HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet Planner 10/19/2023DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING FORM
APPLICANT: Allie Camp
MEETING DATE/TIME: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
PLACE: DPW Conference Room 615/616 and Virtual via Zoom
CONTACT PERSON: Tom Sievers 726-2333
❑ Current Planning Staff: ❑L Miller, ❑A Limbird, ®M Rust, ❑K Notary, ❑T Sievers
❑ Stan Petroff, AIC City Engineer— DPW
❑ Kristi Krueger, AIC Managing Civil Engineer— DPW
❑ Ken Vogeney, Emergency Manager— DPW
® Clayton McEachem, Civil Engineer, Development @. Public Works
❑ Matt Stouder, Environmental Services Div. Manager/MWMC General Manager
❑ Kristi Krueger, Capital Engineering Manager, Development & Public Works
® Michael Liebler, Transportation Planning, Civil Engineer, Development & Public Works
® Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall 2, Fire @. Life Safety Department
❑ Ben Gibson, Maintenance Supervisor, Development & Public Works
® Eric Adams, Planning, Willamalane Park and Recreation District
® Ladd Boyce, Keoki Lapina, Springfield Utility Board (Water)
❑ Greg Miller, Springfield Utility Board (Water)
® Sanjeev King, Nick Amann, Springfield Utility Board (Electric)
® Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board (DWP)
❑ Thomas Jeffreys, (EPUD) Emerald Peoples Utility District
❑ Michael Wargo, Willamalane Park and Recreation District
❑ Matt Caswell, Planning & Development Manager, ODOT, State Highway Division
(odotr2planngr@odot.smte.or. us)
❑ Brad Rudler, (Electric) Eugene Water and Electric Board
❑ Tyler Lindley, Eugene Water and Electric Board
❑ Wallace McCullough, (Water), Eugene Water and Electric Board
❑ Brett Yancey, Chief Operations Officer; Springfield Public Schools
❑ Chris Reiersgaard, Asst. Director of Facilities & Operations; Springfield Public Schools
❑ Safe Routes to School, Springfield Public Schools
❑ Chris Carpenter, DPW Building Official
❑ Andrew Shearer, Police Chief, Police Department
❑ Tom Schweiz, LTD, Planning and Development Director
❑ Luke Pilon, Centuryl-ink
❑ Jeff Paschall, Community Development Manager — DPW
® Jeremy Sherer, City Surveyor— DPW
❑ Sunny Washburn, Program Coordinator, Environmental Services
® Sasha Vartanian, (Steve Gallup, cc only) Lane County Transportation - send to
LCPWrPReferral6@lanecounty.gov ONLY
❑ Marie Longworth, Central Lane Communications 911
❑ Monte Brown, Northwest Natural Gas
❑ Jason McDonald, Comcast Cable
❑ Water Resource Coordinator, ESD
❑ Jamie Porter, Rainbow Water District
❑ Kristina Kraaz, City Attorney (Mary Bridget Smith upon specific request)
❑ Allie Camp, Economic Development
❑ Sarah Weaver, Administrative Specialist (DIM Annexations)
Please mark who you would like to attend this meeting and return form and
file to Shannon. Thanks!
Revised: 06/06/2020
DEVELOPMENT
INITIATION MEETING
DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SPRINGFIELD CITYHALL
225 FIFTH STREET
DPW Conference Room 6151616 +Zoom
Meeting Dater Tuesday, November 14, 2023 10.00 — 12.00
1. DEVELOPMENT INITIATION MTG #811 -23 -000236 -PRE 811-23-000239-PROJ Allis Camp
Assessor's Map: Various tax lots in Glenwood
Address: Various addresses in Glenwood
Existing Use:
Applicant has submitted Master Plan proposal for area of Glenwood
Planner: Tom Sievers
The Development Issues Meeting informational packet for this meeting is available on-line for
you to review or print out @ Laserfiche website: www.springfield-or.gov/weblink8/browse.aspx
l,City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
S�PNINGPIE
Development Initiation Meeting (DIM) Requesting 2 Back-to-back sessions
Required Project Information (Applicant. complete this section)
Prospective Allison Camp
Applicant Name: Phone:
Com al
E-mail:
Address:
Prospective Lorri Nelson
Applicant's Rep.:
541-485-1003
Phone:
Com an : Rowell Brokaw Architects
E-mail: lorri@rowellbrokaw.com
Address: 1203 Willamette Street, Suite 210, Eugene, OR 97401
Pro ert Owner: See Applicant List.
Phone -
Com ai
E-mail:
Address:
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: Two maps. See list.
TAX LOT NOS
:41 tax lots. See Tax Lot Inventory.
Property Address: 18 of the lots have addresses, rest do not.
See list.
Size of Property: 30.07
Acres ❑✓ Square Feet ❑
Desari pilon of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal
Pro oral: Property owner initiated master plan
description to this application.
Existing Use; Various uses - commercial, residential, vacant
# of Lots/Parcels: NA
Av . Lot/Parcel Size: NA
sf
Densit : NA du/acre
Prospective
Applicant:
Signature
pv�
Print
Required Project Information (City Zntake
Case No.: Date:
Date: lb l ZJ
Staff., complete this section)
Reviewed by:
Application Fee:
Technical Fee: $0
Posta a Fee: 0
TOTAL FEES: $
PROJECT NUMBER:
Revised 07/20/22 sml of 4
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN CONCEPT
FBI LVA I HiTITIT-TYRN W3 IT 11 FX719 F W,
Background
The Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) engaged the consultant team
led by Rowell Brokaw Architects in collaboration with Walker Macy and The Satre Group
to prepare a Master Plan of the Glenwood Riverfront area. The Master Plan is intended
to govern future specific development plans for the Glenwood Riverfront area,
anticipated to be developed over the next five to ten years. The consultant team is
working with SEDA and City staff, elected officials, and current and potential future
public and private property owners in the Glenwood Riverfront area to develop the
Master Plan.
The following principles have been used to inform the project to date. These principles
were sourced from the solicitation process for both the Master Planner and Master
Developer and from SEDA meetings for the project.
• To connect the community to the river.
• To meet the intent of the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
• To be flexible in approach and timely in outcome.
• To be economically viable in development considerations and property tax
performance.
• To feel right sized for Springfield.
'i' / ROWELL
BROKAW WALKERIMAC"
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
This Master Plan Concept proposes a physical framework of streets and open space,
along with recommendations to guide and support successful future private
development proposals that align with the Glenwood Refinement Plan intent and
strategies for interim uses and phasing of redevelopment on 32 acres of the Glenwood
Riverfront. The Community Vision established 13 vision statements distilled from a
much longer list of desired attributes. A concise summary of the vision shaping the
physical Master Plan is as follows:
Public connection to the Willamette River
Enhancing the river frontage
Inviting public spaces
A mix of uses and housing types supporting a range of households
Sustainable neighborhood development
Promote urban place -making with an emphasis on a network of
pedestrian -oriented streets with well -formed edges.
Establish a Framework of Streets, Open Space and Development Blocks
(Exhibit 1a — Refinement Plan Requirements, 1 b - Proposed Framework Concept,
Drawing A-803 Site Plan Infrastructure)
The hallmark of a successful development master plan framework is the balance of
certainty and flexibility for future private and public partners. Therefore, this Master Plan
Concept establishes a strong framework, with associated 'development scenarios'
within which a variety of alternatives can take place, each fulfilling the framework's core
intent in varied ways.
Focus Park Improvements Along the Willamette River
(Exhibit 2 -Conceptual Park Plan, Drawing A-06 Open Space)
• The river -accessible location is the focal point of the park
• Retain and/or repurpose The Brombaugh Building to activate the park and
provide amenities
• Adjacent uses such as Roaring Rapids help activate public space and Event
Lawn
• Linear park extends along the river to the bridge
Page 2
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
The Willamette River edge is the greatest asset in the study area. Review of the
Refinement Plan and analysis of the site indicates the potential for a river -focused
public open space sequence: one that interacts with the upland development area,
attracts investment, and brings the community to the river. The study area features one
of the most accessible bank areas on this extent of the Willamette, with strong
connections to the islands and Island Park across the river, and potential light watercraft
access. Glenwood has unparalleled natural advantages for becoming the easiest and
best connection to the Willamette River for local and regional visitors.
Create an Active Gateway to the Riverfront at Franklin Boulevard
(Exhibit 3a -Building Re -use Precedent, 3b -Conceptual Rendering)
• Mark a clearly public and inviting entry to the riverfront access at the existing
Frontage Road
• Re -purpose the existing Skillern Building and Hangar Building, retaining some
of the character of Glenwood's past
• Incubate active commercial uses and create prominent, community -oriented
space
• Provide flexible parking/plaza as festival outdoor space that supports a variety
of uses
Existing buildings can have significant value for emergent districts. They provide
low-cost ease of entry for restaurants or craft -oriented uses and they provide the district
with authenticity through connection to history. Existing buildings may eventually be
replaced but often they become beloved and iconic, helping define a district and
connect it to the past and future.
The Master Plan Concept includes the retention and repurposing of existing buildings as
activating uses that frame a clear, inviting physical and visual connection north toward
the riverfront. For generating activity in emerging new developments the rule is: "food
comes first:' It is an initial catalyst or attractor that can secure both community
audiences and additional investment. Food and drink establishments can be a catalyst
for an emerging district since they can draw from a large catchment area and can
attract other commercial activities, which will be vital to support development feasibility
for this site in the near term.
Page 3
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
Connect Franklin Boulevard to the River. Promenade Street
(Exhibit 4 - Promenade Street and Precedents, Drawing A-08 Promenade Street, A-04
Ped Circulation)
Wide, separated ped/bike path connects directly from Franklin Blvd to the River
Ped/bike path extends from frontage road, clearly visible from Franklin Blvd,
through a commercial multi -use plaza
Promenade street arrives at the heart of the park space, connecting to the
Willamette River.
Street begins west of Skillern Building to reinforce the placemaking potential
of the open space between buildings; street and sidewalk meet with wide,
ped/bike path north of the Active Gateway on Franklin Blvd
Buildings oriented to activate promenade and street
It is important to transition from auto -oriented Franklin to a walkable, human -scaled
urban district that connects people to the river. The Promenade Street's generous
ped/bike path should be clearly visible from Franklin, extend through the commercial
hub and associated public spaces, and proceed along the promenade street directly to
the heart of the park at the river edge. From the frontage road edge, this is a three
minute walk It is envisioned as a green, public connection that strongly links Franklin
Blvd to the river. This important north -south street is intentionally narrow in
cross-section to define it as an urban street with building edges activating a
human -scaled public realm. To promote this sense of place, the priority should be for
buildings to front this street.
Street sections for urban place -making
(Drawing A-07 Streets, A-05 Bike Circulation)
• Street design to prioritize cyclists and pedestrians on all streets
• Each street plays specific roles in supporting activity, connectivity, and livability
• Streets incorporate landscape and stormwater planters that enhance
walkability and help to meet stormwater requirements
• Parking in the ROW calms traffic and encourages activity
• On -street parking supports a range of development efficiently, allows more
development intensity within blocks, and promotes small-scale active uses at
street level, including food and drink establishments.
Page 4
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
The Framework Plan includes four primary streets (see Exhibit 1 b). The intent of the
Promenade Street is described above. The intent of the Riverfront Street is to define and
activate the edge of the Riverfront Park while providing beneficial access and frontage
for development across the street from the park. This street can also become a "festival
street' with occasional closures for events that spill out into the park. The East-West
Street acts as a support/service street, providing ample on -street parking and
stormwater management that serves development to the north and south. Finally, the
two North South Streets are intended as safe and functional entry points to the site for
bikes, pedestrians, and vehicles exiting and entering Franklin Blvd. Proposed
cross-sections for each street type are found in . Raised intersections and safe
crosswalks are proposed throughout to prioritize pedestrian safety.
Investing in the permanent district infrastructure of well-designed walkable and
landscaped street edges with on -street parking allows parking lots within development
sites to become future building sites and the next generations land bank. On -street
parking also makes commercial uses much more feasible in the mixed use zone and
reduces or eliminates the need for dedicated off-street parking for commercial use.
Integrate stormwater management within streets and blocks
(Drawing C-01)
Small Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management facilities will
be incorporated into each block and street.
Treatment facilities will meet Springfield standards as well as complete
infiltration through the 5 -year storm for the right-of-way runoff that it collects.
A public piped conveyance system will collect overflow from the public LID
facilities as well as overflow from the proposed development lots.
The piped system will flow into linear ponds, which will overflow into two new
outfalls at the Willamette river. These would be along the leading edge of the
park as an additional educational water quality feature.
Green streets and stormwater management facilities will be multi -functional assets for
the neighborhood. The Master Plan takes a Green Street and Low Impact Development
approach, integrating green stormwater facilities into planting zones along streetscapes
and within public open spaces. All City of Springfield standards for stormwater
treatment and infiltration of runoff from public infrastructure in the master plan area can
be met through the use of these LID stormwater management facilities. In addition to
their function, green street features will soften and buffer pedestrian environments.
Green infrastructure also tells the story of the water cycle within the landscape,
Page 5
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
contributing to public awareness of natural processes. While private development will
meet stormwater requirements on-site, overflow from both private and public sites
would be conveyed through a public conveyance system to the Riverfront Park and
ultimately to outfalls into the Willamette River. These areas of the Riverfront Park offer
opportunities to "daylight' stormwater processes, creating landscape features within
the park that serve stormwater management, educational, and aesthetic purposes.
Establish Development blocks that maximize the potential for high quality
urban development
(Drawing A-09, A-11 and A-12 Development Scenarios)
Dimension of blocks accommodates the types of development that are likely
in the market (see 7/A-09 Likely Development Types)
Block shapes allow rectangular or regular -shaped building forms
Recognize importance of corners: sites are not clipped or eroded at
intersections
The street configuration in the Framework carefully considers the development
feasibility and potential for each block Dimensions have been tested to allow the type
of multi -family building scale that is likely in the timeframe of the master plan. Blocks
can accommodate more than one building. Buildings can wrap the street edges of the
block and have adequate surface parking within the middle of the block. In key
locations, structured parking can be integrated with wrap-around residential to support
additional density.
RIVERFRONT$TREE
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
CONNECTION<d T
TO RIVER 5^
EAST -WEST LOCAL STREET R1+
7
LOCAL COLLECTOR
4:""'1'1§i REET RIGHTINSTREET
\,♦ RIGHT -OUT
REOE'STR14N RIKE 6 TRANSIT FRIEND Y FRANKLIN
Exhibit 1 a: Refinement Plan Requirements
FUTURE
PED
CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM
6 block irami with a special sheet al the censer
2 blocks to the river (B mormwalk)
Roads are In the general location but may shift
"All B(VD
1. Block Susual Conndcsap to Nelllver
Exhibit 1b: Proposed Framework
Page 7
r,.w6l m. fiaorarmam. re
MIDDLE STREET
c"1om♦
\\\:
aROY
/
%/
"All B(VD
1. Block Susual Conndcsap to Nelllver
Exhibit 1b: Proposed Framework
Page 7
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2: Conceptual Park Plan
Exhibit 3a: Building Re -use Precedents - Alpine Ave, McMinnville OR; Indianapolis Coca-Cola Plant
im-
w
A
i
A
DIM NARRATIVEAND EXHIBITS
Exhibit 4: Promenade Street and Precedents
Page 10
I E -THE SATRE GROUP
- 110 Land Use Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
3 375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401
4 (541)686-4540' www.satregroup.com
Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan
8 Development Initiation Meeting -Applicant List
s As of October 13, 2023
ID
Property Owner
Mailing Address
Phone
Contact
City of Springfield
225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477
541-726-3700
Allie Camp
SEDA
225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477
541-726-3700
Allie Camp
Homes For Good
100 West 13th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-3755
Jacob Fox
Lane County
125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Too Blue LLC
PO Box 2055, Eugene, OR 97402
541-302-1778
Eric Marvin
4340 LLC
PO Box 2055, Eugene, OR 97402
541-302-1778
Eric Marvin
Roth & Roth LLC
PO Box 70468, Springfield, OR 97475
541-988-9819
Steve Roth
Tax Lot Inventory- Ovmership Data 10.13-23.xlsx Page 1 of i
I JUTHESATREGROUP
Land Use Planners, Landscape Architects and Environmental Specialists
a375 West 4th Avenue, Suite 201, Eugene, OR 97401
a(541)686.4540* www.satregroup.com
5
e
r
a Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan - Tax Lot Inventory - Planning and Zoning
s As of October 13, 2023
1a
M
11
11
11
11
,a
n
1a
Is
to
11
22
23
24
2s
2e
27
2a
2s
30
31
32
v
34
ss
3e
37
3a
3s
ac
41
42
u
44
45
ere
w
4a
vs
ser
51
52
v
11
Data Source and Note
1. Regional Land Information uses Base (RLIO).
2. City of Springfield.
3. RLID -'Improved' ifImprovement RMV k greater Than Land WV;'Pertial' if Improved RMV a less that Land RMV; vacant' of no Improved RMV.
4. URS HMak Resources Baseline Repod, O &w 29, 2013. No elmdures wihF the MP area were delednined digide.
S. Official Metro Ran, 1231/10, predates adoption of Me GRP and a thus out of dale. Designations lisped here are from the SDN Camp Plan and GRP.
