, infrastructure, and land needed to attract the identified industry clusters, especially where they can increase economic connectivity among businesses.
Response: As illustrated on the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit B), the Marcola Meadows Master
Plan intends to provide adequate infrastructure. With that said, approval of this
application will allow the subject site to concentrate commercial land use on a site with
planned commercial improvements. As shown on the Preliminary Plans (Exhibit B), the
approved Commercial Phase on site, envisioned as a local neighborhood market, includes
shared driveway access, on-site circulation, parking, etc. It is feasible for the subject site
to be incorporated into this vision and the design and cost of needed infrastructure
improvements will be significantly minimized. Further, a cluster of commercial businesses
will attract more consumers and increase economic connectivity among businesses.
Therefore, the amendment is consistent with the goal above.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 3 LAND USE DISTRICTS
Section 3.1-100 Official Zoning Maps
3.1-110 Zoning Map Amendments
A proposed change to the Official Zoning Maps is subject to the amendment process
described in Section 5.22-100.
Response: As shown on sheets PO-05 and PO-06 within the Preliminary Plans, this project involves
amendments to the Springfield Zoning Map. Please see Section 5.22-100 for narrative
responses regarding the planned amendment on the subject site.
Section 3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts
3.2-305 Establishment of Commercial Zoning Districts
The following commercial zoning districts are established:
…
B. Community Commercial District (CC). The CC District establishes sites to provide for a wide range of retail sales, service and professional office use and
also includes all existing strip commercial areas.
Response: This application involves a Zone Map Amendment from MDR to CC District to implement
an additional commercial phase in the southern area of the Marcola Meadows Master
Plan site. As described in this written narrative, land adjacent to the east of the subject
site is already designated CC District and planned for religious activities and a
Attachment 5, Page 13 of 93
neighborhood market. The planned amendment will allow establishment of a
professional office space within an existing neighborhood commercial area and meet the
intent of the CC District.
3.2-310 Schedule of Use Categories
The following uses are permitted in the districts as indicated subject to the provisions, additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically listed may be approved as specified in Section 5.11-100.
“P” = PERMITTED USE subject to the standards of this Code.
“S” = SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS subject to special locational and/or siting standards as specified in Section 4.7-100.
“D” = DISCRETIONARY USE subject to review and analysis under Type
III procedure (Section 5.9-100) at the Planning Commission or
Hearings Official level.
SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED, unless exempted elsewhere in this Code.
Commercial Districts
Categories/Uses CC
Business
and Professional
Offices and Personal Services
P
Response: As noted above, professional offices are permitted in this district. The land use envisioned
for the site aligns with the criteria above.
Attachment 5, Page 14 of 93
3.2-315 Base Zone Development Standards
Commercial Zoning District
Development Standard CC Minimum Area 6,000 square feet
Minimum Street Frontage (1) 50 feet
All Panhandle Lots/Parcels Minimum Street Frontage 40 feet
Maximum Lot/Parcel Coverage Lot/parcel coverage limited only by standards in other Sections of this code.
Minimum Landscaping Minimum requirements defined by standards in other Sections of this Code.
Maximum Parking, loading, and vehicular circulation area coverage Lot/parcel coverage limited only by standards in other Sections of this code.
Landscaped Setbacks (2)(3)(4) and (5)
Front, Street Side Yard, and Through Lot Rear Yard Building Setback 10 feet
Parking, driveway, and outdoor storage setback 5 feet
Interior Side, Rear Yard Setbacks, when Abutting Residential or CI districts
Building Setback 10 feet
Parking, driveway, outdoor storage setback 5 feet Maximum Building Height (6) No maximum, except as specified below
When abutting an LDR or MDR District to the north Defined by the Maximum Shade Point Height requirement of Section3.2-225A.1.b.,
or up to 50 feet south of a northern lot/parcel line a plane extending south with an angle of 23 degrees and originating from the top of a 16 foot hypothetical fence located on the
northern lot/parcel line. When abutting an LDR or MDR District to
the east, west, or south
No greater than that permitted in the LDR or
MDR Districts for a distance of 50 feet. (1) The Director may waive the requirement that buildable City lots/parcels have frontage on a public
street when all of the following apply: (a) The lots/parcels have been approved as part of a Development Area Plan, Site Plan, Subdivision or Partition application, and (b) Access has been guaranteed via a private street or driveway by an irrevocable joint use/access agreement as specified in Section 4.2-120A. (2) There are no setback requirements for buildings in the Downtown Exception Area. (3) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above grade structure, except a fence, shall be built upon or over that easement.
(4) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including the TransPlan), or the City’s Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of any building permit that increases required parking. (5) Architectural extensions may protrude into any 5-foot or larger setback area by not more than 2 feet. (6) Incidental equipment may exceed these height standards.
Response: As shown on sheets PO-05 and PO-06 within the Preliminary Plans, a zone map
amendment from MDR to CC District affects the subject site (i.e. southeastern corner of
the Marcola Meadows Master Plan site). The base zone development standards listed
above, including setbacks and landscaping standards, will be reviewed for compliance at
a future site design review. Approval of this application does not interfere with
compliance with applicable provisions, conditions, or goals intended from the Final
Master Plan. The subject lots meets the minimum area and street frontage requirements
Attachment 5, Page 15 of 93
of the CC Zoning District; therefore, the planned amendment meets the most relevant
criteria.
Furthermore, it is understood there are conditions of approval related to site access
restrictions on Marcola Road (e.g. the subject site will utilize shared, joint access with the
approved Commercial and School Phases). Please see the TIS for further details.
CHAPTER 5 THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AND APPLICATIONS
Section 5.2-100 Public Hearings Process
5.2-110 Hearing Body Jurisdiction
A. The Planning Commission shall hear:
1. Type II review procedure administrative appeals within the city limits;
2. Type III review procedure quasi-judicial applications within the city limits;
3. Type IV review procedure legislative applications that require a recommendation to the City Council; and
4. Appeals as may be assigned by the City Council.
B. The Hearings Official shall hear:
1. Type II review procedure administrative appeals within the City’s urbanizable area and appeals of all expedited land division
actions as defined in ORS 197.360;
2. Type III review procedure quasi-judicial applications within the City’s urbanizable area; and
3. Appeals as may be assigned by the City Council.
C. The City Council shall hear:
1. Type III review procedure quasi-judicial appeals within the city limits; and
2. Type IV review procedure legislative applications final decisions.
Response: This application involves a Zone Map Amendment from MDR to CC District that requires
a concurrent Metro Plan Diagram Amendment. Therefore, it is understood the application
will be processed through a Type IV review procedure.