6. CMU = Commerdal MNed4 ss, SAID = Residential hfi e6Use, NO =Neotal Development; MMA = Multimodal Mixed -Use Ara.
WMA7. The MA Avail designation is in e GRP but not Me SCooper....CoopehenaPan.
s:
MAP
LOT
Metro Plant
Plan Designation2B
Gle wootl
Sold Comp
plan Refinement
Plan
Overlay
goer
Designation
Zoning DiArict�
Base Zone Overlay Zone
City Limits'
Inside City
Limits
Lot Size'
mappeal
Acres 9e
Location Nature! Raso..
Fronts Floodwey/ Riparian/
Franklin Fronts Riva Flood Iain Greerma
D y
Improwmen[
Cavern
prwanm
Ino es
Status'''
Hislak
Vaanl Inver) ory
Owners
Name
Map 17-03-3441
100
CMU
CMU
CMU
ND/MMA
GCMU
/GW
8.41
z z
z
z
Too Blue LLC
200
CMU
CMU
CMU
ND/MMA
GCMU
0.45
X
z
4340 LLC
300
CMU
CMU
CMU
ND/MMA
GCMU
0.83
z
z
Too Blue LLC
400
CMU
CMU
CMU
ND/MMA
GCMU
0.79
x
z
Springfield Economic Deallopm ent Agency
500
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
ND / MMA
GCMU, GRMU
1.55
z
Springfield Economic Cal rot Agency
700
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
ND / MMA
GCMU, GRMU
/GW
271
x z
z
z
ISpringfield Economic Development Agency
800
CMU
CMU
CMU
ND/MMA
GCMU
/GW
1.51
z z
z
z
City of Springfield
900
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GCMU
0.18
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1000
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
ND / MMA
GCMU, GRMU
0.16
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1100
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
z
0.15
z
Hemesfa Good
1300
RMU
I MID
RMU
I ND/MMA
GRMU
0.14
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1,100
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
z
0.84
Read
HeMesfa Good
1500
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
CMU, RMU
ND / MMA
GCMU, GRMU
1.99
z
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1700
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
z
0.07
Read
HeMesfa Good
1800
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
z
0.07
z
HeMesfa Good
1900
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
z
0.14
Read
HeMesfa Good
2000
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
z
0.20
z
Padal
HeMesfa Good
Map 17-033442
100
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
/GW
1.49
z z
z
z
RAM &Roth LLC
200
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.18
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
300
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.18
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
400
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.18
Read
Springfield Economic Development Agency
500
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.34
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
501
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.14
z
Springfield Economic Dovdopment Agency
502
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.01
Read
Springfield Economic Dovdopment Agency
500
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.13
z
Lane County
504
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
1
0.27
1 1
1 Padal
I
Springfield Economic Dovdopment Agency
600
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND/MMA
GROW
0.31
z
z
Springfield Economic Dovdopment Agency
700
RMU
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GROW
0.33
z
z
Springfield Economic Cal ad Agency
800
RMU
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GROW
0.31
x
z
Springfield Economic Cal rot Agency
900
RMU
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.40
x
Read
Springfield Economic Cal rot Agency
1000
RMU
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.33
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1200
RMU
RMU
MID
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.47
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1300
RMU
RMU
MID
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.18
z
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1,140
RMU
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.18
Read
Springfield Economic Development Agency
1500
MID
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GROW
/GW
1.36
z z
z
z
RAM &Roth LLC
1600
MID
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GROW
/GW
3.64
z
z z
z
Partial
RAM &Roth LLC
1700
MID
MID
MID
ND/MMA
GRMU
0.26
z
RAM &Roth LLC
1800
MID
MID
MID
ND / MMA
GRMU0.11
z
Rtlh &Rdh LLC
1900
MID
MID
MID
ND / MMA
GRMU
0.16
z
Rtlh & Rdh LLC
2000
RMU
RMU
RMU
ND / MMA
GRMU
I
0.39
I
I Partal
I
lRoth & Rdh LLC
2100
1 RMU
RML
I RMU
ND/MMA
GRMU
1
0.73
1 z
I
I z
I
lRdh&Rdh LLC
Lots 41
Tax Lot Inventory- Planning Zoning Data 10-13-23 xlsx
Asea= 30.07
Avenge= 0.73
Page 1 of 1
0
0
0 `-
0RAssEssmwrA
g
wN
1 /4
1/4 SaECM.
34 Tn.f1yr�S-`R`
.
o
LneCou
0
1^=1 AP
.\ ..
X019-02
00°
\
_... ..�-..�
EM14
CANCELLED
s°
;SOO
\�
019-00
o
0
,......
0
00
°
°
o
O
-0
�o°°°�°°o
o°°°\
°o°o°°o°°
'\ SEEMAP
�<<
°OO
STT
\I
°O �
°o
F
o\
°
\\
°O
0
\
ppppppO
o
�n
°°°°°°°°°w°
°
G 0 0
gR�O °o
I
o
EOo
o °
0
oopOO
o
o
ort0
bOO
\o
SPRINGFIELD
j
17033441
019-99
SEE MP
°O \
o
"°°°
A� `
004-28
°
004-26 °°
00,
ill A.
:I
A
SS
14
oc
_
,ewe a
1 +
AL a �.✓NE COR
<AC
.<aDLCaz i
m�
OD4-- 0
O�w
SEE MAP \
SEE M9 P'
N\GN
17033441
SPRINGFIELD
.\ ..
\
CANCELLED
;SOO
\�
�O
'\ SEEMAP
�nmwx
\I
o\
°
\\
a JNOI
°°°°°°°°°w°
°
G 0 0
gR�O °o
I
o
o °
oopOO
o
o
ort0
bOO
\o
SPRINGFIELD
j
17033441
SEE MAP
'RINGFIELD
17033442
N.W1/4S.E.1/4SEC. 34T.17S.R.3WW.M.
FORASSESSMFNTANC
17033442
Lane County
SPRINGFIELD
.......
SEE MAP
�
1]O]N2O
SEE MAP, - _ _
-
CANCELLED
iT(6L1]1100
p
��
2G11
.1
--
em
SOO
N1
019-02
/
o00000000000000000000000000000000.0000000000000000000000000000000000000
RIVER
0000000000000000
:
004-26N.E.0
R
C.B. SWEET
���pME1tE
Dl.81
1W
4
y
LOTSis
x/r//N/lf!/rrNi
2AV
...
S
�Sl
f/!f/
�.
f
x
, ,
,
,
SE
AP
1]
1
/
pph
9Ol.AC
13
TAC
01
SEE MAP
1]O]]i]11EW
----p
A
i'
01 -TC
OW
S' .
04.2
1.
S,
U
o0
ESO_
;1
o
011A.
oOOC
0 fff/ff//{ffffff
fff/fffffff/{fff/f
{fff/fffffff
ffffff//f
�.pii//*
• ae
5Op
F
Rq
2]N yN
21.
.Aq
oeoo� mo
m.0
/At
r
000
000 e(VO •"
_ _ _
_
___._._____�___
_._._---------_
_`
_ `__._
Is
Is
4ME
M
:e°1.L� wt
SEE MAP
'RINGFIELD
17033442
5 — PLAN I CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
A—PLAN AND CODE CONTEXT
In support of the applicant's request for a Development Initiation Meeting regarding the development of a
Glenwood Rivertront Master Plan, the project description and list of questions herein has been generated
to provide an explanation of the project and solicit information that will assist in the formation of the
master plan. We ask for city review and response to the information and questions presented herein. The
results of the Development Initiation Meeting will help the applicant articulate opportunities and
understand potential issues regarding future development of the property. In advance, the applicant and
its development team thank staff for their assistance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The aim of this project is to elaborate upon the Glenwood Refinement Plan with the development of a
cohesive master plan that will govern future specific development plans for the Glenwood Rivertront
area, anticipated to be developed over the next five to ten years. Select goals of the master plan
include:
• A plan that provides certainty for needed real estate and infrastructure investment, while not
precluding flexibility and adaptation to new or changing conditions.
• A plan that provides actionable real-world direction, in terms unique to the Glenwood area's
specific conditions.
• A plan that can evolve and grow as development occurs, organically helping to transform the
new neighborhood into a thriving urban district.
II. SUBJECT PROPERTY
The subject property is comprised
of 41 tax lots totaling just over 30
acres. It is located in the
Glenwood neighborhood of
Springfield, to the east end of
what the Glenwood Refinement
Plan refers to as the Franklin
Rivertront. Abutting the property
to the south is Franklin Blvd, to
the north and east is the
Willamette River.
The site contains areas that are
undeveloped and vacant,
previously developed but currently
vacant, and currently developed
and occupied. Existing uses are a
mix of commercial and single-
family residential. Plan and zone
designations include Commercial
Mixed -Use in the eastern portion
and Residential Mixed -Use in the
western portion.
2023
III. Master Plan
Please refer to the Glenwood Rivertront Master Plan document included with this DIM application
submittal.
IV. QUESTIONS
A. Plan and Code Context
The applicant has studied what it believes is the complete applicable plan and code context in
terms of developing the Glenwood Rivertront Master Plan. Documents studied include the
following:
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 1 1 23
1. The Glenwood Refinement Plan, including its:
a. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Strategies.
It. Nodal Development and Multimodal Mixed -Use Area designations.
c. River Setbacks.
d. Street Classifications.
2. Other Long -Range Plans, including:
a. Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (adopted 2004, last updated 2019).
It. Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2019), including:
• Residential Land Use and Housing Element (2011).
• Economic and Urbanization Policy Element (2016).
c. Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (2014, last updated 2020).
d. Springfield Natural Resources Study (2005).
e. Springfield Stonnwater Facilities Master Plan (2008), Stormwater Management Plan
(2010), Glenwood Stormwater Evaluation (2019), and Stormwater Concept Design
Memorandum (2021).
f. Springfield Wastewater Master Plan (2008).
g. Public Facilities and Services Plan (2001, last updated 2015).
h. Wllamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan (2012).
i. Springfield Downtown Plan (1986), including the related:
• Downtown District Plan (2010).
• Wllamette River Bicycle -Pedestrian Feasibility Study (2010).
3. The Springfield Development Code.
4. Zone Change Implications.
5. Code Amendment Implications.
Each of these resulted in a detailed review that was commemorated in a series of memorandums.
Rather than present each of those at this time, the following is awry brief summary as to the
applicant's understanding of the particular review's applicability to the master plan.
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan.
a. Goals. Objectives. Policies and Implementation Strategies. In conversations with city
staff, it is the applicant's understanding that an overarching objective in the development
of the master plan is the need for the master plan to be consistent with the refinement
plan's policies, and that the goals, objectives an implementation strategies can be viewed
as policy context'. In focusing on the policies, the applicant's objective was to
understand the status of the policy and its applicability to the master plan.
Overall, there are 94 policies. Some have been implemented (i.e., Policy A.1.a.
regarding the MMA designation and Policy A.2.a. regarding the incorporation of the
GRMU Plan District into the Springfield Code). Some are underway (i.e., Policies B.1.a.
through B.1.g. regarding the re -construction of Franklin Blvd). And some do not directly
apply to the master plan (i.e., the dozen or so policies regarding financial incentives, such
as those found in Chapter 6 regarding economic development).
Overall, the applicant believes that the master plan will be found to be consistent with all
those policies which do apply.
Question: Is the applicant correct in that it is the refinement plan's policies that need to
be addressed and that the plan's goals, objectives and implementation strategies are to
be viewed as context? What would the city need in the master plan application to be able
to confirm policy consistency?
The policies and implementation strategies were adopted and incorylorated into the Springfield Development Code (SOC) as an
Appendix.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 2 1 23
b. Nodal Development and Multimodal Mixed -Use Area (MMA) designations. The applicant
understands that the Nodal Development and MMA designations have been applied to
the Glenwood area as depicted in Figure 2 of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) and
that the land area subject to this master planning effort is wholly within those
designations. In regard to the MMA, page 33 of the GRP offers a definition:
"The Multimodal Mixed-use Area (MMA)
is established where the local
government determines that there is
and/or is planned to be: high-quality
connectivity to and within the area by
modes of transportation other than the
automobile; a denser level of
development of variety of commercial
and residential uses than in surrounding
areas, a desire to encourage these
characteristics through development
standards and an understanding that
increased automobile congestion within
and around the MMA is accepted as a
potential trade-off"
Figure 2
Glenwood Refinement Plan
And on page 44 of the GRP, the applicable Policy and Implementation Strategy is stated:
Designate and zone lard that meets the fundamental characteristics of the Mixed
Use and Nodal Development Area designations, as defined in the Metro Plan, and
Multimodal Mixed -Use Areas (MMA), as defined in OAR 660-012-0060.
o Compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The TPR (OAR 660-
012-0000, et seq.) requires that when making an amendment to a land use plan,
a localjurisdiction shall put in place measures to ensure that land uses are
consistent with the identifed function, capacity and performance standards of a
State or City facility, when the plan amendment has a significant effect on that
facility. The TPR defines "significant effect" as reducing performance below the
minimum acceptable standard in the relevant plan or worsening the performance
of facility otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable
standard. However, a local government may amend a land use plan without
applying the performance standards if the proposed amendment is entirely within
a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA) (OAR 660-012-0060)."
In studying the referenced OAR, this rule (660-012-0060) requires a local government to
put in place mitigation measures when an amendment to a functional plan,
comprehensive plan or land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility. The rule includes an exception to this requirement if the
local government applies the Multimodal Mixed -Use Area designation. This is what
Springfield did with the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
Springfield staff subsequently pointed to the DLCD document "Multimodal Mixed -Use
Area (MMA) Information & Guide for Local Governments," published in December 2012,
as an excellent source of information in terms of the master plan and compliance with the
MMA designation. Staff pointed to the MMA Designation Checklist on page 4 and
recommended that it be a reference while developing the master plan. He pointed out
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 3 1 23
that findings of compliance will need to be part of the master plan application and
compliance with the checklist will go far in that regard.
Question: The applicant understands that there is now flexibility in terms of meeting
standard traffic mobility standards. The state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
requirement to apply motor vehicle traffic standards is lifted. Typical transportation
system performance measures in the TPR such as volume -to -capacity (V/C) or level -of -
service (LOS). Increased street congestion, longer traffic signal wait time, and additional
travel time are acceptable conditions. A priority on the automobile is replaced with an
emphasis on pedestrian and bike -oriented development. Parking regulations are to be
relaxed. The provision of off-street parking is not a requirement. On -street parking is
encouraged and may be counted as meeting parking needs. Shared parking, leased
parking is permitted. Transit, pedestrian, bicycle modes are to be accommodated.
Connectivity is a priority. A gridded street network is recommended. Wide sidewalks, mid -
block connections (visible, accessible, convenient), pedestrian -oriented street crossings,
pedestrian -scale lighting is required. Is this accurate?
c. River Setbacks. The applicant understands that there are seven setbacks associated with
the Willamette River in the Glenwood neighborhood. These, and their impact on the
master plan, are as follows:
1. Ordinary Low Water Line.
a. Definition: Per SDC 3.4.280(C) Willamette Greenway Development Standards—
Definitions, the Ordinary Low Water Line is defined as follows: "The line on the
bank to which the lav water ordinarily recedes annually in a season."
b. Location: For the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan, the location of the Ordinary
Low Water Line has been interpreted from aerial photos.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Some of the river setbacks are measured from the
ordinary lowwater line.
2. Top of Bank.
a. Definition: Per SDC 6.1.110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms, Top of Bank
is defined as follows: "For a given watercourse, the top of bank is ... defined as
the stage or elevation at which water overflows the natural banks of streams or
other waters of the State and begins to inundate the upland..."
b. Location: For the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan, the location of the Top of
Bank has been determined from City of Springfield GIS Mapping.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Some setbacks are measured from the top of bank.
3. FEMA Floodway.
a. Definition: Floodways in the United States are regulated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Floodplains along the Willamette River were mapped by FEMA
based on analyses done in the 1970s, with maps becoming effective in the mid-
1980s. The effective date for the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) covering the
Glenwood area is June 2, 1999. In compliance with the NFIP and Statewide
Planning Goal 7, development in the floodway is regulated by the Springfield
Development Code. Specifically, SDC 3.3.400 Floodplain Overlay District.
b. Location: For the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan, the location of the Floodway
has been determined from City of Springfield GIS Mapping.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Development is not permitted in the floodway.
4. FEMA 100 -Year Floodplain.
a. Definition: Floodplains in the United States are regulated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). Floodplains along the Willamette River were mapped by FEMA
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 4 1 23
based on analyses done in the 1970s, with maps becoming effective in the mid-
1980s. The effective date for the Flood Insurance Rate Map covering the
Glenwood area is June 2, 1999. In compliance with the NFIP and Statewide
Planning Goal 7, development in the floodplain is regulated by the Springfield
Development Code (SDC).
b. Location: Forthe Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan, the location of the100-Year
Floodplain has been determined from City of Springfield GIS Mapping.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Development is permitted in the floodplain subject to
standards in SDC 3.3.430 Floodplain Development Standards.
d. For land use approval, areas within the 100 -year floodplain are subject to the
requirements of SDC 3.3.435 Floodplain Development Permits, processed as a
Type I procedurewhich includes a staff review and a Planning Director decision.
Riparian Setback.
a. Definition: Statewide Planning Goal 5 requires that all significant wetlands and
riparian resources be protected. The 2010 Springfield Local Wetlands Inventory
and Riparian Corridor Assessment documented the presence ofthese resources
in the Glenwood area. As documented on Springfield's Water Quality Limited
Watercourse WWQLW) Map, the riparian setback is 75 feet landward from the top
of bank.
b. Location: For the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan, the location of the Riparian
Setback has been determined from City of Springfield GIS mapping.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Uses within the riparian setback are primarily limited
to riparian restoration and compatible stormwater management components such
as vegetated stormwater quality treatment facilities'. Other permitted uses
include pedestrian pathways and overlooks when located in the outermost 20
feet of the 75 -foot setback (i.e., the 20 feet furthest from the top of bank). See
SDC 4.3.115(8) Water Quality Protection --Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas for
permitted use details. Where the riparian setback will contain some amount of
stormwater management, SDC 4.3.115(C) Water Quality Protection—Standards
also applies.
d. For land use approval, proposed development within the riparian setback
requires approval of a Site Plan Review application. If the area is also in the
Wllamette Greenway, as it is here, approval of a Wllamette Greenway Overlay
District application is required. See 7.d. below.
Greenway Setback.
a. Definition: Statewide Planning Goal 15– Wllamette River Greenway requires a
greenway boundary of 150 feet from the ordinary lowwater line. Within the
greenway boundary, a greenway setback line is also required to delineate where
only water -dependent, water -related uses may occur.
b. For Glenwood, a Greenway Setback Line was surveyed and adopted in 2015.
The primary criteria for locating the setback was intact riparian habitat. Due to
historic property development patterns and past and present uses in the
Glenwood area, intact riparian habitat was (is) quite limited. Thus, the Greenway
Setback is rather close to the river, at times close to or even at the top of bank.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Uses within the greenway setback area (the area
between the greenway setback line and the river) are generally limited to the
same uses as in the riparian setback. See SDC 3.4.280(D)(2)(a) Willamette
Greenway Development Standards—Establishment of the Greenway Setback
Line and Permitted Uses—Inside the Greenway Setback for additional details on
permitted water -dependent or water -related uses for area between the greenway
setback and the river.
' Between the riparian setback and the river, the area between the ordinary low waterline and tap of bank, uses are limited to
preservation, conservation and maintenance of native vegetative ground cover and trees.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 5 1 23
Greenway Boundary.
a. Definition: Statewide Planning Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway, requires a
greenway boundary of 150 feet from the ordinary lowwater line. Development
may occur within this zone as a discretionary use. Within the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Open Space Chapter there are policies and implementation
strategies specifically referencing the Greenway. The policies are intended to
make the riverfront area inviting to the public, preserving and enhancing the
natural qualities of the riverscape and providing areas for recreation, leisure and
stormwater management.
b. Location: For the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan, the location of the Greenway
Boundary has been determined from City of Springfield GIS mapping.
c. Impact on the Master Plan: Development in Glenwood in the Greenway
Boundary area subject to Willamette Greenway Development Standards found in
the Springfield Development Code at SDC 3.4.280(D)(2)(b) Willamette Greenway
Development Standards—Establishment of the Greenway Setback Line and
Permitted Uses—Outside the Greenway Setback. Uses between the greenway
setback line and the outer boundary of the greenway boundary shall be the same
as those in the base zones. If area within the greenway boundary (including the
greenway setback) includes on-site stormwater management components
limitations on the placement of permitted uses may be required as specified in
the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
d. As for land use approval, development within the Greenway Boundary is
discretionary. Proposed development within the greenway boundary area
requires approval of Willamette Greenway Overlay District, Floodplain Overlay
District, where applicable, Site Plan Review and Discretionary Use applications.
The WG Overlay District and Discretionary Use applications are subject to a
Type III review procedure which includes public notice, public hearing and
Planning Commission decision. A Site Plan Review application is subject to a
Type II review procedure which includes public notice and planning director
decision. A Floodplain Overlay application is subject to a Type I review
procedure, with no public notice and a Planning Director decision. When
processed together, the Site Plan Review and Floodplain Overlay applications
follow the Type III procedure. See SDC 3.4.280(F) Willamette Greenway
Development Standards—Development Standards, SDC 3.3.430 Floodplain—
Development Standards, 5.17.125 Site Plan Review—Approval Standards, SDC
5.9.120 Discretionary Uses—Criteria.
Question: Is the above information accurate regarding the setbacks, definitions,
locations, master plan applicability and land use approval? Are the cited SDC references
correct? Are there any others?
d. Street Classifications. Street classifications are not discussed in the GRP. ("Streets" are
discussed extensively, but not their classifications.) Similarly, street classifications are
not discussed in the SDC. (Street standards are discussed in detail at SDC 3.4.270(A)
Public and Private Development Standards—Public Streets. Alleys and Sidewalks.)
Street classifications are however discussed in the Springfield 2035 Transportation
System Plan (TSP). With regard to streets within the master plan area, the TSP includes
the following:
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 6 1 23
Franklin Blvd — MinorArtenal.
• TSP Description: Project R-
13, Franklin Blvd Multi -modal
Improvements. Construct
Multi -modal improvements
on Franklin Blvd, from 1-5 to
the railroad tracks south of
the Franklin Blvd/McVay
Highway intersection. 20 -
Year Priority Project.
$35,000,000.
Riverfront Street — Collector.
• TSP Description: Project R-
12, Franklin Blvd Riverfront
Collector. Construct a new
collector as shown in the
Glenwood Plan; two travel
lanes with on -street parking,
sidewalks and bicycle
facilities. 20 -Yeas As Development Occurs Project. $7,700,000.
Fxarpl
Figure'All TSP Projed
Springfield M35TSP
December 2022
Other Rivertront Streets — Local.
• TSP Description:
Other than
Franklin Blvd and
Rivertront Street,
the streets shown
in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan
as part of the
Franklin
Rivertront Local
Street Network
are not listed as a
project in the TSP,
nor are they
shown on any of the TSP maps.
follows:
amer
Excerpt
Franklin Riv ont Local Street Fan
Glenwood Refnement Fan
2012
They are, however, described narratively as
"The 2012 Phase 1 Glenwood Refinement Plan calls for establishing a grid block
pattern of streets to support redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront to provide
multi -modal internal circulation, disperse traffic, facilitate walking and biking,
orient development to a public realm, and enable clear and direct physical and
visual routes between major arterials and the riverfront."
Question: In regard to the master plan, the applicant's understanding is as follows:
• As for Rivertront Street, because it is listed as a project and shown on TSP maps,
especially the Conceptual Street Map, is an adopted part of the TSP, including its
classification (NOTE however, the location is "conceptual"). (TSP Policy 3.1)
• In addition, although the street has an adopted classification, per the TSP, street
design standards are to be flexible and allowfor appropriate size based on traffic
flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic and environmental impacts.
(TSP Policy 3.3)
• As for the other new streets shown on the Glenwood Refinement Plan Franklin Blvd
Street Network diagram, as they are not listed as a project nor shown on any TSP
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 7 1 23
maps, in particular the Conceptual Street Map, they are not adopted as part of the
TSP, except by reference to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, which is adopted.
Is this information correct? Is there anything else staff would like to add in regard to
street classification —especially in regard to conceptual location and flexible standards?
2. Other Long -Range Plans.
a. Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). With regard to plan
designations, The Metro Plan Diagram, first adopted in 1982 and last adopted metro -wide
in 2004, is out of date. In regard to Glenwood, upon the adoption of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan in 2012, amended in 2014, Metro Plan designations within the
Glenwood Refinement Plan area were amended to match the designations in the
refinement plan. Otherwise, as for the master plan, if the master plan does not seek to
amend the GRP, the Metro Plan does not need to be consulted. (Should the master plan
seek to amend the Springfield zoning map or development code, the master plan will
need to demonstrate consistency with the Metro Plan policies and Metro Plan diagram.)
Question: Is this accurate?
Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Springfield Comprehensive Plan is awork in
progress. Several components have been adopted and are now in effect, including the
Residential Land Use and Housing Element. While there are many policies pertinent to
the Glenwood area, with respect to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Glenwood
Riverfront Master Plan, the applicant believes that the following is pertinent:
• Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
o Goal HG -1. Plan for Growth and Needed Housing.
• Policy H.2. To meet identified high-density, multiple -family housing needs,
the City shall redesignate at least 28 gross buildable acres in Glenwood
Refinement Plan Subarea 8 and the eastern portion of Subarea 63 to
Residential Mixed Use by December 31, 2012. This residential mixed-use
district shall accommodate a minimum of 411 dwelling units in the high-
density category and shall increase the required net minimum density to at
least 28 dwelling units per acre4. Establishment of higher minimum and
maximum densities is encouraged to support the neighborhood commercial
uses and employment uses envisioned in the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
District boundaries and density ranges shall be established through the
Glenwood Refinement Plan amendment process by December 31, 2012.
Question: The applicant is working to interpret the above policy's cited numbers in order
to plan for, at minimum, the correct minimum number of dwelling units. Outlined below is
the applicant's interpretation of Policy H.2:
• While the Policy required the redesignation of at least 28 gross buildable acres to
Residential Mixed -Use (RMU), the GRP ended up with approximately 33.26 gross
acres of RMU.
• The GRP and SDC utilize net acres, not gross acres, as the applicable standards.
• In converting gross acres to net acres, the applicant turned to the Metro Plan which
allows for a conversion factor of "approximately 32%" when comparing gross acres to
net acres in order to allow for streets, neighborhood parks, and other public facilities.
• In alignment with "approximately 32%", the GRP uses 32.5%. Thus, the GRP's
designation of 33.26 gross acres, translates to 22.45 net acres.
Refcrencer to Subareas are iam the Glenwood Refinement Plan's predeowex plan —the 1988 Phase l Glenwood Refinement
Plan and the 1999 Phase II Glenwood Refinement Plan, both authored by the City of Eugene, who had jurisdictional authority for
Glenwood until 1999 when Glenwood was translened to Springfield.
4 The high-density residential category in the Metro Plan is defined as proNding over 20 units per gross acre (which works out to be
roughly equ Valent of 28 units per net acre (28.56 rounded! down) —Metro Plan page III -A-8). In the Glenwood Refinement Plan,
the minimum net densly for the high-density residential area is 50 du/ac, proNding a capacity of approximately 1,100 dwelling
units within the Glenwood Residential Mixed -Use Zone,
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 8 1 23
• Whereas the residential needs analysis identified 411 dwelling units on 28 gross
acres, the GRP's ramping up density to 50 DU per net acre, when applied to its 22.45
net acres equates to 1,122 dwelling units.
• Importantly, these 33.26 gross, 22.45 net, and 1,122 du apply to the GRP area of
residential mixed-use. However, the master plan area of residential mixed-use does
not include all of the GRP RMU. Reviewing RLID data as well as studying the
Springfield zoning map, lot by lot, gives us 17.21 gross acres of RMU in the master
plan area. This 17.21 acres when applying the Metro Plan's 32% conversion factor
gives us 11.70 net RMU acres. 11.70 at 50 du per acre gives us 585 dwelling units.
Thus, 585 DU would be the minimum number of new dwelling units to include in the
master plan.
Is this information accurate? Does staff agree that the minimum number of dwelling units
in the master plan area is 585?
c. Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan. In addition to what is discussed above
regarding streets along the rivertront, the TSP includes two bicycle -pedestrian projects.
• PB -17. Glenwood Area
Willamette River Path –1-5 to
Willamette River bridges
Construct a new multi -use 12 -foot-
wide path from the end of the
existing path, east of I-5 to the;
Willamette River bridges.
• PB -19. Bridge between v�
Downtown and Glenwood or
modify Willamette River Bridges V
Construct a new pedestrian and
bicycle bridge between Downtown b
Springfield and Glenwood or
modify the existing Willamette
River bridges.
Figure 4-2 Year bnprovement Projects
Firm Table 3 — Priority Prgecls Springfield TSP
Question:
• In regard to PB -17, the rivertront path, the GRP contains applicable policies and the
SDC contains applicable standards (at SDC 3.4.270(E) Multi -Use Path). It is the
applicant's understanding that conformance with plan policies and code standards
will address the rivertront path component of the master plan. Is this accurate? Is
there anything else that staff can share regarding the rivertront path?
• In regard to PB -19, see discussion below at 2.i regarding the Downtown Plan.
d. Springfield Natural Resources Study. Adopted October 2005, Updated February 2011.
The Study inventoried wetlands and natural resource sites (riparian areas) within the
Springfield UGB. Within the Franklin Riverfront portion of the Glenwood Refinement Plan
area there were (are) no wetlands and the only riparian area is the Willamette River
edge. The Natural Resources Study recommended a 75-foor riparian setback and a 150 -
foot greenway setback. Both of those recommendations were included in the GRP.
Question: Development standards applicable to the rivertront riparian and greenway
setback areas can be found in SDC 3.4.280(F) Willamette Greenway Development
Standards—Development Standards. Is this correct?
e. Springfield Stormwater Facilities Master Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Glenwood
Stormwater Evaluation, and Stormwater Concept Design Memorandum. Adopted
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 9 1 23
October 2008, March 2010, August 2019, and March 2021 respectively. Much of what is
discussed in the 2008 facilities master plan and 2010 stormwater management plan was
incorporated into the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The more recent 2021 concept design
memorandum contains the latest information applicable to the master plan area (see
diagram below).
ESAConailanls
Marts 2021
Question: Stormwater management requirements for the master plan area have been
well -discussed. No connection to other components of city stormwater facilities. On-site
detention and treatment. Private property stormwater may be detained and treated on
public land (i.e., the riverfront linear park) and in public right-of-way. Pre -development
rate flows go to the river. The master plan will need to demonstrate consistency with GRP
policies as well as the standards at SDC 3.4.270(0 Public and Private Development
Chapter 3—Stormwater Quality and Chapter 4—Stormwater Capacity. Is this accurate?
Is there anything else that staff can share regarding the stormwater component of the
master plan and what is required in the Master Plan application submittal?
f. Springfield Wastewater Master Plan. June 2008. The document is organized into six
chapters. Chapter 5 is system evaluation and Chapter 6 is capital improvements
(projects). As this 2008 document pre -dates the 2012 Glenwood Refinement Plan, the
findings of the Wastewater Master Plan were incorporated into the refinement plan.
Question: Public wastewater facilities exist in Franklin Blvd with lines stubbed northward
to adjacent property. There is sufficient capacity is the system for planned development
along the Glenwood Riverfront, including the master plan area. SDC 4.3.105 Sanitary
Sewer addresses development standards. SDC 5.13.120(E) Preliminary Master Plan—
Submittal Requirements—Wastewater Manaaement Plan addresses master plan
application submittal requirements. Is this summary of existing facilities accurate? Are
there any additional standards that should be addressed?
g. Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). Adopted December 2001, Amendments
through September 2015. The document is organized into six chapters. Chapter 2lists
planned public facility system improvements –water, wastewater, stormwater and
electrical. Improvements within the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan area include:
Water.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 10 1 23
0 Project 102–Water transmission line upgrade to the existing facility under the
WIIam ette River bridge (SUB). (The PFSP listed the new water line as 16 -inch.
SUB subsequently installed a 24 -inch line.)
Wastewater.
0 None within the master plan area.
Stormwater.
0 Project 124– New stormwater outfall into the Wllamette River from the
Glenwood Rivertront master plan area (City). (Three new outfalls are planned.
The other two are projects 125 and 126. Both of these are shown on PFSP Map
3 to be along McVay.)
Electric.
0 Project 12 –New electric substation in the Glenwood neighborhood (SUB). (As of
2023, a newsubstation is under construction. It is located east of Henderson
Avenue, off of East 22ntl Avenue. Though not within the master plan area, the
new substation will provide electric facility capacity forthe planned build -out of
the Glenwood Rivertront.)
Current information
• Water.
0 Latest
from SUB
includes a
proposed
16 -inch
water line
looped
through
the
Rivertront
Wastewater.
0 Refer to SDC 4.3.105 Sanitary Sewer and SDC 3.4.270(H) Public and Private
Development Standards—Wastewater Facilities and Services forwastewater
system requirements and SDC 5.13.120(E) Preliminary Master Plan—Submittal
Requirements—Wastewater Management Plan for master plan submittal
requirements. Awastewater management plan is required with master plan
application submittal.
Stormwater.
0 As shown in the 2021 Stormwater Design Concept above, current thinking is that
therewould three new outfalls into the Wllamette Riverwithin the Glenwood
Rivertront area. Two of those would be in the master plan area. The PFSP will
need to be updated to capture those additional outfalls.
0 Refer to SDC 4.3.115 Water Quality Protection and SDC 3.4.270(1) Public and
Private Development Standards—Stormwater Facilities and Services for
stormwater system requirements and SDC 5.13.120(D) Preliminary Master
Plan—Submittal Requirements—Stormwater Master Plan for master plan
submittal requirements. A stormwater management plan is required with master
plan application submittal.
Electric.
0 Latest information from SUB indicates that, with the new Glenwood substation
and planned feeder improvements (to thewest at the Glenwood Blvd river
crossing and to the east under the Springfield Bridge), electric capacity will be
sufficient for the planned build -out of the Glenwood Rivertront area. Coordinate
electric facility requirements with SUB as the master plan is developed.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 11 1 23
Question: Regarding water, wastewater, stormwater and electric facilities and services,
does this information look accurate?