Section 5.22-100 Zoning Map Amendments
5.22-105 Purpose
The purpose of this Section is to provide standards and procedures for legislative and
quasi-judicial amendments to the Official Zoning Maps.
5.22-110 Review
Official Zoning Map amendments may be initiated by the Director, the Planning Commission, the Hearings Official, the City Council or a citizen. Zoning Map
amendments shall be reviewed as follows:
Response: This application is initiated by the property owner of the subject site.
…
Attachment 5, Page 16 of 93
B. Quasi-judicial Zoning Map amendments involve the application of existing
policy to a specific factual setting, generally affecting a single or limited group
of properties and may or may not include a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment. Quasi-judicial Zoning Map amendments are reviewed using Type III procedure, unless a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment is required. In this case,
the Quasi-judicial Zoning Map amendment will be raised to a Type IV review.
Response: This application involves amendments to the Springfield Zoning Map and a concurrent
Metro Plan Diagram Amendment. Therefore, the application should be reviewed using a
Type IV procedure.
5.22-115 Criteria
A. Quasi-judicial Zoning Map Amendments. The Planning Commission or
Hearings Official may approve, approve with conditions or deny a quasi-
judicial Zoning Map amendment based upon approval criteria C.1. through 3., below. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official shall make the final local decision on all quasi-judicial Zoning map amendments that do not
include a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment.
B. Legislative Zoning Map Amendments and Quasi-judicial Zoning Map Amendments Raised to a Type IV Review. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official may make a recommendation to the City Council to
approve, approve with conditions or deny Zoning Map amendments and
Metro Plan Diagram Amendments based upon approval criteria in Subsection C. 1. through 4., below. The City Council shall make the final local decision on all Zoning Map amendments involving a Metro Plan Diagram
Amendment.
Response: This written document, the Preliminary Plans, and supporting documentation
demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria in Subsection C.1.-4. below. It is
understood the Planning Commission or Hearings Officer will make a recommendation to
the City Council as described above and the City Council shall make the final local decision
on this application (as it involves a Metro Plan Diagram Amendment).
C. Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval:
1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram;
Response: This application involves amendments to 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 Zoning Map as initiated by this application. Upon approval, ±1.138 acres of
the Marcola Meadows Master Plan site will be designated CC. The planned Master Plan
Diagram designation and amended zoning is consistent with the adopted Metro Plan
policies and diagram as discussed in the concurrent application (containing responses to
Statewide Planning Goals, Springfield Comprehensive Plan, and Metro Plan elements). As
such, it is understood that prior to the approval of the Zoning Map Amendments the
Metro Plan Diagram designation of the property shall be approved/amended. The
approval criterion can be satisfied.
2. Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans; and
Attachment 5, Page 17 of 93
Response: This written document demonstrates compliance with the applicable Plan District maps
and provisions of the SDC. The subject site is not associated with a Refinement Plan or
Conceptual Development Plan. As shown on the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit A), the
subject site is within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan and designed to facilitate
economic opportunities within an existing Commercial Phase in the southeastern corner
of the site. As described herein and shown on the materials provided, the approval
criterion is satisfied.
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.
Response: As shown on the Preliminary Plans, public facilities will be provided to serve the site,
including but not limited to stormwater management, sanitary sewer, municipal water,
and franchise utilities. The site is planned to be served by a comprehensive street network
that includes new public roadways and improvements. The subject site has frontage on
both Marcola Road and 28th Street and this project provides applicable improvements
that will benefit the local community. Infrastructure is planned to be completed
concurrent with the build out of each associated phase. The approval criterion is met.
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.
Response: 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. Please see the Transportation Memorandum within Exhibit E.
5.22-120 Conditions
The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Zoning Map amendment to be granted.
Response: It is understood conditions may be imposed by the Approval Authority to allow approval
of the application.
IV. Conclusion
The required findings have been made and this written narrative and accompanying documentation
demonstrate that the application is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Springfield
Development Code and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The evidence in the record
supports approval of the application and the City can rely upon it for its approval of the application.
Attachment 5, Page 18 of 93
Exhibit A: City Application Forms and Checklists Exhibit A: City Application Forms and Checklists
Attachment 5, Page 19 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 20 of 93
Zoning Map Amendment Submittal Requirements Checklist
1. The application fee - Refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the
appropriate application and postage fee. A copy of the Fee Schedule is available at
the Development & Public Works Department.
2. Deed - A copy of the deed to show ownership.
3. Vicinity Map – A map of the property and the surrounding vicinity which includes
the existing zoning and plan designations. One copy must be reduced to 8 ½” by
11” which will be mailed as part of the required neighboring property notification
packet.
4. Findings - Before the Planning Commission can approve a Zone/Overlay District
Change Request, there must be information submitted by the applicant which
adequately supports the request. The Criteria the Planning Commission will
consider in making their decision is listed below. If insufficient or unclear data is
submitted by the applicant, there is a good chance that the request will be denied
or delayed. It is recommended that you hire a professional planner or land use
attorney to prepare your findings.
Criteria of Approval (Quasi-judicial)
SDC 12.030 requires that in reaching a decision on these actions, the Planning
Commission or Hearings Official map approve, approve with conditions or deny a quasi-
judicial Zoning Map amendment based upon approval criteria (a)-(c), below.
(a) Consistency with the Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan Diagram;
(b) Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual
Development Plans and functional plans; and
(c) 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.