Wllamalane Park and Recreation District (WPRDI Comorehensive Plan
• Current Plan. The currently in -effect plan was adopted in 2012. It is organized into
six chapters. Chapter 5 itemizes planned system additions and improvements.
Material pertaining to the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan area includes the
following.
o Action 1.26.
• Glenwood Neighbodrood Park Blocks. Wllamalane intendstowork in
collaboration with the city and private partners to pursue development of
neighborhood park blocks in Glenwood. According to the Glenwood
Refinement Plan, neighborhood park blocks are conceptualized as long,
narrow parks bordered by north -south streets, and providing a visual and
physical connection between Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette River.
The park blocks are intended to make the benefits of neighborhood parks
available for the residents and employees of the future planned mixed-use
development, as well as the general public. The two neighborhood park
blocks included in the Glenwood Refinement Plan will be a key component in
the area's revitalization.
o Actions 4.13 and 4.14.
• Glenwood Riverfrond Linear Park A and B. As the Glenwood area is
redeveloped, VNllamalane has an opportunity to work with public and private
partners to develop a riverfront linear park and multiuse path and expand the
popular Willamette River path system. Section A (Action 4.13) would travel
from the Viaduct Path underneath the I-5 bridge, east to the Springfield
Bridge; Section B (Action 4.14)would travel from the Springfield Bridge south
to Seavey Loop Road. The proposed linear park will include multiuse paths,
picnic areas, and river overlooks, and will be a significant regional recreation
and alternative transportation resource. The park will also expand recreation
opportunities for Glenwood area residents, who currently have limited access
to close -to -home parks.
• Updated Plan. The 2012 plan is currently in the midst of an update process. The
above projects remain in the update, with a "Mid-term, 6-10 year" timeline to acquire,
plan and construct the new neighborhood park (Action 1.26) and a "mid-term, 6-10
year" timeline to acquire and plan the new riverfront linear park and along -term, 11+
year" timeline to construct the linear park. However, there is an additional project on
the Wllamalane list.
0 Action 4.15.
• Bridge to Glenwood at Island Park. Work with the city to explore the
feasibility of a bicycle -pedestrian bridge from the riverfront path in Glenwood
to Island Park, per the Downtown District Urban Design Plan (see below.)
— Feasibility is identified with a "mid-term, 6-10 year" timeline.
— Plan and construct is identified with along -term, 11+ year" timeframe.
Question: Information from Wllamalane indicates that the District is flexible on the
location and configuration ofthe park blocks (more on the park blocks follows below).
For Wllamalane it is more important to have a new neighborhood park along the
Glenwood riverfront, preferably in the master plan area. As for the riverfront linear park
and multi -use pathway and new neighborhood park (as an alternative to the GRP park
block), the applicant understands that the master plan will need to document consistency
with the following:
• Wllamalane facility standards.
• Applicable GRP policies.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 12 1 23
• Conformance with applicable standards at SDC 4.2.150 Multi -Use Paths, SDC
3.4.270(E) Public and Private Development Standards—Multi-Use Path and (J)
Public Park and Open Space Facilities and application requirements at SDC
5.13.120(K) Preliminary Master Plan—Submittal Requirements—Public Right-of-
Way/Easement/ Public Place Map.
Is this accurate?
L:f-I .0151111,dis731:1F1'itT.9971'iT•'f=11,.7�A'ii.T7ii1Ib1rRM111n:FTi1brT-.:IF1i1}rr
Willamette River Bicycle -Pedestrian Feasibility Study. These three documents were
added to the scope of the applicant's review from the perspective of the aforementioned
bicycle -pedestrian bridge across the Willamette River connecting Glenwood to Downtown
Springfield. Information regarding the bike -ped bridge is as follows:
• Springfield Downtown Plan.
o Springfield's downtown plan "A Refinement Plan for Downtown Springfield,"
authored in 1986, updated in 2005, does not mention a new bridge across the
Willamette River.
• Downtown District Plan.
o In 2009-2010 Springfield undertook additional downtown planning by
commissioning the "Downtown District Urban Design Plan and Implementation
Strategy" The plan was adopted by the Springfield City Council in September
2010 with Resolution No. 10-57, The plan includes specific references to a new
bike -ped bridge following thewestward extension ofA Street right-of-way (the
Garden Bridge).
• Bike -Ped Study.
o Concurrent with the downtown district plan, 2009-2010, Springfield
commissioned the "Feasibility Study for Willamette River (Springfield) Bicycle -
Pedestrian Pathway City of Springfield, Oregon." The study reviewed the concept
of a new bike -ped bridge across the Willamette River connecting downtown with
Glenwood. It studied three alternatives, with Alternatives A and B focusing on
new bike -ped accommodations attached to the existing west -bound Main Street
bridge, with the third alternative, Alternative C, analyzing a free-standing bike -
ped bridge in two alignments – one following the east -west alignment of the A
Street right-of-way (the Garden Bridge) and a second alignment studying a new
bridge in a northeast -southwest direction. The study looked at a number of
bridge types and included a review of river -related local, state, and Federal
permit requirements. The study concluded with a statement that Alternatives A
and Bwere either not feasible or problematic and recommended Alternative C, a
free-standing bridge either in the Garden Bridge alignment of one closely
following such.
Glenwood coomoeom opym
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 13 1 23
GRP.
o The Glenwood Refinement Plan, doesn't say much about the bike -ped bridge,
but in the Transportation Chapter the bridge is mentioned as an implementation
strategy. "Consider planned future bicycle -pedestrian river crossings between
Glenwood and Downtown, Glenwood and West D Street, and Glenwood and
Dorris Ranch/Buford Park in aligning the path."
TSP.
o As references above, the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan shows a
new bike -ped bridge following the A Street alignment on its "All TSP Projects"
Map and includes it on "Table 3 – Priority Projects in the 20 -Year Project List."
The project is described as "PB -19 Bridge between Downtown and Glenwood or
Modify the Wllamette River Bridges (Construct a new pedestrian bridge between
Downtown Springfield and Glenwood or modify the existing Wllamette River
Bridges) $10,300,000." [The estimate is in 2013 dollars.]
Question: In summary, anew bike -ped bridge is definitely embedded in Springfield
planning. The applicant intends for it be included in the emerging master plan. While
bridge design and alignment may not be determined, studies to date focus on a
Glenwood landing in the vicinity of the east end of Riverfront Street or the east end of
Middle Street. It appears as though the OBEC study preferred the northeast -southwest
alignment. Such a location at the east end of the Middle Street would certainly give
purpose to extending the street eastward to the riverfront. Such an alignment would
provide a visual terminus for the street (an expansive view of the river and Island Park), a
bike -ped connection to downtown, and maintenance/security access to the riverfront
linear park and multi -use pathway forwhich Wllamalane expressed a need. Given this,
what is the opinion of staff regarding the biceped bridge inclusion on the master plan?
3. Springfield Development Code.
The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is organized into six chapters and one appendix.
All development in Springfield is subject to the standards and requirements of the Code. Most
pertinent to the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan effort are SDC 3.4.200 Glenwood Riverfront
Mixed -Use Plan District and SDC 5.13.100 Master Plans. a brief summary is as follows:
a. SDC 3.4.200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District.
o The applicant has thoroughly studied section 3.4.200. It has outlined what are
believed to be applicable requirements and standards and summarized such in
reference to the master plan.
b. SDC 5.13.100 Master Plans.
o There are 14 subsections to SDC 5.13.100. The first 8 subsections are pertinent to
the Preliminary Master Plan, with the following 6 subsections addressing the Final
Master Plan. Master Plan requirements are not detailed here as the applicant
believes that the master plan application will be able to demonstrate consistency with
the 5.13.100 section of the code.
c. SDC Compliance.
o Of the 16 subsections to SDC 3.4.200, the applicant intends to generate a master
plan that can demonstrate consistency with the standards of as many subsections as
possible. Where consistency may not be obvious, the applicant will work with select
3.4.200 subsections for select components of the master plan. These include:
• The master plan's alternative to the Park Block
— 3.4.270 Public and Private Development Standards.
• Street Classification, Location and Design.
— 3.4.270 Public and Private Development Standards.
• Stormwater Management.
— 3.4.270 Public and Private Development Standards.
— 3.4.280 Willamette Grenway Development Standards.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 14 1 23
• Vehicle Parking
— 3.4.270 Public and Private development Standards.
• The retention and re -purposing of select existing non -conforming
buildings.
— 3.4-220 Non -Conforming Uses.
— 3.4.230 Glenwood Mixed -Use Plan District Modifications, and/or
— 3.4.235 Design Standards Alternatives/Exemptions to Design Standards.
• Modifying the list of permitted uses to align with marketplace realities.
— 3.4.245 Land Use Designations, Zoning District Descriptions and Applicable
Overlay Districts, and
— 3.4.250 Schedule of Use Categories.
See B. Master Plan and Code Compliance belowfor details regarding these master
plan components.
Question:
• What is staff response to each of the analyses in B. Master Plan Compliance below?
4. Zone Change Implications (aka Zoning Map Amendment).
As the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan begins to take shape, it has been mentioned that the
Master Plan may contain certain elements which would require an amendment to the
Springfield Zoning Map in order for the Master Plan to be approved. Springfield staff have
advised that it would be preferrable if the Master Plan did not require a zone change.
Approving the Master Plan dependent on a condition of approval that the zoning map be
subsequently amended is problematic. It would leave the Master Plan in limbo while the zone
change processwere underway. Should a zone change process subsequently not be
successful –i.e., not be approved, be denied –the Master Plan would also then become
denied.
However, the applicant believes that ifthe Master Plan proposal is structured correctly– i.e.,
the proposal is consistent with applicable GRP Policies– and that the proposal clearly
explains the rationale behind a change in zoning and that zone change criteria be adequately
addressed –i.e., compliance with buildable lands inventories–that it is conceivable that the
master plan could receive a decision of approval conditioned on a subsequent decision of
approval regarding a change to the zoning map. Thiswould be especially true if an
application for a Zoning Map Amendmentwere submitted for concurrent processing with the
Preliminary Master Plan application. (NOTE: It is recommended that a Zoning Map
Amendment application be submitted and processed concurrently with the Preliminary
Master Plan application.)
Given this, the following addresses the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the buildable lands
inventory and the Springfield Development Code and outlines what is believed to be
necessary to address in the Master Plan proposal in support of a zone change.
a. Glenwood Refinement Plan
Chapter 3 – Land Use and Built Form
Land Use Desionations. Zonino & Subareas
Designations (GRP ppg 31-32)
• The Glenwood Phase I plan designation map refines the Metro Plan Diagram to
illustrate a broad allocation of projected land use needs in the Glenwood Riverfront
(as depicted in Figure 2) and the objectives, policies, and implementation strategies
embodied in the text of the Glenwood Phase I Refinement Plan, all of which conform
to the plan designations and policies of the Metro Plan. The Plan designations
established within the Glenwood Riverfront are as follows:
o Residential Mixed -Use is established where the intended primary use is high-
density residential. However, to increase the development of housing
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 15 1 23
opportunities inclose proximity to supporting commercial or civic uses needed by
residents, limited small scale retail, office, service, and educational uses are
permitted if developed as an integral part of the residential development.
o Commercial Mixed -Use is established where the intended primary use is
commercial and office employment, but where flexibility is provided for high-
density residential to be permitted either in stand-alone buildings or integrated
with the primary commercial use.
Zoning (GRP ppg 33-34)
• Zoning Districts delineate areas that
implement plan designations and
apply land use regulations andJPI�n$.b-A�
Figure
development standards. In the
Glenwood Riverftont, the names of
the zoning districts will be the same
as the Plan designations. These
zoning districts in the Glenwood
Riverfront identify permitted land usetypes and mixes and address distinct
constraints and diverse amenities
that create unique opportunities for
development within the boundaries
of four subareas, as depicted in 3. Primary uses are the principal permitted uses intended topredominate or characterize each
subarea. Other uses are permitted
but are intended to be incidental and Excerpt
subordinate to the primary use.Figure 3
Land Use and Built Farm
Thus, to preserve the land supply of Glenwood Refinement Plan
the primary intended use of each
subarea, the prevalence of these
other uses must be constrained in some fashion; typically, in terms of limiting their
occupancy of a building, development area, or the subarea as a whole. Re -zoning
land concurrently with the re -designation of land will resolve all plan -zone conflicts
that existed prior to Plan adoption.
Subareas (GRP ppg 37-40)
• SubareaA is the Residential Mixed -Use (RMU) component of the plan. Attributes to
consider when contemplating a change in the zone location include the following:
o SubareaA is just over 33 acres. After considering an allowance of approximately
11 acres for non-residential use (streets, public open space, riparian setback)
there is estimated to be roughly 22 net developable areas for residential use.
o At the minimum level of density (50 du/net ac), approximately 1,100 dwelling
units could be provided in Subarea A. (NOTE: SubareaA includes area outside
of the master plan area. About 50%, or 11 net acres are within the master plan
boundaries. That'd equate to approximately 550 dwelling units.)
o While commercial uses are permitted in the RMU zone, they are limited to
ground floor of buildings fronting the public realm (streets or open space), thus
preserving the maximum amount of area for residential use.
o Grid -like street pattern, open space framework, connections to the riverfront as
Franklin Blvd, and efficient circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and lowvolume
vehicles.
• Subarea B is the Commercial Mixed -Use (CMU) component of the plan. Attributes to
consider when contemplating a change in the zone location include the following:
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 16 1 23
o Subarea B is nearly 15 acres. After allowing approximately 4 acres for streets,
open space and riparian setback, there should be about 11 acres for
development.
o Subarea B is intended to provide flexible commercial and/or high-density
residential development in response to developer interest and market demand.
o Commercial uses are to support adjacent residential uses, not be auto
dependent and not compete with uses downtown.
o Residential uses are allowed as a stand-alone building.
• However, no more than 50% of the development area may be developed as
residential.
• This would result in about 4.5 acres of residential and 4.5 acres of
commercial.
Zoning Policy (GRP pg 43-44)
Objective:
• Implement land use and
transportation -related land use
policies found in the Metro Plan,
TransPlan (and/or Springfield
Transportation System Plan), and
the Springfield 2030 Refinement
Plan to support pedestrian -friendly,
mixed-use development in the
Glenwood Riverfront.
Policy:
• Designate and zone land that meets
the fundamental characteristics of
the Mixed Use and Nodal
I� a•".^°.�..-."a
Development Area designations, as
defined in the Metro Plan, and
Multimodal Mixed -Use Areas
°w
(MMA), as defined in OAR 660-012-
0060. (Policy A.1.a)
Consistency:
• This policywas implemented with
Exceryt
the adoption of the Glenwood
P
Figure 2
Lard Use and Built Form
Refinement Plan. Amending zoning
Glarmxxi Refnernent Plan
district boundaries does not affect this policy. Azoning map amendment would not
change the mixed-use, nodal development for MMA designations.
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District — Urban Form
Objective (GRP page 48):
• Implement the Land Use Framework for the Glenwood Riverfront by adopting the
Glenwood Rivertront Mixed -Use District (GRMU) Plan District.
Policy:
• Adopt the GRMU Plan District and apply it to all parcels in the Glenwood Rivertront.
(Policy A.2.a)
Consistency:
• This policy was implemented with the adoption and incorporation of the GRMU Plan
District into the Springfield Development Code (SDC). Amending the zoning district
boundaries does not affect this policy. The GRMU Plan District would remain in place
and remain applicable to all parcels in the master plan area.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 17 1 23
Chapter 6—Housing and Economic Development
Introduction
Housing (GRP ppg 107-108)
• Statewide Planning Goal 10, Housing, requires communities to provide an adequate
supply of land to accommodate a full range of choice in housing type, density, cost
and location throughout the city.
• In 2011, Springfield conducted a study — the Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis (RLHNA) —to determine the City's housing needs for 2010-
2030 and to evaluate the sufficiency of land available for residential uses within
Springfield's UGB.
o The study identified a deficit of 28 gross acres for high-density residential uses
and associated public/semi-public land intended to provide public open space for
higher -density development as well as any needed supporting public facilities
(including streets).
o In response, Implementation Action 2.1 in the Springfield 2030 Residential Land
Use and Housing Element (a chapter in Springfield's 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
directed the designation of at least 28 additional gross buildable acres as part of
the Glenwood Refinement Plan (seven acres ofwhich are intended to provide
supporting public facilities — streets and open space).
• In the end, the Refinement Plan provided 33 gross buildable acres (11 acres
of which are for streets, open space and riparian setback).
• This does not include the approximately 4.5 acres of high-density residential
land in the Commercial Mixed -Use zone.
New Housing Development
Objective (GRP page 111):
• Facilitate the development of new high-density housing units, including affordable
housing units, that enable residents from a wide range of economic levels, household
sizes, and ages to live in the Glenwood Rivertront.
Policies:
• Provide financial incentives for the development of new high-density housing units,
including affordable housing units, through SEDA's tax increment -funded programs,
as funding becomes available. (Policy D.1.a)
• Provide financial incentives for the development of new high-density affordable
housing units through local, state, and federally funded housing and community
development programs, as annexation occurs, and funding becomes available.
(Policy D.1.1b)
• Prioritize and offer opportunities for Glenwood residentswho qualify for new
Springfield- and SEDA- assisted housing to relocate to such housing units. (Policy
D.1.c)
• Scope and plan projects to effectively develop and implement programs that provide
development incentives, such as density bonuses, to developers that agree to
include affordable housing in their development mix. (Policy D.1.d)
• Evaluate and develop parking standards for inclusion in the Glenwood Rivertront
Mixed -Use Plan District that support Plan goals for housing that meet the needs of a
range of households and supports multi -modal transportation choice; maximize
efficient and economical use ofthe residential land supply; and provide sufficient
parking to meet demand, in conjunction with an access system that provides
balanced travel mode options. (Policy D.1.e)
Consistency:
• While incentives, opportunities and assistance programs are not found in the
Springfield Development Code, these policies are adopted policies within the
Glenwood Refinement Plan and SDC Appendix and remain front and center with the
City of Springfield's economic development and housing programs. Amending the
zoning district boundaries does not affect these policies.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 18 1 23
Economic Development — Commercial and Industrial Buildable Land Supplv
Objective (GRP page 118):
• Maintain and/or increase (through parcel consolidation) parcel sizes of parcels in
Commercial Mixed -Use, Office Mixed -Use, and Employment Mixed -Use designations
to preserve Springfield's commercial and industrial land supply.
Policy:
• Prohibit land division of parcels greater than 1 acre that are designated Commercial
Mixed -Use or Office Mixed -Use, unless developed according to an approved Master
Plan. (Policy DA.b)
Consistency:
• In 2015, Springfield complied with the adoption ofthe Commercial and Industrial
Buildable Lands Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis (CIBL).
o CIBL states that "consistent with City Council policies, the areas that are
expected to have the most redevelopment in the plan period are in Glenwood,
especially along the WIlamette Riverfront and Franklin/McVay corridor, and the
Downtown Urban Renewal District."
o The Refinement Plan addressed this requirement with the adoption of
Employment Mixed -Use, Office Mixed -Use and Commercial Mixed -Use plan
designations and zoning districts.
o CIBL identified a surplus of sites planned and zoned for commercial and mixed-
use development.
• There is a surplus of 235 sites less than 1 acre is size and a surplus of 3
sites of 1 to 2 acres in size. It is only when analyzing the need for sites over
2 acres in size that there begins to be a shortage (short 2 sites at 2 to 5
acres, 4 sites at 5 to 20 acres and 1 site over 20 acres). (See CIBL Table S-
2.)
• The average commercial and mixed-use site is 0.4 acres for sites less than 1
acres, 1.4 acres for sites 1 to 2 acres and 3.2 acres for sites 2 to 5 acres.
(See CIBL Table S-3.)
• CIBL addresses supply and demand city-wide and includes commercial uses
of all types.
• A zoning map amendment changing the boundary between two existing zoning
districts— RMU and CMU — in the Glenwood neighborhood does not affect the policy
or CIBL.
o Commercial Mixed -Use will still exist along the Franklin corridor.
o Any change in parcel sizewould be byway of an approved master plan.
Spnnofeld Development Code
Zone changes in Springfield are regulated by the Springfield Development Code at SDC
5.22.100 Zonino Mao Amendments.
• SDC 5.22.110 Review. Zoning Map Amendments may be initiated by the Planning
Director, Planning Commission, Hearings Official, City Council or a citizen. Zoning
Map Amendments involving more than an individual property owner, generally
affecting a large area or that may require a concurrent Metro Plan, Comprehensive
Plan and Refinement Plan amendment'. These are legislative decisions and are
reviewed under a Type 4 procedure with a Planning Director recommendation,
Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation followed by a City Council
public hearing and decision. Public notice and an opportunity to comment would be
included at each step°. The City Council's decision, adopted by ordinance, is the final
' Pel SOC 5.22.11pfAx1l Zoninc Mao Am end ments—Reyiew,an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram shall be requied if the
proposed Zoning Map amendment is not consistent with the Metro Plan dizgam. Both amendments maybe processed
concurrently.
° As most of the property within the footprint of the Master Plan is not yet Inside the city lim Is of Springfield, Lane County may also
need to be involved in processing the application. If so, to simplify the process to a Springfield -only decision, it may be prefemable
to submit and process an annexation application in advance of the zone change.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 19 1 23
local decision. The decision becomes effective 30 days after the decision is made
unless there is an emergency clause in the ordinance or otherwise provided on the
face of the ordinance. The decision may be appealed within 21 calendar days to the
Land Use Board of Appeals.
SDC 5.22.115 Criteria. The City Council must adopt findings that demonstrate:
o Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram;
o Consistency with applicable refinement plans, plan district maps, conceptual
development plans and functional plans;
o Current or planned provision of adequate public facilities, services and
transportation networks to support the use.
o Consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660.012-0060)'.
Question:
• Master Plan. The applicant believes that requesting a change in the boundaries
between the two discussed zoning districts can be found to be in compliance with
applicable plan policies, including the RLHNA and CIBL. In this regard, the applicant
understands that the master plan application will also need to include statements
demonstrating consistence with zone change criteria along with a recommendation to
process a change in zoning subsequent to, or concurrently with, the master plan
process. Does staff agree?
• Zoning Map Amendment.
o Is the application process outlined above correct?
o Will a concurrent amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram be required? Can it be
avoided?
o How about the Refinement Plan diagram?
o And ... will Lane County need to be involved in processing the application? Or
can an annexation application be processed (and approved) in order to make it a
Spnngfeld-only process?
5. Code Amendment Implications (Development Code Amendment).
As the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan begins to take shape, it has been mentioned that the
Master Plan may contain certain elements which would require an amendment to the
Springfield Development Code in order for the Master Plan to be approved as submitted.
Springfield staff have advised that it would be preferrable if the Master Plan did not require a
code amendment. Approving the Master Plan dependent on a condition of approval that the
development code be subsequently amended is problematic. It would leave the Master Plan
in limbo while the code amendment process were underway. Should a code amendment
process subsequently not be successful —i.e., not be approved, be denied —the Master Plan
would also then become denied.
However, the applicant believes that it is necessary for certain specifics within the
development code to be amended in order for the Glenwood Riverfront to truly be
developable. Given this, the applicant believes that if the Master Plan proposal is structured
correctly—i.e., the proposal is consistent with applicable GRP Policies —and that the
proposal clearly explains the rationale behind amending the code and that code amendment
criteria be adequately addressed that it is conceivable that the master plan could receive a
decision of approval conditioned on a subsequent decision of approval regarding an
amendment to the development code. This would be especially true if an application for a
Development Code Amendment were submitted for concurrent processing with the Master
Plan application. (NOTE: It is recommended that a Development Code Amendment
application be submitted and processed concurrently with the Preliminary Master Plan
application.)
' The presence of the Multimodal Mixed -Use Area (MMA) designation will influence what is said regarding the Transportation
Planning Rule,
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 20 1 23
Given this, the following addresses the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Springfield
Development Code and outlines what is believed to be necessary to address in the Master
Plan proposal in support of a development code amendment.
a. Glenwood Refinement Plan
The Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) includes a discussion as to incorporating certain
components of the refinement plan into the Springfield Development Code.
Chapter 3 — Land Use and Built Form
Glenwood Rivertront Mixed -Use Plan District - Urban Form
Objective: (GRP pg -48)
• Implement the Land Use Framework for the Glenwood Rivertront by adopting the
Glenwood Rivertront Mixed -Use (GRMU) Plan District.
Policies and Implementation Strategies:
• Adopt the GRMU Plan District and apply it to all parcels in the Glenwood Rivertront.
o Develop Plan District sub -sections including, but not limited to: Purpose;
Applicability; Land Use Designations, Zoning District Descriptions and Applicable
Overlay Districts; Review; Non -Conforming Uses; Conflicts; GRMU Plan District
Modifications; Design Standards Alternatives/Exemptions from Design
Standards; Phased Development; Schedule of Use Categories; Prohibited Uses;
Use Interpretations; Base Zone Standards; Public and Private Development
Standards; Building Design Standards; and Willamette Greenway Development
Standards.
o Develop development and design sub -sections including, but not limited to:
Street Trees and Curbside Planter Strips; Lighting; Bicycle Facilities; Multiuse
Path; Private Property Landscape Standards; Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and
Loading Standards; Wastewater Facilities and Services; Stonnwater Facilities
and Services; Public Park and Open Space Facilities; Location of Transit
Stations; Signs; Light Manufacturing Operational Performance Standards;
Historic and Cultural Resources; Design Team; Facades(Vertical Building
Divisions; Height; Massing/Building Articulation; Windows and Doors;
Orientation/Entrances; Build -to Lines and Maximum Building Setbacks;
Pedestrian Amenities; Screening Mechanical Equipment; and Parking Structure
Design Standards.
Consistency:
• The above policywas implemented with the adoption and incorporation of the GRMU
Plan District into the Springfield Development Code (SDC). See SDC 3.4.200
Glenwood Rivertront Mixed -Use Plan District.
o Within the Plan District, are a number of sub -sections. The first implementation
strategy above lists those sub -sections. These can be found in SDC 3.4.205
Purpose through SDC 3.4.280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards.
o The second implementation strategy above lists sub -sub -section contents of
SDC 3.4.270 Public and Private Development Standards (A) Public Streets.
Alleys and Sidewalks through (N) Historic and Cultural Resources and SDC
3.4.275 Building Desing Standards (A) General through (K) Parking Structure
Design Standards.
• Each of these will need to be itemized, discussed, determined to leave as is or be
amended. The decision to leave or amend will need to be reviewed from the
perspective of:
o What is desired forthe master plan; and
o How can what is proposed to be amended be amended such that the proposed
amendment remain consistent with applicable policy.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 21 1 23
Sprinpfeld Development Code
Development Code Amendments in Springfield are regulated by the Springfield
Development Code at SDC 5.6.100 Refinement Plans, Plan Districts and the
Development Code—Adoption or Amendment.
• SDC 5.6.105 Initiation. Amendments may be initiated by the Planning Director,
Planning Commission, City Council or a citizen. If initiated by a citizen, amendment
applications are accepted twice a year – on or before January Sin or July Sin.
• SDC 5.6.110 Review. Amendments are reviewed under a Type 4 procedure. Type 4
procedures are considered legislative decisions, and include public notice, Planning
Director recommendation, Planning Commission public hearing and
recommendation, and City Council public hearing and decision. A legislative decision
including property that is outside Springfield city limits must include the Lane County
Planning Commission and the Lane County Board of Commissioners'. The City
Council's decision, adopted by ordinance, is the final local decision. The decision
becomes effective 30 days after the decision is made unless there is an emergency
clause in the ordinance or otherwise provided on the face of the ordinance. The
decision may be appealed within 21 calendar days to the Land Use Board of
Appeals.
• SDC 5.6.115 Criteria. As for approval criteria, the City Council must adopt findings
that demonstrate conformance with:
o The Metro Plan and Springfield Comprehensive Plan;
o Applicable State statutes; and
o Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Question:
• Master Plan. The applicant believes that it will be able to generate and submit a
master plan application that demonstrates consistency with the above refinement
plan policies. The code amendment will be a text amendment. It will not propose to
change the Plan District (i.e., the GRMU Plan Districtwill still be the GRMU Plan
District), norwill it propose to add to, re -number, or delete any ofthe 16 sub -sections
of the GRMU Plan District. SDC 3.4.200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District
will remain intact. Beyond policy consistency, what the master plan application will
do is seek to also demonstrate code consistency. Where it can't, the application will
include proposed amendments to select areas of the code. Does this seem like a
reasonable approach?
• Code Amendment. Setting aside the contents of a Development Code Amendment
application, the applicant believes it understands the application process as outlined
above. Is this outline correct?
B. Master Plan Compliance
While the applicant believes that the master plan will be consistent with plan policies, there
appear to be a few areas where compliance with code standards is not evident (i.e., not easily
explained. Given that, the applicant has prepared a short series of analyses, each addressing a
particular component of the master plan. These areas follows:
1. Park Block.
2. Streets.
3. Stormwater.
4. Vehicle Parking.
5. Non -Conforming Uses (Buildings).
6. Permitted Uses.
Each of these is organized as follows:
1. Regulatory Context.
° As wills a Zoning Map Amendment, Iosimplify lheprocess to a Springfield -only decision, it maybe prefenablelo submit and process
an annexation application in advance of the Development Code Amendment,
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 22 1 23
a. GRP Policies.
b. SDC Standards.
2. Master Plan Proposal.
3. Regulatory Consistency.
a. GRP Policies.
b. SDC Standards.
These are enclosed herein. The applicant askes that staff review each of these memos and
provide an opinion as to the master plan proposal in terms of GRP policies and SDC standards.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 23 1 23
5 – PLAN I CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
B – MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE – 1. PARK BLOCKS
The emerging master plan includes a specific proposal of providing public access and open
space from Franklin Blvd to the riverfront. The analysis herein will cite current regulations,
outline the proposal and analyze the implications of attaining regulatory consistency regarding
the park block proposal. (NOTE: Park Block here is in the singular. Park Blocks in the
refinement plan are plural as there are two park blocks in the plan. However, only one of those
park blocks –the eastern one – is within the master plan area. Hence, we are talking about a
singular park block.)
1. REGULATORY CONTEXT(EXISTING REGULATIONS)
a. GRP Policies
OPEN SPACE – NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN PARK BLOCKS (p. 96)
OBJECTIVE. Provide centrally located and adequate public park blocks to serve
residents of High -Density Residential Mixed -Use development in the Franklin
Riverfront and the general public, as an essential quality of life attribute that provides
a visual and physical connection between Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette
River and that also may be used for storm water management.
POLICY. Collaborate with b1411amalane, property owners, and private developers to
locate park blocks extending north from Franklin Boulevard's access lanes to the
riverfront street between the northern extension of Henderson Avenue and McVay
Highway as conceptually depicted. (Policy CA.a)
Partner with W illamalane to ensure that the park blocks are designed to be safe,
attractive, comfortable, and accessible fora wide range of potential users: to meet a
variety of active and passive recreational needs throughout the year and to be
adaptable to changing needs and uses of surrounding buildings, as conceptually
depicted. (Policy C. 4.b)
b. SDC Standards
Park block policies have been codified in SDC 3.4.270(A) Public and Private Development
Standards—Public Streets. Alleys and Sidewalks and 3.4.270(J) Public and Private
Development Standards—Public Park and Open Space Facilities.
• SDC 3.4.270(A) addresses street design, including the design of the park block street (at
SDC 3.4.270(A)(3)(b)). The only specific reference to the park block #self is that the park
block is to be a minimum of 150 feet in wioth, curb to curb.
• SDC 3.4.270(J) addresses parks and open space, including the design of the park block
(at SDC 3.4.270(J) (4) (b)). There, park block standards include:
o A required minimum with of approximately 150 feet, face of curb to face of curb.
o Support both passive and active park uses.
o Accommodate stormwater management from nearby development and public street
system.
o Maximum length of the park block, from Franklin Blvd to the river will depend on the
block length of a particular development, which may range from 250 to 350 feet.
o The park block standards also include an EXCEPTION.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 1 1 3
The minimum park block width may be reduced without the need for a
modification, as specked in SDC 3.4.230(B)(3), if the Cly Engineer and
Willamalane Superintendent determine that the recreation, transportation, and
stormwater management functions of the park blocks and objectives of park
block policies can be met with a reduced width upon consulting the Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual, the Glenwood Refinement Plan,
Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, or other applicable
technical supplement. The discussion regarding the reduction of the minimum
park block width can occur at the Development Issues meeting specked in SDC
5.1.210(A)(1); or the Pre -Application Meeting specified in SDC 5.1.210(A)(2);
and/or the Application Completeness Check Meeting specified in SDC
5.1.210(A)(3).
2. MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL
The Master Plan is proposing a Promenade Street at the center of the site. The street
has parallel parking, T wide amenity zone and a 14' wide pedestrian promenade on its
east side with two pockets of open space at the north and south ends. Significantly, the
14' wide promenade focuses not merely on pedestrian connectivity but connections to
adjacent mixed-use open space, including:
• A flexible civic use/open space component immediately adjacent to the Franklin
Blvd access lane.
• A pocket of mixed-use open space at the intersection of Promenade Street and
the east -west center street.
• An area of mixed-use open space at the intersection of Promenade Street and
Riverfront Street.
• Continuing across Riverfront Street with a flush -grade pedestrian crossing,
arriving at a river -front neighborhood park.
Per discussions with city staff and property owners, the evolving master plan will rely on
open space at the riverfront park for the original park block for park space. The riverfront
park in the proposed master plan is more than the GRP's riverfront linear park. The
proposed park is larger, deeper and is envisioned to function equivalent to a neighbor
park, with permanent and programmable facilities. The portion of land consumed by the
park block as diagramed in the GRP can be dedicated to the development blocks,
meeting the current goals of the city and property owners.
3. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY
a. GRP Policies
The proposal is consistent with applicable GRP policies as follows:
• Policy CA.a calls for the park block to:
o Be located in collaboration with VUllamalane, property owners and private
developers.
• The referenced parties have held series of meetings, conducted multiple
site visits and have been, and are, working collaboratively to determine
the best location for the park.
o Extend from Franklin Blvd access lane to the riverfront.