Attachment 5, Page 21 of 93
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans Exhibit B: Preliminary Plans
Attachment 5, Page 22 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 23 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 24 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 25 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 26 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 27 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 28 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 29 of 93
Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information Exhibit C: Property Ownership Information
Attachment 5, Page 30 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 31 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 32 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 33 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 34 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 35 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 36 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 37 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 38 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 39 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 40 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 41 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 42 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 43 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 44 of 93
Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor's Maps Exhibit D: Lane County Assessor’s Maps
Attachment 5, Page 45 of 93
****+++++***+*+++++***
+********+*(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(
(
(
(
((((
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(
(
(
(
(
((((((((
(
(
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR)))((((((((((((((((RR145'1996-226.65'6S 51°59'30" ES 1°35'24" WR=136.42'203.12'WESTR=365.0'LC=260.42'227.67'278.61'S 89°27'00" ES 89°27' EN1°34'0"E3631132.22'McKENZIERIVER64.44'58.54'298.30'S 83°53'32" ES88°26'0"E168.45'550'644.13'192930 '2000110'N 0°11'21" E336.32'437.93'418.92'150.34'220.45'189.90'SE COR.E SCOTT SR.D.L.C. 8230309.86'298.30'PCL 2262.92'7'TRACT 179'298.30'150.00'190.1'N07°56'09"W98.89'N 83°12'24" W 298.3'LOT 1 30.25WESTROPEN 87°44'0" W2013.4'30463.42'70'P0850N87°46'56"WS86°1'55"EN58°48'59"W148.84'320.58'115'25100.52'2100176.24'25'N57°53'20"ES77°17'34"EN 83°12'24" W S 1°35'24" W PCL. 220'1378.8'259.09'NNE COR.D.L.C. 8074.4'2050'300'N 01°36'54" ESOUTH 503.36'N 89°58'05" EP0862SECTION LINER=402.24'270.23'143.18'EAST 778.8'N59°26'33"E2419472.25'S.43645197'N6 0°36'20"W
170030'4EAST 465.29'125'1089.4'550.66'CENTENNIALN 0°11'21" ES81°24'36"EFORMERLY SPRR320'125'SOUTH302.35'S77°32'15"E300.09'2103334.73'S 52°23'20" W152.00'TRACT 6S81°15'36"E511.46'104.38'448.55'376.46'S.40060659.75'125.72'135.12'N 62°57'30" W299.6'N 01°36'54" E298.3'308.00'SW COR.F. SCOTTDLC 82125'145'460'131.28'397.14'388.49'EUGENE - SPRINGFIELDN88°26'0"WS 88°18'6" E S89°50'27"E 804.89'R=60'N 44°30'46" EINT. ELL. COR.P. COMEGYSD.L.C. 80207.88'251.99'1996-180.36'351.7'S 01°36'54" WTRACT 2220.46'439.86'2S 74°13'6" ER=840'30N88°15'6"E274.52''N18°24'2"W
PCL. 1S0°33'W200.82'PCL. 1185.23'8204.0'L=164.28'140'10'73.66'29NNW COR.L COMEGYSD.L.C. 81190'LOT 2 14.35PCL. 2125'304.38'189.90'100.00'415.56'S0°33'W 307.5'140.82'FORMERLY SPRR99-P131219.3'45'S 1°34'0" WS16°23'52"E
S 4°35'24" W25159'ROAD BY DEED 1880/9360016P2685392.82'S81°15'36"E145'N75°15'27"EPOINT IS CALLED 2611.6'FROM SW COR FELIX SCOTTDLC No 51 PER CS.5039ALSOCALLED 15 LINKS = 9.9' EAST OFWEST LINE DLC No 82 174.4'8.69'195.92'550'LOT 5 4.0311.27'122.33'N1°36'54"E351.7'433.28'OLYMPIC STREET100.06'N 89°50'25"W178.4'S 38°30'0" WS86°3'44"EN 57°28'11" W150.00'S 1°34'0" W120.24'N1°36'54"E144 .00 'N0°9'35"E 326.19'D.L.C. LINES75°33'56"ER=402.24'217.77'R=926.47'84.58'110'NORTH 288.45'S 89°39'0" E125'69.05'S30°51 '32"E
298.30'298.3'S 87°14'52" ES89°57'13"W 319.97'S 4°35'24" WN26°00'W
UNION PACIFIC RR46.46'N 74°46'11" W N 66°5'16" ESOUTHERN PACIFIC121.51'104 .96'51'S49°21'19"E
7N1°34'0"ER=369.02'32N 89°58'05" E62.95'WEST LINE FELIX SCOTT DLC No 82N88°26'0"WS 43°54'5" WSW CORW COMEGYSDLC 59FORMERLY SPRRN1°47'30"ETRACT 5298.3'NORTH470.83'494.31'S 88°26' W 400'N34°51'06"W 348.48'308.53'470.85'-299.15'N 1°19'0" E3PCL 3S 10°50'45" E
1/4 COR375.27'N 34°1'54" ENORTH453.8'40.06'275'LOT 3 5.21S.31894148.4'152.91'N 0°20'0" E190.48'579.59'230.78'N88°26'0"WLC=387.45'146.53'N29°45'45"W
N51°37'45"W101.3'156.87'731.71'INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 2(152.00')S 00°33' WSOUTHS 65°59'32" E800160'50'19N 0°11'21" E355.41'124.16'622.44'(PLAT)456.24'237.54'SE COR.D.L.C. 5991.84'388.16'N 88°37'30" E126.35'231.05'82'748.66'PCL. 3R=362.24'INT. ELL. COR.W. COMEGYSD.L.C. 59S 1°34'0" WS 39°5'30" WR=354.27'19.17'201.43'SLOUGH278.36'5LOT 4 16.679.56'GAPLOT 6NE CORP COMEGYSDLC 8090'294.3'159'S 2°53'0" W122.17'LC=360.02'396.61'SITES30304.37'S73°33'48"WPCL 1410.28'N 88°37'30" ES 89°50'25" E104.83'31208.1'N89°50'25"W 472.16'42nd TREET189.25'310.31'203.3'S51°02'47"WINDUSTRIAL76'N26°31'55"E 436.19'S.36980EAST LINE FELIX SCOTT DLC No 527'470.17'65.36'N52°41'35"W
179.28'TRACT 3NE COR.W. COMEGYSD.L.C. 59WEST81.67'139.53'29N47°57'59"E8.2320'S81°41'45"EN80°30'41"E88.81'I.P.373.94'274.52'150'98.62'I - 105 HIGHWAYS 88°24'36" E419.82'COUNTY ROAD NO. 278120.34'1324.14'S 88°26' WN 1°19'0" E75'5'376.34'N 1°57'55" E43.28'N 81° 42' 34" E2393.65'2016-INITIALPOINTS02°02'08"W833.64'N87°04'24"W762.99'1131.52'55.99'738.61'N01°58'02"E 909.63'792.89'438.19'PARCEL 3PARCEL 2PARCEL 1S. 451802020-P297218002.08 AC7.32 AC0.96 AC0.14 AC4.41 AC6.83 AC5.94 AC0.96 AC1.31 AC1.2 AC1.04 AC1.03 AC1.24 AC1.3 AC1.88 AC0.09 AC1.88 AC2.19 AC1.12 AC1.87 AC1.33 AC2.61 AC1.67 AC1.09 AC0.48 AC2.68 AC2.6 AC4.16 AC3.07 AC1.46 AC0.59 AC0.97 AC2.11 AC15.72 AC5.38 AC0.41 AC5.22 AC1.98 AC4.71 AC0.99 AC15.54 AC2.68 AC0.61 AC2.67 AC4.3 AC0.61 AC7.18 AC0.28 AC0.3 AC0.02 AC4.99 AC1.68 AC1.62 AC0.5 AC0.17 AC66.38 AC2.1 AC0.38 AC4.06 AC1.03 AC1.56 AC4.22 AC0.06 AC22.52 AC15.47 AC1.26 AC1.68 AC1.02 AC1.08 AC1 AC59.7 AC15.01 AC13.75 AC220020022102210440225004002001190319261911192119231925192819331938193419351924192719371936194319404031932193119421930194119071922191219021909191819131916191419191917190190219151900901193990390490019108016006046024018025012006011015001006031000192024002105210721062108180318011802019-01019-00019-01019-09SEE MAP17022900SEE MAP17023034SEE MAP17021900SEE MAP17023043SEE MAP17023021SEE MAP17032544SEE MAP17021934SEE MAP17023012SEE MAP17023044SEE MAP17032541SEE MAP17032514SEE MAP17021933SEE MAP17032444SEE MAP17022000SEE MAP17023122SEE MAP17021943SEE MAP17032542SEE MAP17023023SEE MAP17023121SEE MAP17033611SEE MAP17023111SEE MAP17032543SEE MAP17023222SEE MAP17023200SEE MAP17023112SEE MAP17032511SEE MAP17032512SEE MAP17023100FOR ASSESSMENT ANDTAXATION ONLYSECTION 30 T.17S. R.2W. W.M.Lane County1" = 400'CANCELLED29011100110111021200130014001401150016011606170019041905190819292000210021012106220123003002007008002103180017023000SPRINGFIELDSPRINGFIELD17023000LCATSKP - 2021-02-01 11:40REVISIONS06/29/2010 - LCAT155 - CONVERT MAP TO GIS07/06/2010 - LCAT167 - CANCEL TL 700/800 INTO RIVER HEIGHTS12/06/2011 - LCAT142 - ADDED CANC 700, 800 TO MAP06/16/2016 - LCAT142 - CANC. TL 2103 TO 2016-P268509/08/2016 - LCAT155 - COR VAC CO RD 221; AC COR 220006/22/2020 - LCAT148 - LLA BETWEEN TL 1800 & 17032511 TL 230002/01/2021 - LCAT148 - CANC TL 1800 INTO 2020-P297202/01/2021 - LCAT148 - PTN OF 1803 INTO MARCOLA MEADOWS PH 1A *******FFF.SSCCOOTTTTTDDDLC8214433.2888'55.99'***SWCOR.1224444443399'SUBJECTSITEAttachment 5, Page 46 of 93