• The public open space is planned to extend from Franklin Blvd to the
riverfront.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 2 1 3
o Be as conceptually depicted in Figure 10.
• The location of the proposed flexible -use open space, pedestrian
promenade and dverfront park is essentially in the same location as the
eastern park block in Figure 10.
Policy CA.b calls for the park block to:
o Be safe, attractive, comfortable and accessible to a wide range of potential
users. meet a wide variety of active and passive recreational needs throughout
the year. be adaptable to changing needs and uses of surrounding buildings. as
conceptually depicted in Figures 11, 12 and 13.
• The proposed park will be open, accessible and visible from the street. It will
be visible from surrounding properties. It is being programmed for both
active and passive recreational uses including a large open lawn area for
concerts, plays or other similar events, a children's play area, a picnic area,
boardwalks and overlooks and river access for bathers and non -motorized
watercraft. As depicted in Figures 11, 12 and 13, there will be paved
walkways, pedestrian -scale lighting, park benches and shade trees.
b. SDC Standards
The proposal is consistent with applicable SDC standards as follows:
• The promenade extends from Franklin Blvd to the riverfront park.
• The open space uses the EXCEPTION noted above to address width and
area, including the provision of pockets of open space and connections to
adjacent mixed-use flexible civic space.
• Supports both passive and active activities.
• Is consistent with standards regarding stormwater management.
4. DIM QUESTION
Given the specific information above regarding the location, extent, characteristics and
components of the proposed Promenade Street, Promenade Path and Riverfront Park
does staff agree that the proposal can be found to be consistentwith applicable GRP
policies and SDC standards?
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN—DIM 3 1 3
5 - PLAN / CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
B - MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE -2. STREET CLASSIFICATION, LOCATION AND DESIGN
The current master plan includes streets that meet the intent of the code yet deviate in order to
provide additional parking within the ROW (Right of Way).
See drawing A-07 & A-08 for street plans and sections.
1. REGULATORY CONTEXT(EXISTING REGULATIONS)
a. GRP Policies
TRANSPORTATION - FRANKLIN RIVERFRONT - LOCAL STREET NETWORK (P. 61)
OBJECTIVE. Establish a grid block pattern of streets to support redevelopment of
the Franklin Riverfront that provides multi -modal internal circulation, disperses traffic,
facilitates walking and biking, orients development to a public realm, and enables
clear and direct physical and visual routes between Franklin Boulevard and the
rtverfront.
POLICY.
Partner with property owners and private developers to fund, dedicate right-of-way,
design, and construct an interconnected local street system in the Franklin Riverfront
that improves access, mobility, safety, and comfort for vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists, as conceptually depicted in Figure 4. (Policy B.2.a)
Design north -south through streets to support and provide direct access to the
mixed-use development facing these streets, and increase safety, comfort, and
attractiveness for bicyclists and pedestrians, as conceptually depicted in Figure 6.
(Policy B.2.b)
Design east -west service streets to: provide vehicular access forparking, loading,
and collection services to inner block mixed-use development sites, increase safety,
comfort, and attractiveness for bicyclists and pedestrians, and provide direct access
to and support for the mixed-use development facing these streets, as conceptually
depicted in Figure 6. At least one of the service streets must be a through street.
(Policy B.2.c)
Design an east -west rtverfront through street to support and provide direct access to
the mixed-use development facing this street, and to increase safety, comfort, and
attractiveness for bicyclists and pedestrians, as conceptually depicted in Figures 7,
8, and 9. (Policy B.2.d)
b. SDC Standards
Streets are addressed in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) as follows:
STREET CLASSIFICATION is referenced in the SDC at SDC 3.4.275(G)
Building Design Standards—Orientation/Entrances. There, it is in reference to a
building's primary entrance on a corner lot facing the streetwith a higher
classification. Street classification in regard to location or design is not
mentioned.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN -DIM 1 1 8
• STREET LOCATION is referenced indirectly in the SDC at SDC 3.4.270(A)(2)(b)
Public and Private Development standards—Public Streets. Alleys and
Sidewalks—Franklin Riverfront Local Street Network. There it states:
"A grid street pattern shall be designed and constructed to include north -south
through streets, park block streets, a riverfmnt street, east -west service streets
and alleys..."
• STREET DESIGN is referenced in the SDC at 3.4.270 with specific design criteria
and options.
RIVERFRONT STREET - options
Angled Parking - Figure 3.4-A2
Reverse Angled Parking - Figure 3.4-A3
PARK BLOCK STREETS -
options
Angled Parking One Side -
Figure 3.4-131
Parallel Parking Two Sides
- Figure 3.4-132
Parallel Parking One Side -
Figure 3.4-133
COLLECTOR STREET - options
Parallel Parking Two Sides w/ Buffered Bike Lane - Figure 3.4-C1
Parallel Parking Two Sides w/ Separated Bike Lane - Figure 3.4-C2
TYPICAL STREET
Parallel Parking Two Sides - Figure 3.4-D1
BLOCK LENGTH (SDC 3.4.270 (A)(2)(c)
Block length and width shall range from 250 to 350 feet.
MID -BLOCK CONNECTORS /ALLEYS (SDC 3.4.270 (A)(2)(d)
Mid -block connectors or alleys shall be designed and constructed either mid -way
or every 250 to 350 feet in those larger blocks that exceed the block length
standard specked in SDC 3.4.270(A)(2)(c). In addition, alleys shall be limited to
the grid street pattern area described in SDC 3.4.270(A)(2)(b), and shall be used
as specked in SDC 3.4.270(G)(11).
VEHICLE PARKING
Vehicle Parking - General (SDC 3.4.270 (G) (4)
Locating and designing all required vehicle parking to minimize the visibility of
parked cars to pedestrians from street fmntages.
Types of Vehicle Parking Facilities Permitted (SDC 3.4.270 (G)(5)(a)
1. On -street parking
ii. Above ground and underground parking structures
iii. Surface parking facilities located in interior courts
iv. Parking facilities incorporated within or on top of building
c. Multimodal Mixed -Use Area
The Multimodal Mixed -Use Area (MMA) designation of property in the master plan
area addresses street classification, location and design indirectly.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN -DIM 2 1 8
The Glenwood Refinement Plan includes a definition of MMA which ends with the
statement: "...increased automobile congestion within and around the MMA is
accepted..." (GRP pg 33)
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060:
o Allows a local government to amend a land use plan without applying
performance standards where the MMA designation is in place.
o Allows the local government to not require the application of performance
standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g., volume to capacity
ratio (V/C) or level of service (LOS)), traffic delay, or longer travel time.
o Allows the local government to not require the provision of off-street parking,
nor apply regulations that require lower levels of off-street parking than
required in other areas, and allow flexibility to meet parking requirements
(e.g., count on -street parking).
d. Springfield Transportation System Plan
Streets are addressed in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) as follows:
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) includes information
regarding street classification, location and design for streets within the master plan
area.
FUTURE STREETS:
Franklin Blvd. — Minor Arterial
TSP Description: Project R-13, Franklin Blvd Multi -modal Improvements.
Construct Multi -modal improvements on Franklin Blvd, from 1-5 to the railroad
tracks south of the Franklin Blvd/McVay Highway intersection. 20 -Year Priority
Project. $35,000,000.
Riverfront Street - Collector
TSP Description: Project R-12, Franklin Blvd Riverfront Collector. Construct a
new collector as shown in the Glenwood Plan. two travel lanes with on -street
parking, sidewalks and bicycle facilities. 20 -Years As Development Occurs
Project. $7,700,000.
All Other Streets — Local Street
TSP Description: Other than Franklin Blvd and Riverfront Street, the streets
shown in the Glenwood Refinement Plan as part of the Franklin Riverfront Local
Street Network are not listed as a project in the TSP, nor are they shown on any
of the TSP maps. They are, however, described narratively as follows:
"The 2012 Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan calls for establishing a grid block
pattern of streets to support redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront to provide
multi -modal internal circulation, disperse traffic, facilitate walking and biking,
orient development to a public realm, and enable clear and direct physical and
visual routes between major arterials and the rtverfront."
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN—DIM 3 1 8
2. MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL
a. Street Classification
The master plan does not propose to change the classification of any of the streets in
the master plan area.
b. Street Location
The location of streets is a direct response to existing conditions / buildings and
discussions at meetings with city staff, VMllamalane, Homes for Good and property
owners.
The block size is in response to discussions with local developers, informing the
team on the size and scale of likely building projects (meeting the project goal of
increasing the development potential of the site).
c. Street Design
The street design is intended to follow the design as noted in the SDC with some
deviations as follows:
RIVERFRONT STREET — proposed
Angled Parking - Figure 3.4-A2 SIM. (SEE Detail 1IA-07)
A.
Directional
2 -way.
B.
Sidewalk
7 feet w a^ setbadk both skies
10' wide sidewalk / amenity zone, south side.
12' wide sidewalk / amenity zone, north side.
C.
Amenity Zone
Amenity Zone within 10' wide sidewalk, south side.
D.
Amenity Zone
7 foot hahvggn straRt and s dowalk, north s de.
Amenity Zone within 12' wide sidewalk, north side.
E.
Street Lighting
Decorative.
F.
Intersections
Raised, stamped ^^tteRl v bFa^t ^^'^•
G.
Bollards
Decorative, at intersection curb returns.
H.
Crosswalks
Raised, damped pattern, v brant ^^'^r
I.
Parking
Parallel, angled, :eveFse aRyld, seuth s'^'^ ^^Ay.
J.
Bulb -outs
Extend 2 feet out from the parking striping.
K.
Parking
Installed on the south side of the street.
L.
Parking
Shall rret be installed on the north side of the street.
M.
Travel Lanes
10 feet wide.
• The design team is proposing that the Riverrront Street meet the
requirements of Figure 3.4-A2 with the exceptions noted above.
• Angled parking allows cars to park with exhaust facing the street in lieu of the
sidewalk.
• 45 -degree angled parking will maximize the amount of parking.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN—DIM 4 1 8
• Parking on the north side of the street will offset parking within the park
Parking on both sides of the street will help slow traffic.
• Street trees are proposed at islands between parking stalls (tree islands
every 6' parking space). Additional trees will be placed within the park while
leaving openings for views of the river from the riverfront street.
PARK BLOCK STREETS — proposed
Parallel Parking Two Sides —See Typical Street below
Angled Parking Two Sides — Figure 3.4-A2 SIM. (SEE Detail 2IA-07)
A.
Directional
2 -way.
B.
Sidewalk
.
C.
Amenity Zone
10' wide sidewalk / amenity zone, south side.
D.
Street Lighting
10' wide sidewalk / amenity zone, north side.
C.
Amenity Zone
7 foot hahvnian strent and s dowalk, sowth s de.
F.
Bollards
Amenity Zone within 10' wide sidewalk, south side.
D.
Amenity Zone
Raised, stamped ^^tt^•^ v brapt color.
H.
Bulb -outs
Amenity Zone within 10' wide sidewalk, north side.
E.
Street Lighting
Decorative.
F.
Intersections
Raised, `tamped pattern, v brant color
G.
Bollards
Decorative, at intersection curb returns.
H.
Crosswalks
Raised, stamped pattern, v brant color.
I.
Parking
Parallel, angled, reverse-aagleA, y.
J.
Bulb -outs
Extend 2 feet out from the parking striping.
K.
Parking
Installed on the south side of the street.
L.
Parking
Shall Pot be installed on the north side of the street.
M.
Travel Lanes
10 feet wide.
COLLECTOR STREET — proposed
Parallel Parking Two Sides w/ Buffered Bike Lane — Figure 3.4-C1 (SEE Detail
3IA-07)
A.
Directional
2 -way.
B.
Sidewalk
7 -foot wide, setback, both sides.
C.
Amenity Zone
7 -foot between street and sidewalk, both sides.
D.
Street Lighting
Decorative.
E.
Intersections
Raised, stamped pa#srn, v brant color
F.
Bollards
Decorative, at intersection curb returns.
G.
Crosswalks
Raised, stamped ^^tt^•^ v brapt color.
H.
Bulb -outs
Parking bulb -outs shall be a minimum of 9 -feet wide.
I.
Parking
7 -foot wide, both sides.
J.
Travel Lanes
10 feet wide.
K.
Bike Lanes
6 -foot wide with striped 2 -foot buffered area between
the bike lane and the travel lane and 2 -foot buffered
area between the bike lane and parking lane.
• The design team is proposing that the Collector Street meet the requirements
of Figure 3.4-C1 with the exceptions noted above.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN—DIM 5 1 8
• Given that the development is only 2 blocks long, buffered bike lanes in lieu
of separated bike lanes allow bikes to remain on the street without
interference of the sidewalk.
TYPICAL STREET -_proposed
Parallel Parking Two Sides — Figure 3.4-D1 (SEE Detail 4IA-07)
A.
Directional
2 -way
B.
Sidewalk
7 -foot wide, setback, both sides.
C.
Amenity Zone
7 -foot between street and sidewalk, both sides.
D.
Street Lighting
Decorative.
E.
Intersections
Raised, stamped pattern, v brant ^^ or
F.
Bollards
Decorative, at intersection curb returns.
G.
Crosswalks
Raised, stamped pattern, v brant ^^ ^•
H.
Bulb -outs
Extend 2 feet out from the parking striping.
I.
Parking
7 -foot wide, both sides.
J.
Travel Lanes
10 feet wide.
BLOCK LENGTH (SDC 3.4.270 (A)(2)(c)
Block length and width shall range from 250 to 350 feet.
The block size is larger than the prescribed range.
As a comparison — see A-xx comparing a street network similar to the GRP
diagram vs the current master plan. The GRP street network did not take into
account the possibility of keeping several buildings or the type of development
that the market might demand.
Sheets A-11 & A-12 illustrate proposed development at the anticipated scale that
development can support right now. The block size for GRP street network
cannot accommodate more than one building on a block, leaving other sides of
the block with nothing more than surface parking visible from the streets.
There has been much discussion at meetings about keeping the 5 buildings
shown on the plans. Developers see these as an affordable first step to
development in the area, creating momentum for development in other blocks.
The street network accommodates those buildings in the current master plan.
MID -BLOCK CONNECTORS /ALLEYS
Alleys /mid -block connectorswill be provided as diagrammed in the site plan.
VEHICLE PARKING
The design team has shown 'development scenarios' as this is not a submittal for
a specific development. Based on our understanding of the current development
market, surface parking will likely be a part of design for the first phases of
development. We have shown surface parking, tuck under parking, structured
parking and parking that is visible from street frontages. Visible surface parking
has been limited but will need to be a part of the design in order to meet
developer proformas. As time passes and more pressure for housing increases,
surface parking can be seen as a future building site.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN—DIM 6 1 8
3. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY
a. GRP Policies
The proposal is consistent with applicable GRP objectives and policies for street
classifications, location and design.
Street classifications remain as specified.
Street locations form a grid pattern as conceptually depicted in GRP Figure 4.
o There is a dverrront street –the northernmost street paralleling the river.
o There are collector streets –the northern extension of the Franklin -McVay
intersection, from the smaller of the two roundabouts and the northern
extension of Mississippi Street.
o There is a typical street– the east -west through street mid -way between
Franklin Blvd and the riverfront street.
o There is a park block street – referred to as Promenade Street in the master
plan, a north -south local street connecting Franklin Street northward to the
dverfront street ending at the master plan's 'park block7riverrront linear park
and multi -use pathway.
Street design is as conceptually depicted in GRP Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9.
b. SDC Standards
The proposal is consistent with applicable SDC Standards for street classifications,
location and design.
There shall be a grid pattern of streets.
There shall be mid -block connectors and/or alleys.
There are four types of streets, each with a proscribed set of design standards.
They shall be as described in the GRP Transportation Chapter policies. (See
1.a—Regulatory Context -GRP Policies above.)
o As for street location, the street grid is to be as conceptually depicted as
shown in the GRP Figure 4 – Franklin Riverrront– Local Street Network.
o As for street design, the streets are to be as conceptually depicted in GRP
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9.
In terms of the street design, when considering the MMA and TSP regarding
flexibility, and GRP regarding conceptual depiction, the street component of the
master plan is consistent with SDC standards at SDC 3.4.270(A0, (B), (C) and
(G).
c. Multimodal Mixed -Use Area
The street component of the proposed master plan is consistent with the MMA.
• In regard to street classification, location and design and the master plan, the
MMA designation provides:
o A street system where an increase in automobile congestion is acceptable.
o Where the application of performance standards is not required.
o Where flexibility in meeting parking requirements is allowed.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN–DIM 7 1 8
d. Springfield Transportation System Plan
The street component of the proposed master plan is consistent with the Springfield
TS P.
The master plan acknowledges the flexible nature of local streets (TSP Policy
3.1) and that street design standards are to be flexible (TSP Policy 3.3).
o TSP Policy 3.1 —Adopt and Maintain a Conceptual Street Map.
• Action 2: The Conceptual Street Map will indicate the approximate
location of planned "local" classified streets on the adopted map. These
"local" streets are not intended to be adopted on the map. Rather, they
are shown as reference. Streets classified as collectors and arterials will
be adopted on the map and are considered part of the 2035 TSP.
o TSP Policy 3.3 - Street design standards should be flexible and allow
appropriate -sized local, collector, and arterials streets based upon traffic flow,
geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and environmental impacts.
The master plan acknowledges project R-12, the riverfront street, as including
on -street parking.
4. DIM QUESTION
a. Does staff concur with the applicant's analysis regarding regulatory consistency of
the street component of the master plan?
b. Does staff see anything in the street component proposal that might rise to the level
of requesting a modification (SDC 3.4.230—Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan
District Modifications) or a design standard alternative or exemption (SDC 3.4.235—
Design Standards Altematives/Exemptions from Design Standards)? If so, what
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN—DIM 8 1 8
5 — PLAN I CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
B — MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE — 3. STORMINATER MANAGEMENT
In terms of stormwater management, the master plan intends to align with code standards. To
make certain of that, this analysis has been generated. The analysis below will cite current
regulations, outline the proposal and analyze the implications of the emerging master plan's
initial proposal regarding stormwater management.
1. REGULATORY CONTEXT(EXISTING REGULATIONS)
a. GRP policies
OPEN SPACE - RIPARIAN AREAS AND WETLANDS (p 87)
OBJECTIVE. Provide ample opportunities forpeople to access and enjoy the Willamette
River and the natural environment while. complying with State and Federal Regulations,
providing stable riverbanks, and conserving, protecting, restoring, and establishing a
diversity of riparian habitats and wetlands in orderto retain theirproperly functioning
condition related to fish and wildlife habitat, riverine flood control, sediment and erosion
control, waterquality, and groundwaterprotection.
POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES:
• Restore, enhance, and protect the riverbank and riparian and wetland areas. (Policy
C.1.a.)
o Pursue funding forpublic/private partnerships to achieve riverbank re -shaping/
benching, stabilization, and riparian and aquatic habitat restoration, as
conceptually depicted in Figure 5a (also see Riverfront Linear Park objective).
• Integrate natural resources, urban interface/built environment, and water resources
management. (Policy C. l.b.)
o Allow for Low Impact Development approaches for Stormwater Quality
Management facilities and/or wetland educational parks that establish or restore
natural stormwater functions to be within the riparian boundary and setback, as
depicted in Figures 7 and 8.
OPEN SPACE — NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN PARK BLOCKS (p 96)
OBJECTIVE. Provide centrally located and adequate public park blocks to serve
residents of High -Density Residential Mixed -Use development in the Franklin Riverfmnt
and the general public, as an essential quality of life attribute that provides a visual and
physical connection between Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette River and that also
may be used for stormwater management.
POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES:
• Collaborate with W illamalane, property owners, and private developers to locate park
blocks extending north from Franklin Boulevard's access lanes to the rtverfront street
between the northern extension of Henderson Avenue and McVay Highway, as
conceptually depicted in Figure 10. (Policy C. 4.a.)
o Size the park blocks to compatibly meet recreation, pedestrian connectivity, and
stormwater management needs, with a minimum 150 -foot width from face of curb
to face of curb.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 1 1 7
o Considerpark user safety when designing stormwater management facilities in
the park blocks.
o Balance the space and configuration needed for functional, attractive, and
educational stormwater management facilities with the space and configuration
needed for functional, attractive, and educational active and passive park space.
OPEN SPACE - RIVERFRONT LINEAR PARK (p 98)
OBJECTIVE. Establish a linearpark with a multi -use path along the Willamette Riverin
the Glenwood Rivertmnt that is sensitive to riparian areas, wetlands, and scenic values
and appropriate in size and type for the surrounding urban environment in order to bring
people and activity to the rivertront, augment the existing natural and recreational
Willamette River open space corridor in the region, promote tourism, and enable
recreationaUeducational appreciation of Glenwood's natural resources and open
space/scenic areas.
POLICY.
• Collaborate with W ilamalane and others as appropriate to develop river edge variety
along the linearpark corridor, as conceptually depicted in Figures 10 and 14, protect
lands within the coterminous Riparian and Willamette Greenway Setback area,
integrate a variety of passive recreation spaces with abutting natural resources, and
implement riparian protection and enhancement measures and stormwater
management features. (Policy C.5.a.)
OPEN SPACE-STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT (p 103)
OBJECTIVE. Use LID stomnvater elements to replicate the hydrologic cycle processes
that have been lost in urban areas to manage stomnvater discharges, integrate site
development with the public infrastructure, transportation facilities, park blocks, and
Riparian and Willamette Greenway Setback area, and integrate Springfield's Stormwater
Management Plan standards with the anticipated high intensity development levels in
the Glenwood Rivertmnt.
POLICY.
• Ensure adequate Stormwater Quality Management planning, emphasizing the
natural hydrologic processes that minimize negative impacts on water quality, flow
volumes, duration, and quantity resulting from development and redevelopment.
(Policy C.6. a.)
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES - PRIVATE STORMWATER SYSTEMS (p 134)
OBJECTIVE. Encourage development and redevelopment in the Glenwood Rivertmnt
by enabling property owners to utilize a range of options to manage stormwater runoff
through LID, and reducing the expense incurred to install a conventional stormwater
collection system in order to provide for stormwater quality treatment.
POLICIES:
• To the extent practicable, amend the Springfield Development Code and the
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to facilitate the
use of LID techniques to achieve stormwater quality and optimal capacity
management. (Policy E.4. a.)
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN - DIM 2 1 7
• Allow the use of mechanical stormwater treatment, where necessary. (Policy E.4. b.)
• Allow the use of public infrastructure (if available for overflow capacity), where
necessary. (Policy E.4.c.)
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES- PUBLIC STORMWATER SYSTEMS (p 136)
OBJECTIVE. Provide a public stormwater system capable of serving and managing
existing and future development and redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront, and
that provides for conveyance and treatment of stormwater runoff Place and design
these facilities to maximize infiltration and mimic natural hydrology.
POLICY.
• Provide stormwater runoff management in response to a demand for urban levels of
development and adopted CIP priorities. (Policy E.5.a.)
Fmidn Rise nl&l wafer CwcetDegn - DRAFT
ESA Cmsullanh:
M.h 2021
b. Other Long -Range Plans
• Springfield Stormwater Facilities Master Plan, Stormwater Management Plan,
Glenwood Stormwater Evaluation and Stormwater Concept Design Memorandum.
o October 2008, March 2010, August 2019, and March 2021 respectively. Much of
what is discussed in the 2008 facilities master plan and 2010 stormwater
management plan was incorporated into the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The
more recent 2021 concept design memorandum contains the latest information
applicable to the master plan area (see diagram above).
Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP).
o Adopted December 2001, Amendments through September 2015. The document
is organized into six chapters. Chapter 2lists planned public facility system
improvements -water, wastewater, stormwater and electrical. Stormwater
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN - DIM 3 1 7
management improvements within the Glenwood Riverfront Master Plan area
include:
• Stormwater.
Project 124 - New stormwater outfall into the Willamette River from the
Glenwood Riverfront master plan area (City). (Three new outfalls are now
planned.)
c. SDC Standards
Stormwater management policies for the Glenwood Riverfront have been codified in
SDC 3.4.250 Schedule of Use Cateaodes, SDC 3.4.270 Public and Private
Development Standards, and SDC 3.4.2801Mllamette Greenway Development
Standards.
• SDC 3.4.250 includes stormwater management facilities as a primary use in the Park
Block use in the Public Open Space category in the Residential Mixed -Use Zone.
o "Park blocks to include recreational facilities and stormwatermanagement
facilities."
• SDC 3.4.270(A) Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks at (3)(b) includes stormwater
management facilities as a design component for the Park Block Street.
o "Storm water treatment shall be installed between the curb and sidewalk. It shall
treat all impervious surfaces that are in the public right-of-way and shall be sized
accordingly."
SDC 3.4.270(F) Private Property Landscape Standards, at (4)(c) regarding the L3
Standard, addresses stormwater management by specifying that landscape islands
and tree wells in the interior of a parking area to also function as a stormwater
infiltration facility.
"(c) The L3 standard serves 3 purposes: to eliminate stormwater runoff through
infiltration swales and other measures, to provide shade, and for screening.
(i) Infiltration planter islands, infiltration planter basins between parking aisles,
infiltration tree wells and required parking lot setbacks shall be used to
accommodate stormwater runoff as specked in the Springfield Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual."
SDC 3.4.270(1) Stormwater Facilities and Services requires the following for public
stormwater facilities:
"(a) Public stormwater facilities shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement
Plan Open Space and Public Facilities and Services chapters.
(b) Public stormwaterpolicies and implementation strategies shall be as specified in
the Appendix.
(c) Public stormwater facilities shall be designed and constructed as specked in the
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual."
Private stormwater facilities have the same requirement as well as "...incorporate the
Low Impact Development Approach."
• SDC 3.4.270(J) Public Park and Open Space Facilities, at (4)(b) regarding the park
blocks, cites stormwater management as one of the functions of the park.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN - DIM 4 1 7
o "...stomnvater management for nearby development and the public street
system."
• SDC 3.4.280(D) Establishment of the Greenway Setback Line and Permitted Uses:
o (D)(2)(a) lists uses permitted in the area between the Greenway Setback Line
and the river. Here, only water -dependent orwater-related uses are permitted.
Stormwater facilities is on that list.
o (D)(2)(b) lists uses permitted in the area between the Greenway Setback Line
and the Greenway Boundary. Here, permitted uses are the same as those listed
in the base zone. On-site stormwater management is included.
2. MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL
Stormwater management in the master plan is being accommodated as follows:
• Small Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management facilities will be
incorporated into each block and street.
• Each streetside LID facility will be sized to provide both water quality treatment meeting
Springfield standards as well as complete infiltration through the 5 -year storm for the
right-of-way runoff that it collects.
• A public piped conveyance system will collect overflow from the public LID facilities as
well as overflow from the proposed development lots.
• The piped conveyance system will require a minimum of two new outfalls to the
Willamette River. As an educational and additional water quality feature, the piped
system will flow into linear ponds, which will overflow into the river. These water quality
areas would be along the leading edge of the park.
3. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY
a. GRP Policies
The GRP addresses stormwater management tin two chapters— Chapter 5 — Open
Space and Chapter 7 — Public Facilities and Services. The stormwater management
component of the master plan is consistent with applicable policies as follows:
OPEN SPACE
• Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management facilities are permitted in
the Park Blocks, the Riverfront Linear Park, and within the dverfront park, the
riparian setback and greenway boundary.
• Per the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, LID
stormwater facilities include Rain Gardens, Infiltration Swales, Infiltration Planters,
Green Roofs, and Permeable Pavements.
• As shown and described in the master plan, these are provided:
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 5 1 7
o Along the promenade walk and promenade street (the master plan's alternative
to the park block) as streetside stormwater planters.
o Along the leading edge of the riverfront park (the first 30-50 feet of the 75 -foot
Riparian Setback closest to the ordinary low water zone –the stormwater
management zone – as shown in Figure 5a of the GRP).
o In select areas within the Greenway Boundary as a feature connecting
stormwater facilities from private property and public streets to stormwater
facilities in the riparian area, from which, after treatment, discharges into the
river.
o As noted in this DIM application's Project Description and List of Questions, at
IV.A. 1.c—River Setbacks, the master plan's stormwater management facilities
comply with code standards cited as follows:
• SDC 3.4.270 Public and Private Development Standards, and
• SDC 3.4.280 Willamette Greenway Development Standards.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
• As described and illustrated above in Stormwater Facilities and Services—Private,
LID stormwater management facilities are provided integral to the master plan
design in parking areas and open spaces.
• As described and illustrated in Stormwater Facilities and Services—Public,
stormwater management facilities are provided in curbside setback areas throughout
the master plan's street grid.
• In addition to consistency with SDC 3.4.270 and SDC 3.4.280, the master plan's
stormwater management facilities also comply with code standards as follows:
o SDC 3.3.430 Floodplain Development Standards,
o SDC 4.3.115(B) Water Quality Protection --Permitted Uses in Riparian Areas, and
o SDC 4.3.115(C) Water Quality Protection—Standards.
b. Other Long -Range Plans
Stormwater management requirements for the master plan area have been well -
discussed. No connection to other components of city stormwater facilities. On-site
detention and treatment. Private property stormwater may be detained and treated
on public land (i.e., the riverfront linear park) and in public right-of-way. Pre -
development rate flows go to the river. See SDC 3.4.27001 Public and Private
Development Standards—Stormwater Facilities and Services, SDC 4.3.110
Stormwater Management and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual (EDSPM1 Chapter 3—Stormwater Quality and Chapter 4—
Stormwater Capacity.
• As shown in the 2021 Stormwater Design Concept above, current thinking is that
there would three new outfalls into the Willamette River within the Glenwood
Riverfront area. Two of those would be in the master plan area. The PFSP will need
to be updated to capture those additional outfalls.
• Refer to SDC 4.3.115 Water Quality Protection and SDC 3.4.270(1) Public and
Private Development Standards—Stormwater Facilities and Services for stormwater
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 6 1 7
system requirements and SDC 5.13.120(D) Preliminary Master Plan—Submittal
Requirements—Stormwater Master Plan for master plan submittal requirements. A
stormwater management plan is required with master plan application submittal.
c. SDC Standards
The stormwater management component of the master plan, as described and
illustrated above complies with applicable SDC standards. Stormwater facilities have
been provided:
• In the master plan's street grid, located between the sidewalk and curb, sized
accordingly to accommodate runoff from public right-of-way.
• In the master plan's private parking areas as infiltration planter islands, basins, and
tree wells.
• In the master plan's open space areas –the promenade walk, promenade street,
and riverfront linear park.
4. DIM Question
a. Does staff concur with the applicant's analysis regarding regulatory consistency of the
stormwater management component of the master plan?
b. Does staff see anything needing further explanation or supplemental documentation? If
so, what specifically?
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 7 1 7
5 — PLAN I CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
B — MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE —4. VEHICLE PARKING
To receive a decision of approval, the master plan must be found to be consistent with
applicable plan policies and code standards. As for vehicle parking, the master plan includes
vehicle parking locations that align with applicable policies and code standards.
1. REGULATORY CONTEXT(EXISTING REGULATIONS)
a. GRP policies
TRANSPORTATION — PARKING (p. 75)
OBJECTIVE. Develop and implement comprehensive, effective, and workable parking
management strategies to provide sufficient on street and off-street parking in the
Glenwood Riverfront, and strategically support the development of a vibrant, growing,
and attractive destination for living, working, shopping, and recreating.
POLICY. Evaluate and develop parking standards forinclusion in the Glenwood
Rivertmnt Mixed -Use Plan District that support Plan goals for transit, bicycling, walking,
and ridesharing, and provide sufficient parking, in conjunction with an access system
that provides balanced travel mode options. (Policy B.5.a)
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — NEW HOUSING (p. 111)
OBJECTIVE. Facilitate the development of new high-density housing units, including
affordable housing units, that enable residents from a wide range of economic levels,
household sizes, and ages to live in the Glenwood Rivertmnt.
POLICY. Evaluate and develop parking standards for inclusion in the Glenwood
Rivertmnt Mixed -Use Plan District that support Plan goals for housing that meet the
needs of range of households and supports multi -modal transportation choice,
maximize efficient and economical use of the residential land supply, and provide
sufficient parking to meet demand, in conjunction with an access system that provides
balanced travel mode options. (Policy D. 1.e)
b. Multimodal Mixed -Use Area
MMA DEFINITION (p 33)
The Multimodal Mixed-use Area (MMA) is established where the local government
determines that there is and/or is planned to be: high-quality connectivity to and within
the area by modes of transportation other than the automobile, a denser level of
development of a variety of commercial and residential uses than in surrounding areas,
a desire to encourage these characteristics through development standards,
and an understanding that increased automobile congestion within and around
the MMA is accepted as a potential trade-off.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 1 1 5
LAND USE AND BUILT FORM - LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, ZONING & SUBAREAS
(P 43)
OBJECTIVE. Implement land use and transportation -related land use policies found in
the Metro Plan, TransPlan (andror Springfield Transportation System Plan), and the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan to support pedestrian -friendly, mixed-use
development in the Glenwood Riverfront.
POLICY. Designate and zone land that meets the fundamental characteristics of the
Mixed Use and Nodal Development Area designations, as defined in the Metro Plan, and
Multimodal Mixed -Use Areas (MMA), as defined in OAR 660-012-0060. (Policy A. I.a)
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR) 660-012-0060
• Rule (660-012-0060) requires a local government to put in place mitigation measures
when an amendment to a functional plan, comprehensive plan or land use regulation
would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility.
• The rule includes an EXCEPTION to this requirement if the local government applies
the Multimodal Mixed -Use Area designation. Wlth MMA in place, a local government
may amend a land use plan without applying the performance standards if the
proposed amendment is entirely within a multimodal mixed-use area.
• This is what Springfield did with the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
Specifically, the MMA designation allows the local government to not require the
application of performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g.,
volume to capacity ratio (VIC) or level of service (LOS)), traffic delay, or longer travel
time.
• The MMA designation also allows the local government to not require the provision
of off-street parking, or regulations that require lower levels of off-street parking than
required in other areas and allow flexibility to meet the parking requirements (e.g.,
count on -street parking, allow long term leases, allow shared parking, etc).
c. Springfield Transportation System Plan
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) addresses the provision of
parking in one of its projects within the Glenwood Riverfront area.