Exhibit E: Transportation Memorandum Exhibit E: Transportation Memorandum
Attachment 5, Page 47 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 48 of 93
March 16, 2021
Page 2 of 7
The proposed change in zoning for the property could accommodate the reasonable worst-case development
scenario described below:
a. 89.37 gross acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR)
i. Potential 1,906 Dwelling Units of Multi-Family Residential
b. 10.08 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 109,770 Square Feet of Shopping Center
c. 0.92 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 16-Fueling Position Gas Station with Market
Currently, the 1.17-acre portion of the project site to be rezoned is designated Medium Density Residential
(MDR). This is proposed to be amended to Community Commercial (CC). It should be noted that the uses
described above within the MDR and CC zoning districts were reviewed previously as part of the 2020 Master
Plan Amendment application. The City concurred with the application that the described uses represent
reasonable worst-case land uses.
Figure 1 below displays a vicinity map of the project site. Site plans showing the current and proposed zoning
are attached to this memorandum.
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Project Site
Springfield City Limits
Attachment 5, Page 49 of 93
March 16, 2021
Page 3 of 7
Trip Generation
A comparison of reasonable worst-case development under both the current and proposed zoning
designations was conducted and is presented. Only a small portion (1.17-acre) of the master plan that is
currently zoned MDR will be converted to CC. It was found that the change in zoning would result in only a
small increase in trips relative to the 2020 zoning scenario, but still a significant decrease compared to the 2008
zoning. which allows a wide range of trip-intensive commercial land uses, Table 1 compares the reasonable
worst-case scenario trip generation from the legacy 2008 master plan modification, the existing 2020 master
plan modification, and the currently-proposed zoning. The trip generation calculations for 2008 approved
master plan were adjusted for pass-by trips and internal trip capture. The 2008 approved master plan is
provided as a reference point, whereas the 2020 approved master plan represents the currently adopted master
plan.
Pass-by trips are trips already present on the transportation system that leave the adjacent roadway (such as
Marcola Road and 31st Street) to patronize the land use prior to continuing in their original direction of travel.
Pass-by trips do not add additional vehicles to the surrounding transportation system; however, they do add
additional turning movements at site access intersections.
Internal trip capture is the portion of trips generated by a mixed-use development that both begin and end
within the development. The importance of internal trip capture is that those trips satisfy a portion of the total
development’s trip generation and they do so without using the external road system. A mixed-use
internalization credit of approximately 22% was applied to the commercial and residential trips, using the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Internalization methodology. The average land
use interchange distances (walking distance in feet) were estimated based on the approximate distance between
major land use area centroids. This was estimated at 1,000 feet between residential and commercial land uses,
and at 500 feet between office and retail uses.
No pass-by trip credit or internal trip capture was included for the current 2020 zoning plan and for the
proposed 2021 zoning configuration in order to maintain a conservative analysis. The PM peak hour trips and
total daily trips under the proposed 2021 zoning configuration are anticipated to be less than the previously
approved 2008 master plan, and marginally higher than the 2020 master plan.
Detailed trip generation worksheets and internalization calculation worksheets can be found in an attachment to
this memorandum.
Attachment 5, Page 50 of 93
March 16, 2021
Page 4 of 7
Table 1: Zone Change Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation Summary
Zoning Gross
Acres Land Use ITE Evening Peak Hour Weekday
Code In Out Total Total
2008 Zoning4
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 - 1,094 Dwelling Units
Apartment 220 402 217 619 6,725
Community
Commercial (CC) - 171,000 Square Foot
Improvement Store 862 201 218 419 5,096
Mixed-Use
Commercial (MUC) -
350,000 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 701 730 1,431 15,331
50,000 Square Foot
General Office 710 23 112 135 782
Internal Trip Capture (~22%) -292 -292 -584 -5,8403
Total Trips, Existing Zoning 1,035 985 2,0204 22,0954
2020 Zoning5
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 90.54 1,931 Dwelling Units
Multi-Family 221 475 317 792 10,504
Community
Commercial (CC)
8.91 97,030 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 276 276 552 5,890
0.92 16-Fueling Position Gas
Station w/ Market 945 114 110 224 3,286
Total Trips, Proposed Zoning 865 703 1,568 19,680
Proposed 2021 Zoning
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 89.37 1,906 Dwelling Units
Multi-Family 221 469 312 781 10,368
Community
Commercial (CC)
10.08 109,770 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 302 302 604 6,406
0.92 16-Fueling Position Gas
Station w/ Market 945 114 110 224 3,286
Total Trips, Proposed Zoning 885 724 1,609 20,060
Net Increase in Trips (2008) -150 -261 -411 -2,035
Net Increase in Trips (2020) 20 21 41 380
1 = Assumes maximum density of 28 dwelling units/net acre. Net acreage = Gross Acreage – Passive Area (i.e. Right-of-way & Open Space)
2 = Assumes 25% Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
3 = Assumes PM peak hour traffic accounts for 10% of total ADT (Average Daily Traffic).
4 = The 2008 zoning designation trip generation values were derived from the previously-approved and adopted Ordinance No. 6195
Exhibit A Table 4: Gross Trips – Amended Zoning Worst Case. This ordinance was approved on June 18th, 2007.
5 = The 2020 zoning designation trip generation values were derived from the currently-approved and adopted Marcola Meadows Zone
Change Memorandum Table 1: Zone Change Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation Summary. This memorandum was approved
February 17th, 2021.
Attachment 5, Page 51 of 93
March 16, 2021
Page 5 of 7
Transportation Planning Rule
The primary purpose of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) is to account for the potential transportation
impacts associated with any amendments to adopted plans and land use regulations. Since this project involves
a proposed change in zoning, the TPR must be addressed. Relevant TPR sections are quoted in italics below,
with a response immediately following each section.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
1. 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 as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Response: The proposed zone change and overlay removal will not change the functional classification of any
transportation facilities.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Response: The standards that implement the functional classification system are contained in the TSP and will
not change as part of this proposal.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of
the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement
that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would
not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Response: Regarding Subsection (c) it is noted that the state clarified the threshold at which a project would
“significantly affect” traffic vis a vis mobility targets through Oregon Highway Plan Action 1F.5. The
relevant section is quoted on the following page:
Attachment 5, Page 52 of 93
March 16, 2021
Page 6 of 7
If an amendment subject to OAR 660-012-0060 increases the volume to capacity ratio further, or degrades the
performance of a facility so that it does not meet an adopted mobility target at the planning horizon, it will
significantly affect the facility unless it falls within the thresholds listed below for a small increase in traffic.
In applying “avoid further degradation” for state highway facilities already operating above the mobility targets in
Table 6 or Table 7 or those otherwise approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission, or facilities projected
to be above the mobility targets at the planning horizon, a small increase in traffic does not cause “further
degradation” of the facility. The threshold for a small increase in traffic between the existing plan and the
proposed amendment is defined in terms of the increase in total average daily trip volumes as follows:
• Any proposed amendment that does not increase the average daily trips by more than 400.
As described above, the projected daily increase in traffic resulting from the proposed site plan is 380 trips more
than the worst-case development scenario under the existing Institutional zoning. This is below the 400-trip
threshold that is considered a “small increase,” and thus cannot “significantly affect” mobility targets based upon
Action 1F.5. To ensure that the site cannot be redeveloped in a manner that does “significantly affect” mobility
targets, the applicant proposes a trip cap of 400 total daily trips for the parcel as a condition of approval for the
zone change. This represents a net increase of 380 trips more than the worst-case development scenario under
the current 2020 Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning, again less than the 400-trip threshold that is the
maximum “small increase” per this Action.
Conclusion
The proposed zone changes will not change the existing or planned functional classification of any transportation
facilities, will result in a net decrease in potential trip generation from the original 2008 zoning, and will not result
in a significant effect from the current 2020 zoning as defined by the TPR; therefore, no mitigations are necessary.
Attachment 5, Page 53 of 93
March 16, 2021
Page 7 of 7
Attachments
Attachment 5, Page 54 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 55 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 56 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 57 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 58 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 59 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 60 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 61 of 93
Land Use:Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Land Use Code:221
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Dwelling Units
Variable Value:1906
Trip Rate:0.32 Trip Rate:0.41
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 165 445 610 Trip Ends 469 312 781
Trip Rate:5.44 Trip Rate:4.91
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 5,184 5,184 10,368 Trip Ends 4,679 4,679 9,358
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
73%60% 40%
50% 50%50%50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
27%
Attachment 5, Page 62 of 93
Land Use:Shopping Center
Land Use Code:820
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Variable Value:
Trip Rate:3 Trip Rate:4.21
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 178 151 329 Trip Ends 231 231 462
Trip Rate:37.75 Trip Rate:46.12
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 2,072 2,072 4,144 Trip Ends 2,531 2,531 5,062
Source: Trip Generation Manual, Tenth Edition
46%50% 50%
109.770
50% 50%50%50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
54%
Attachment 5, Page 63 of 93
Land Use:Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market
Land Use Code:945
Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Vehicle Fueling Positions
Variable Value:16
Trip Rate:12.47 Trip Rate:13.99
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 102 98 200 Trip Ends 114 110 224
Trip Rate:205.36 Trip Rate:19.28
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 1,643 1,643 3,286 Trip Ends 154 154 308
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
51% 49%51% 49%
WEEKDAY SATURDAY, Peak Hr of Generator
50% 50%50% 50%
Attachment 5, Page 64 of 93
Goal 12 encourages development that avoids principal reliance on one mode of transportation. Mixed
use development is intended to bring people closer to where they shop and work and create, and to
support pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods where walking. bicycling and transit use are attractive
transportation choices. The subject property is located in proposed TransPlan Node 7C.
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-12-0000 - 660-12-0070), adopted in 1991,and last
amended in March 2005 implements Goal 12. The intent of the Transportation Rule.is to "...promote the
development of safe, convenient and economic transporlation systems that are designed to
reduce reliance on the automobile..." The Metro Plan is Springfield's comprehensive plan
acknowledged LCDC in 1982. TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area's adopted TSP
Transportation System Plan) is the transportation element of the Metro Plan. DLCD acknowledged the
current TransPlan in 2001. The Metro Plan was also amended at that time to include the Nodal
D~velopment Area land use designation. Both documents implement Goal 12 and the Transportation
Rule in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. .
TIA Review Discussion
As discussed in the applicant's submittal above, OAR 660-012-0060 requires a determination as to
whether the proposed amendment would "significantly affect" a transportation facility.
The approach taken in the TIA compares traffic generation estimates for development of the subject site.
under "Current" versus "Amended" designation/zoning, assuming "reasonable worst case" development
scenarios. The TIA concludes that the worst-case development scenario under the "Amended"
designation/zoning would generate 50% more daily vehicle trips and 27% more PM Peak-hour trips than
under the "Current" designation/zoning. The report then analyzes a development scenario that would be
less intensive than the "Amended" debignation/zoning worst case but substantially more intensive than
the "Current" designation/zoning.
Based on analysis of the "Amended Zoning Capped" scenario, the applicant concludes that by limiting
development to the level assumed in that scenario, and requiring minor mitigation in conformance with
OAR 660-012-0060(3), the city can find the proposed PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060.
The three developmeht scenarios analyzed have assumed land use and trip generation estimates as
shown in the following tables.
Table 3: Gross Trips - Current Zoning ,
Current Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zonim:J Code)
Rate Trips Rate Trips
MDR Apartment (220) 714.0 Dwelling 6.22 4441 0.57 410
Units
Shopping Center 1000 SF
CC (820) 130.0 GFA 61.95 8054 5.73 744
CI Research & 33.6 Acres 79.61 2675 15.44 519
Development (760)
CI Business Park (770) 22.4 Acres
147.91 3313 16.82 3Tl
Total
18,483 2,050
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 41
Attachment 5, Page 65 of 93
Table 4: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Worst Case
Amended Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour .
Zoning , Code)
Rate Trios Rate Trios
MDR Apartment (220) 10"94.0 Dwelling 6.15 6725 0.57 619
Units
Improvement Store 1000 SF
CC (862) 171.0 GFA 29.80 5096 2.45 419
Shopping Center
1000 SF
MUC (820)
350.0 .. GFA 43.80 15331 4.09 1431
50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
General Office (710) GFA I
Total
27,935 2,604
Table 4C: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Capped
Amended Land Use (ITE Code). Size I Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zoning Rate Trips Rate Trios
Single-Family Residential 230 9.73 2237 0.99 227
MDR (210) 100 Dwelling 6.42 642 0.60 60
Townhouses (230) 400 Units 6.39 255L1Q,,= 0.59 238
Apartment (220)
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 1000 SF 29.80 5096 2.45 419
GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 350.0 GFA 49.28 .12320 4.31 1146 -
General Office (710) 50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
GFA
Total
23,631 2,225
The above development scenarios can be compared with the assumed land uses presented in the
submitted "Preliminary Plan Illustration:
Preliminary Plan Illustration
Amended Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Zoning
Single-Family Residential 192
MDR (210) 123 Dwelling
Townhouses (230) 174
Units
Apartment (220)
1000 SF
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 200.0 GFA
General Office (710) 38.7 1000 SF
GFA
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 48
Attachment 5, Page 66 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 67 of 93
August 21, 2020
Page 2 of 6
The proposed change in zoning for the property could accommodate the reasonable worst-case development
scenario described below:
a. 90.54 gross acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR)
i. Potential 1,931 Dwelling Units of Multi-Family Residential
b. 8.91 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 97,030 Square Feet of Shopping Center
c. 0.92 gross acres of Community Commercial (CC)
i. Potential 16-Fueling Position Gas Station w/ Market
Currently, the project site is a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Mixed-Use Commercial (MUC). This
is proposed to be revised to a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Community Commercial (CC). In
addition, a portion of the site currently has a Nodal Development (ND) overlay, which is proposed to be
removed.
Figure 1 below displays a vicinity map of the project site. Site plans showing the project phasing, current and
proposed zoning, and the ND overlay are attached to this memorandum.
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Project Site
Springfield City Limits
Attachment 5, Page 68 of 93
August 21, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Trip Generation
A comparison of reasonable worst-case development under both the current and proposed zoning
designations was conducted and is presented. Because a large portion of the site is currently zoned MUC, which
allows a wide range of trip-intensive commercial land uses, and the proposed zoning includes lower trip
generators (i.e. CC and MDR), it was found that the change in zoning would result in a net decrease in trips.
Table 1 compares the reasonable worst-case scenario trip generation from the 2018 master plan modification
and the currently-proposed zoning. The trip generation calculations for 2018 approved master plan were
adjusted for pass-by trips and internal trip capture.
Pass-by trips are trips already present on the transportation system that leave the adjacent roadway (such as
Marcola Road and 31st Street) to patronize the land use prior to continuing in their original direction of travel.
Pass-by trips do not add additional vehicles to the surrounding transportation system; however, they do add
additional turning movements at site access intersections.
Internal trip capture is the portion of trips generated by a mixed-use development that both begin and end
within the development. The importance of internal trip capture is that those trips satisfy a portion of the total
development’s trip generation and they do so without using the external road system. A mixed-use
internalization credit of approximately 22% was applied to the commercial and residential trips, using the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Internalization methodology. The average land
use interchange distances (walking distance in feet) were estimated based on the approximate distance between
major land use area centroids. This was estimated at 1,000 feet between residential and commercial land uses,
and at 500 feet between office and retail uses.
No pass-by trip credit or internal trip capture was included for the proposed zoning configuration in order to
maintain a conservative analysis. The PM peak hour trips and total daily trips under the proposed zoning
configuration are anticipated to be less than the previously approved master plans.
Detailed trip generation worksheets and internalization calculation worksheets can be found in an attachment to
this memorandum.
Attachment 5, Page 69 of 93
August 21, 2020
Page 4 of 6
Table 1: Zone Change Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation Summary
Zoning Gross
Acres Land Use ITE Evening Peak Hour Weekday
Code In Out Total Total
Existing Zoning3
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 - 1,094 Dwelling Units
Apartment 220 402 217 619 6,725
Community
Commercial (CC) - 171,000 Square Foot
Improvement Store 862 201 218 419 5,096
Mixed-Use
Commercial (MUC) -
350,000 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 701 730 1,431 15,331
50,000 Square Foot
General Office 710 23 112 135 782
Internal Trip Capture (~22%) -292 -292 -584 -5,8403
Total Trips, Existing Zoning 1,035 985 2,0204 22,0954
Proposed Zone
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)1 90.54 1,931 Dwelling Units
Multi-Family 221 475 317 792 10,504
Community
Commercial (CC)
8.91 97,030 Square Foot
Shopping Center2 820 276 276 552 5,890
0.92 16-Fueling Position Gas
Station w/ Market 945 114 110 224 3,286
Total Trips, Proposed Zoning 865 703 1,568 19,680
Net Increase in Trips -170 -282 -452 -2,415
1 = Assumes maximum density of 28 dwelling units/net acre. Net acreage = Gross Acreage – Passive Area (i.e. Right-of-way & Open Space)
2 = Assumes 25% Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
3 = Assumes PM peak hour traffic accounts for 10% of total ADT (Average Daily Traffic).
4 = The current zoning designation trip generation values were derived from the previously-approved and adopted Ordinance No. 6195
Exhibit A Table 4: Gross Trips – Amended Zoning Worst Case. This ordinance was approved on June 18th, 2007.
Transportation Planning Rule
The primary purpose of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) is to account for the potential transportation
impacts associated with any amendments to adopted plans and land use regulations. Since the proposed
change in zoning as well as removal of the ND overlay, the TPR must be addressed. Relevant TPR sections are
quoted in italics below, with a response immediately following each section.
Attachment 5, Page 70 of 93
August 21, 2020
Page 5 of 6
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
1. 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 as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the
amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of
correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Response: The proposed zone change and overlay removal will not change the functional classification of any
transportation facilities.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
Response: The standards that implement the functional classification system are contained in the TSP and will
not change as part of this proposal.
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of
evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of
the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement
that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would
not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise
projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Response: The proposed zone change and overlay removal will result in a net decrease in potential trip
generation from the site. Therefore, the proposal will not result in a significant effect as defined by
the TPR and no mitigations are necessary.
Conclusion
The proposed zone changes and Nodal Development overlay removal will not change the existing or planned
functional classification of any transportation facilities, will result in a net decrease in potential trip generation, and
will not result in a significant effect as defined by the TPR; therefore, no mitigations are necessary.
Attachment 5, Page 71 of 93
August 21, 2020
Page 6 of 6
Attachments
Attachment 5, Page 72 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 73 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 74 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 75 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 76 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 77 of 93
Goal 12 encourages development that avoids principal reliance on one mode of transportation. Mixed
use development is intended to bring people closer to where they shop and work and create, and to
support pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods where walking. bicycling and transit use are attractive
transportation choices. The subject property is located in proposed TransPlan Node 7C.
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-12-0000 - 660-12-0070), adopted in 1991,and last
amended in March 2005 implements Goal 12. The intent of the Transportation Rule.is to "...promote the
development of safe, convenient and economic transporlation systems that are designed to
reduce reliance on the automobile..." The Metro Plan is Springfield's comprehensive plan
acknowledged LCDC in 1982. TransPlan (the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area's adopted TSP
Transportation System Plan) is the transportation element of the Metro Plan. DLCD acknowledged the
current TransPlan in 2001. The Metro Plan was also amended at that time to include the Nodal
D~velopment Area land use designation. Both documents implement Goal 12 and the Transportation
Rule in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. .
TIA Review Discussion
As discussed in the applicant's submittal above, OAR 660-012-0060 requires a determination as to
whether the proposed amendment would "significantly affect" a transportation facility.
The approach taken in the TIA compares traffic generation estimates for development of the subject site.
under "Current" versus "Amended" designation/zoning, assuming "reasonable worst case" development
scenarios. The TIA concludes that the worst-case development scenario under the "Amended"
designation/zoning would generate 50% more daily vehicle trips and 27% more PM Peak-hour trips than
under the "Current" designation/zoning. The report then analyzes a development scenario that would be
less intensive than the "Amended" debignation/zoning worst case but substantially more intensive than
the "Current" designation/zoning.
Based on analysis of the "Amended Zoning Capped" scenario, the applicant concludes that by limiting
development to the level assumed in that scenario, and requiring minor mitigation in conformance with
OAR 660-012-0060(3), the city can find the proposed PAPA in compliance with OAR 660-012-0060.
The three developmeht scenarios analyzed have assumed land use and trip generation estimates as
shown in the following tables.
Table 3: Gross Trips - Current Zoning ,
Current Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zonim:J Code)
Rate Trips Rate Trips
MDR Apartment (220) 714.0 Dwelling 6.22 4441 0.57 410
Units
Shopping Center 1000 SF
CC (820) 130.0 GFA 61.95 8054 5.73 744
CI Research & 33.6 Acres 79.61 2675 15.44 519
Development (760)
CI Business Park (770) 22.4 Acres
147.91 3313 16.82 3Tl
Total
18,483 2,050
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 41
Attachment 5, Page 78 of 93
Table 4: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Worst Case
Amended Land Use (ITE Size Unit ADT PM Peak Hour .
Zoning , Code)
Rate Trios Rate Trios
MDR Apartment (220) 10"94.0 Dwelling 6.15 6725 0.57 619
Units
Improvement Store 1000 SF
CC (862) 171.0 GFA 29.80 5096 2.45 419
Shopping Center
1000 SF
MUC (820)
350.0 .. GFA 43.80 15331 4.09 1431
50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
General Office (710) GFA I
Total
27,935 2,604
Table 4C: Gross Trips - Amended Zoning Capped
Amended Land Use (ITE Code). Size I Unit ADT PM Peak Hour
Zoning Rate Trips Rate Trios
Single-Family Residential 230 9.73 2237 0.99 227
MDR (210) 100 Dwelling 6.42 642 0.60 60
Townhouses (230) 400 Units 6.39 255L1Q,,= 0.59 238
Apartment (220)
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 1000 SF 29.80 5096 2.45 419
GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 350.0 GFA 49.28 .12320 4.31 1146 -
General Office (710) 50.0 1000 SF 15.65 782 2.70 135
GFA
Total
23,631 2,225
The above development scenarios can be compared with the assumed land uses presented in the
submitted "Preliminary Plan Illustration:
Preliminary Plan Illustration
Amended Land Use (ITE Code) Size Unit
Zoning
Single-Family Residential 192
MDR (210) 123 Dwelling
Townhouses (230) 174
Units
Apartment (220)
1000 SF
CC Improvement Store (862) 171.0 GFA
1000 SF
MUC Shopping Center (820) 200.0 GFA
General Office (710) 38.7 1000 SF
GFA
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 48
Attachment 5, Page 79 of 93
Land Use:Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)
Land Use Code:221
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Dwelling Units
Variable Value:1931
Trip Rate:0.32 Trip Rate:0.41
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 167 451 618 Trip Ends 475 317 792
Trip Rate:5.44 Trip Rate:4.91
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 5,252 5,252 10,504 Trip Ends 4,741 4,741 9,482
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
27% 73%60% 40%
50% 50%50%
Attachment 5, Page 80 of 93
Land Use:Shopping Center
Land Use Code:820
Setting/Location General Urban/Suburban
Variable:1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Variable Value:
Trip Equation:T=2.76(X)+77.28 Trip Equation:Ln(T)=0.72Ln(X)+3.02
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 186 159 345 Trip Ends 276 276 552
Trip Equation:Ln(T)=0.68Ln(X)+5.57 Trip Equation:Ln(T)=0.62Ln(X)+6.24
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 2,945 2,945 5,890 Trip Ends 4,374 4,374 8,748
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
50% 50%50%
97.030
50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
54% 46%50% 50%
Attachment 5, Page 81 of 93
Land Use:Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market
Land Use Code:945
Setting/Location:General Urban/Suburban
Variable:Vehicle Fueling Positions
Variable Value:16
Trip Rate:12.47 Trip Rate:13.99
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 102 98 200 Trip Ends 114 110 224
Trip Rate:205.36 Trip Rate:19.28
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Directional Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trip Ends 1,643 1,643 3,286 Trip Ends 154 154 308
Source: TRIP GENERATION, Tenth Edition
WEEKDAY SATURDAY, Peak Hr of Generator
50% 50%50% 50%
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
51% 49%51% 49%
Attachment 5, Page 82 of 93
Project Name:Organization:
Project Location:Performed By:
Scenario Description:Date:
Analysis Year:Checked By:
Analysis Period:Date:
ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office 135 23 112
Retail 1850 902 948
Restaurant 000
Cinema/Entertainment 000
Residential 619 402 217
Hotel 000
All Other Land Uses2 000
Total 2604 1327 1277
Veh. Occ. % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ. % Transit % Non-Motorized
Office 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Retail 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Restaurant 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Residential 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Hotel 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
All Other Land Uses2 1.00 0%0%1.00 0%0%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 500 1000
Retail 1000
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential 1000
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 20 0 2 0
Retail 7 0 185 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 9 69 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
All Person-Trips 2,604 1,327 1,277 Office 70%20%
Internal Capture Percentage 22% 22%23% Retail 10%20%
Restaurant N/A N/A
External Vehicle-Trips3 2,020 1,035 985 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A
External Transit-Trips4 0 0 0 Residential 47%36%
External Non-Motorized Trips4 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A
1Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Informational Report , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site-not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator
3Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use
4Person-Trips
Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas Transportation Institute
0
0
0
Origin (From)Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0
0
Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix*
Origin (From)Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance)
Base Year
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate)
Land Use Development Data (For Information Only)Estimated Vehicle-Trips
2018 Master Plan Zoning 8/4/2020
NCHRP 8-51 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Marcola Meadows Lancaster Mobley
Springfield, Oregon Nick Mesler
Attachment 5, Page 83 of 93
Project Name:
Analysis Period:
Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips*
Office 1.00 23 23 1.00 112 112
Retail 1.00 902 902 1.00 948 948
Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 402 402 1.00 217 217
Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 20 4 2 0
Retail 19 275 229 47
Restaurant 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 9 69 46 7
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 66 0 16 0
Retail 7 0 185 0
Restaurant 7 451 64 0
Cinema/Entertainment 1 36 0 16 0
Residential 13 69 0 0
Hotel 0 18 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 16 7 23 7 0 0
Retail 89 813 902 813 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 187 215 402 215 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1 Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 22 90 112 90 0 0
Retail 192 756 948 756 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 78 139 217 139 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 000 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
3Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site-not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator
Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips)
Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
0
Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination)
Origin (From)
2Person-Trips
0
0
Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips)
Destination Land Use
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Marcola Meadows
PM Street Peak Hour
Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends
Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips
Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin)
Origin (From)Destination (To)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Cinema/Entertainment
0
38
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P
Attachment 5, Page 84 of 93
Exhibit F: Property Line Adjustment/Record of Survey (CSF: 45334) Exhibit F: Property Line Adjustment/ Record of Survey (CSF: 45334)
Attachment 5, Page 85 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 86 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 87 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 88 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 89 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 90 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 91 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 92 of 93
Attachment 5, Page 93 of 93
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR:
TYPE I AMENDMENT TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN ] 811-21-000097-TYP4
(METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 1.14 ACRES OF LAND IDENTIFIED ]
AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-02-30-00, TAX LOT 1802 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY ]
RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO COMMERCIAL (C) ]
NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
Type I amendment to the Metro Plan diagram:
▪ Redesignate approximately 1.14 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Marcola
Road and 28th Street (Map 17-02-30-00, Portion of Tax Lot 1802) from Medium Density Residential to Commercial.
The subject property is generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A to this Order.
Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to Springfield Development Code 5.2-115.
On June 15, 2021, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan diagram
amendment. The staff report, written comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing via online
meeting platform were entered into the record.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the Commission finds that the proposed Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent
with the criteria of SDC 5.14-135. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions as
stated in the staff report and recommendations attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Order.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
A RECOMMENDATION for approval will be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for consideration at an upcoming
public hearing.
____________________________ ____________________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY REDESIGNATED FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL
A
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Attachment 6, Page 3 of 3
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR:
AMENDMENT TO THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 1.14 ACRES ] 811-21-000096-TYP3
OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-03-20-00, TL 1802 FROM ]
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ]
NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
Proposed amendments to the Springfield Zoning Map:
▪ Rezone approximately 1.14 acres of property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Marcola Road
and 28th Street (Map 17-02-30-00, Portion of Tax Lot 1802) from Medium Density Residential to Community
Commercial. The subject property is generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A to this Order.
▪ The subject Zoning Map amendment is being processed concurrently with a Metro Plan diagram amendment
initiated by Planning Case 811-21-000097-TYP4.
Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to SDC 5.2-115.
On June 15, 2021, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Metro Plan diagram
amendment and Zoning Map amendment. The staff report, written comments, and testimony of those who spoke at
the public hearing via online meeting platform were entered into the record.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed Zoning Map amendment is consistent with the criteria of SDC 5.22-115. This
general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions as stated in the staff report and
recommendations attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Order.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
A RECOMMENDATION for approval will be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for consideration at an upcoming
public hearing.
____________________________ ____________________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 7, Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY REZONED FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
A
COMMERCIAL ZONING
Attachment 7, Page 2 of 3
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Attachment 7, Page 3 of 3
From: MaryAnn Kubo <maryannwestcoast@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 2:54 PM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
Subject: Re: 811-21-000129-TYP2
No Community Commercial to keep the area quite without general public
traffic, there are enough shopping centers Walmart off of Mohawk and
shops on Mohawk. The business in the area are quite and not a lot of
traffic or noise. I do not want the commercial traffic and people coming
and going in the neighborhood.
Sincerely
Catherine Kubo
MaryAnn Kubo
From: MaryAnn Kubo <maryannwestcoast@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:35 AM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
Subject: 811-21-000129-TYP2
To Andy Limbird,
Catherine and MaryAnn Kubo are addressing 811-21-000129-TYP2 to stay
Medium Density Residential and not allow the change to Community
Commercial.
811-21-000130-TYP2, 811-21-000096-TYP3, and 811-21-00097-TYP4 to stay
Medium Density Residential and not allow the change to Community
Commercial.
Sincerely
Catherine Kubo
MaryAnn Kubo