FUTURE STREETS — RIVERFRONT
• TSP Description: Project R-12,
Franklin Blvd Riverfront
Collector. Construct a new
collector as shown in the
Glenwood Plan; two travel
lanes with on -street parking,
sidewalks and bicycle facilities.
20 -Yeas As Development
Occurs Project. $7,700,000.
&Cc t
Figure'AII TSP Prgecrs'
Springfield 2035 TSP
December 2022
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM
P13-17
R-1
5-11
d. SDC Standards
Vehicle parking is addressed in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) as follows:
• SDC 3.4.250 Schedule of Use Categories.
o Parking (either public or private, structured or surface) is a permitted secondary
use in both the RMU and CMU zoning district.
• Secondary Use is defined as: "Any approved use of land or a structure that is
incidental and subordinate to the primary use and located on the same
development area as the primary use. Secondary uses shall not occur in the
absence of primary uses."
• SDC 3.4.270 Public and Private development Standards.
o SDC 3.4.270(A) Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks, at (3)(a), (b), (c), and (d)
cite parking standards for each type of street in the Glenwood Riverfront —
Riverfront Street, Park Block Street, Collector Street and Typical Street.
o SDC 3.4.270(G) Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards cite type,
location, maximum number of spaces, design standards, landscape requirements
and access/driveway standards.
• SDC 3.4.280 Wllamette Greenway Development Standards.
o SDC 3.4.280(D) cites parking lots as permitted only where necessary for water -
dependent uses or facilities.
o SDC 3.4.280(F), at (4) cites off-street parking design standards when located in
the greenway.
2. MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL
a. On -Street Parking
• On -street parking can be seen on drawings A-07 & A-08.
• The applicant is proposing the following on street parking types:
o Parallel parking — streets where less demand is anticipated.
o Angled parking —streets where more parking demand is anticipated
• Angled parking is proposed as head -in parking at 45 degrees. See section STREET
CLASSIFICATION, LOCATION & DESIGN for additional information.
b. Off -Street Parking
• Examples of off-street parking can be seen on drawings A-11 & A-12. Note that the
drawings are examples only and not intended to be a proposed development.
• The applicant is proposing the following types of off-street parking types:
o Surface Parking
Standard surface parking with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting, plantings, etc.
o Structured Parking
An option for future phases is to provide structured parking on one block. This
would free up land used for surface parking in earlier phases to be used for
development in the future.
o Woonerf Parking
The design and developer teams see the existing buildings on the middle south
block as an opportunity for early investment. One way to make development
less expensive and stimulate further development is to redevelop the existing
buildings and allow less expensive / less restrictive sitework. The applicant is
proposing woonerf type site development for that block around the existing
buildings. This would include parking without curbs to allow for different
functions — parking for a regular day but no parking on event days and utilizing
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 3 1 5
the space for outdoor festivals or events. Woonerfs have proven to slow traffic,
provide maximum flexibility and reduce costs.
3. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY
a. GRP Policies
The vehicle parking component of the proposed master plan is consistent with
applicable GRP policies.
• Develop parking standards.
• Provide sufficient parking to meet demand.
b. Multimodal Mixed -Use Area
The vehicle parking component of the proposed master plan is consistent with the MMA.
• The master plan's inclusion of on -street parking, including angled parking, is
supported by the MMA designation and is acknowledgement that increased
automobile congestion is acceptable.
• The master plan's use of on -street parking to meet the parking demand from
adjacent development is acceptable in a multimodal mixed-use area.
o "...allow flexibility to meet parking requirements (e.g., count on -street parking..."
• The master plan's allocation of parking area acknowledges the MMA component to
allow the local government to not require:
o The provision of off-street parking.
o Regulations that require lower levels of off-street parking than required in other
areas.
Springfield TSP
Vehicle parking in the master plan is consistent with the Springfield TSP.
• The master plan acknowledges the flexible nature of local streets (TSP Policy 3.1)
and that street design standards are to be flexible (TSP Policy 3.3).
o TSP Policy 3.1 — Adopt and Maintain a Conceptual Street Map.
• Action 2: The Conceptual Street Map will indicate the approximate location of
planned "local" classified streets on the adopted map. These "local" streets
are not intended to be adopted on the map. Rather, they are shown as
reference. Streets classified as collectors and arterials will be adopted on the
map and are considered part of the 2035 TSP.
o TSP Policy 3.3 - Street design standards should be flexible and allow
appropriate -sized local, collector, and arterials streets based upon traffic flow,
geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and environmental impacts.
• The master plan acknowledges project R-12, the dverfront street, as including on -
street parking.
d. SDC Standards
The vehicle parking component of the proposed master plan is consistent with
applicable SDC standards.
• On -Street Parking. The application will show on -street parking consistent with the
standards found in SDC 3.4.270(A) or will utilize SDC 3.4.235 and seek approval or
either an alternative or exemption to the on -street parking standards. Specifically, the
master plan's on -street parking component complies with SDC as follows:
o See section STREET CLASSIFICATION, LOCATION & DESIGN
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 4 1 5
Off -Street Parking. The application will show off-street parking consistent with the
standards found in SDC 3.4.270(G) or will utilize SDC 3.4.235 and seek approval of
either an alternative or exemption to the off-street parking standards. Specifically, the
master plan's off-street parking component complies with SDC as follows:
o Although a minimum number of parking spaces may not be required by code,
developers see parking as a crucial element to a successful commercial or
residential development. 5 of the 6 blocks will meet current codes including
setbacks, landscape (screening, tree islands), ped access, driveways and alleys,
etc.
o Woonerf parking will meet the intent of the code while providing flexibility in early
stages of development.
4. DIM QUESTION
a. Does staff concur with the applicant's analysis regarding regulatory consistency of the
vehicular parking component of the master plan?
o On -Street Parking — GRP Policies and SDC Standards.
o Off -Street Parking — GRP Policies and SDC Standards.
b. Does staff see anything needing further explanation or supplemental documentation? If
so, what specifically?
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 5 1 5
5 — PLAN I CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
B — MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE -5. NON -CONFORMING USES (BUILDINGS
The master plan will include a number of non -conforming uses (see definition under SDC
Standards below). The analysis herein will cite current regulations, outline the proposal and
analyze the implications of attaining regulatory consistency regarding the inclusion of non-
conforming uses (buildings) in the plan.
1. REGULATORY CONTEXT(EXISTING REGULATIONS)
a. GRP policies
TRANSPORTATION — FRANKLIN RIVERFRONT — LOCAL STREET NETWORK (p 61)
OBJECTIVE. Establish a grid block pattern of streets to support redevelopment of the
Franklin Riverfmnt that provides multi -modal internal circulation, disperses traffic,
facilitates walking and biking, orients development to a public realm, and enables clear
and direct physical and visual routes between Franklin Boulevard and the rtverfmnt.
POLICY. Design an east -west riverfmnt through street to support and provide direct
access to the mixed-use development facing this street, and to increase safety, comfort,
and attractiveness for bicyclists and pedestrians, as conceptually depicted in Figures 7,
8, and 9. (Policy B.2. d)
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY. Allow fora shift in the location of the rtverfront street
right -0f --way without obtaining Major Modification approval under the Glenwood
Riverfmnt Mixed -Use Plan District to permit a pre-existing non -conforming commercial
building to remain on the north side of this street, if the building can be brought into
conformance with the land use designation, zoning, and all applicable Glenwood
Riverfmnt Mixed -Use Plan District development standards. The shift in location of the
right -0f --way must be as close as possible to the building'. (Implementation Strategy
8.2. d. 10)
b. SDC Standards
• Non -Conforming Uses in the Glenwood Riverrront Mixed -Use Plan District are
codified in the development code at 3.4.220 Non -Conforming Uses.
"3.4.220 Non-Contorming Uses
Any existing nonconforming building, structure and/or use may continue, expand or
be modified as may be permitted in SDC 3.4.280, 5.8.120 and 5.8.125 until they are
either abandoned, as defined in SDC 5.8.130 and/or redeveloped as defined in SDC
6.1.110."
• As seen in the above definition, the development code utilizes the title "Non -
Conforming Uses." However, Non -Conforming Uses also includes buildings and
structures.
The above reference °... a pre-existing non -conforming commercial building,.' is retarding to the Roaring Rapids Pizza company,
an existing non -conforming use located within the master plan area. The owner of the property containing the p¢za parlor is we
of the property owners participating in the master plan. Their plan is to retain the use (and building) long-term as part of the
ri erfront development.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 1 1 8
How this applies to the master plan and its prospective inclusion of five non-
conforming uses (buildings)
• Non -conforming uses (buildings) in the master plan.
o There are five existing non -conforming uses (buildings) which are proposed to be
included in the master plan. These are as follows:
• Roaring Rapids Pizza
Company. _
Constructed in 1966, a
tall l-storywood frame r B
structure of
approximately 6.800
sf. In continuous
operation as a family-
owned pizza pador. 7 r
The original Pietrds. y ,/
It is indirectly R !�
referenced in the GRP
as an existing building
which may remain
along the riverfront
north of the planned A Roaring Rapids Rlaa Company
Riverfront Street. B Brumhaugh Ripe organ Building
Page 67 of the C Skillern Machine Shop
refinement plan states: o rusher Rower Sa« Building
E Ramsey -Waite Building
"Allow for a shit in the location of the riverfront street right -0f --way without
obtaining Major Modification approval under the Glenwood Riverfront
Mixed -Use Plan District to permit a pre-existing non -conforming
commercial building to remain on the north side of this street if the
building can be brought into conformance with the land use designation,
zoning, and all applicable Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District
development standards. The shift in location of the right -0f --way must be
as close as possible to the building."
The owners of Roaring Rapids Pizza have been involved from the
beginning with the GRP. They are aware of this limitation regarding their
existing restaurant building. They are involved in, and with the city are
party to, the underway master plan effort.
The emerging master plan includes retaining the building and the use.
Brombaugh Pipe Organ Building.
Constructed in 1979, a tall 2 -story wood frame, metal clad building
totaling approximately 8,700 sf. Used as an office, warehouse and
fabrication shop for John Brombaugh & Associates, Inc. Renowned the
world over, from 1968 to 2005, John Brombaugh designed, constructed
and installed some 66 pipe organs, located throughout the United states,
including the Central Lutheran Church in Eugene, as well as in Canada
Sweden and Japan. Between 1979 and 2005, the tall red barn along the
Glenwood riverfront was Brombaugh's office and design shop.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 2 1 8
Not referenced in the GRP except by implication, it could be interpreted to
have been included in the above cited reference to allowing existing
buildings to remain if brought into conformance.
The emerging master plan contemplates retaining the building and
converting it to public use as part of the proposed dverfront linear park.
Skillern Machine Shop.
Constructed in 1942 in two parts, the first being a 2 -story tall, open
concrete machine manufacturing building of approximately 6,000 sr and
the second being a 1 -story office/retail addition of about 4,200 sr to the
south fronting Franklin Blvd.
The master plan contemplates removing the lower front building and
retaining the taller concrete machine manufacturing building and
repurposing it as commercial use, perhaps as a restaurant/bistro.
• Foster Power Saw Building.
Constructed in 1960, a 1 -story pre-engineered metal building of
approximately 8,000 sr, described as having been used as an industrial
storage warehouse.
The master Plan contemplates retaining the structure and repurposing it
as a commercial use, perhaps as a farmer's market or makers -space.
Ramsey -Waite Building.
Two attached buildings. The first constructed in 1962, a tall 1 -story
concrete building of approximately 14,500 sr, used as an office, retail
shop and service garage. The second constructed in 1979, a 2 -story tall,
open pre-engineered steel building with metal cladding of approximately
8,800 sr, used as a service garage.
The master plan contemplates retaining the western older structure,
perhaps only the north half (which was the service garage portion of the
building) and repurposing it for a not -yet -determined commercial use.
• The south half of the older western structure lacks distinction and may
in the end detract from the repurposing of the rear portion of the
building.
• The newer eastern metal building will need to be removed for
construction of the north leg of the adjacent roundabout and the new
north -south collector street.
How SDC 3.4.220 Applies.
o SDC 3.4.220 references SDC 5.8.100 Non -Conforming Uses. Each of the above
5 structures are non -conforming buildings as well as non -conforming uses. Here
is how SDC 5.8.100 applies to each.
• Raring Rapids Pizza Company.
SDC.
• SDC 5.8.120 Continuance. As the current restaurant use is, and has
been, uninterrupted use, it meets the standard of continuance.
• SDC 5.8.125 Expansion or Modification. The existing use may be
modified or expanded upon approval of the Planning Director if it is
determined that the modification or expansion causes no significant
impact on adjacent properties.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 3 1 8
Building and Use.
• Building: The existing structure may be non -conforming given the
requirements of SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards which now
apply. Such is certainly implied given the cited paragraph above from
page 67 of the GRP. Close examination will need to eventually occur.
• Use: The existing use (Commercial/Retail — Eating Establishment) is
cited in SDC 3.4.250 Schedule of Use Cateaories as a secondary
use. Per SDC 6.1. 110 Meaning of Specific Words or Terms, a
secondary use must be incidental and subordinate to the primary use
located on the same development area. A secondary use may not
occur in the absence of a primary use. However, per the cited
paragraph above from page 67 of the GRP, the existing restaurant
use may continue if the building can be brought up to current
standards.
Brombaugh Pipe Organ Building.
SDC.
• Per SDC 5.8.130 Abandonment, the permitted non -confirming use
(warehouse, manufacturing and office), as there was a discontinuance
of that use of more than 6 months, is considered abandoned. Any
future use (and the building) will need to comply with GRMU Plan
District standards found in SDC 3.4.200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -
Use Plan District.
Building and Use.
• Building: The existing building is non -conforming when considering
the requirements of SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards.
• Use: John Brombaugh retired in 2005. The City of Springfield
purchased the property in 2016. It Is not known if the use
(warehouse, manufacturing and office) was discontinued, but it likely
was. Regardless, the current use (manufacturing) is not a permitted
use in the Glenwood Commercial Mixed Use zone (SDC 3.4.250
Schedule of Use Categories). Any future use will need to be permitted
per SDC 3.4.250.
Skillern Machine Shop.
SDC.
• Per SDC 5.8.130 Abandonment, the permitted non -confirming use
(warehouse, manufacturing and office), as there was a discontinuance
of that use of more than 6 months, is considered abandoned. Any
future use (and the building) will need to comply with GRMU Plan
District standards found in SDC 3.4.200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -
Use Plan District.
Building and Use.
• Building: The existing building is non -conforming when considering
the requirements of SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards.
• Use: The building is vacant. The previous, permitted non -confirming
use is now considered abandoned. Any new use will need to be
consistent with the uses permitted in SDC 3.4.250 Schedule of Use
Cateaories.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 4 1 8
Foster Power Saw Building.
SDC.
• Per SDC 5.8.130 Abandonment, the permitted non -confirming use
(warehouse, manufacturing and office), as there was a discontinuance
of that use of more than 6 months, is considered abandoned. Any
future use (and the building) will need to comply with GRMU Plan
District standards found in SDC 3.4.200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -
Use Plan District.
Building and Use.
• Building: The existing building is non -conforming when considering
the requirements of SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards.
• Use: The building is vacant. The previous, permitted non -conforming
use is now considered abandoned. Any new use will need to be
consistent with the uses permitted in SDC 3.4.250 Schedule of Use
Categories.
Ramsey -Waite Building.
SDC.
• SDC 5.8.120 Continuance. As the current retail sales and services
use is, and has been, in uninterrupted use, it meets the standard of
continuance.
• SDC 5.8.125 Expansion or Modification. The existing use may be
modified or expanded upon approval of the Planning Director if it is
determined that the modification or expansion causes no significant
impact on adjacent properties.
Building and Use.
• Building: The existing building is non -conforming when considering
the requirements of SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards.
• Use: The current use is a continuation of a permitted non -conforming
use. It is expected that the use will vacate the building at some point
in the future, certainly before the planned north -south collector off of
the adjacent roundabout is constructed as the new street will need the
east half of the property (and building). At that point, any new use will
need to be consistent with the uses permitted in SDC 3.4.250
Schedule of Use Categories.
How to Document Consistency with the Code.
o Building: None of the five buildings meet the standards of SDC 3.4.275 Building
Design Standards. It is not anticipated that any of the buildings will be modified to
comply with the standards. Indeed, one of the benefits of retaining the buildings
is that they exist and eitherwould continue (Roaring Rapids) or be re -purposed
with less capital investment than what would be required of a completely new
structure. Given this, the master plan application could turn to SDC 3.4.230
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District Modifications and/or SDC 3.4.235
Design Standards Altematives/Exemptions from Design Standards. See below
for more information.
o Use:
• Roaring Rapids Pizza Company. As cited above, the existing use is a
permitted non -conforming use which may continue '...if the building can be
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 5 1 8
brought into conformance with the land use designation, zoning, and all
applicable Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District development
standards." The challenge to avoid a code amendment will be to address the
non -complying condition of the existing building. As noted above, the master
plan application will need to document consistency with SDC 3.4.235 Design
Standards Alternatives/Exemptions from Design Standards In order to allow
the non -conforming building to remain.
Brombaugh Pipe Organ Building. Should the Brombaugh Building be included
in the master plan, it's location within the riverrront linear park, will allow a
park -related use to occur in the structure.
Skillern, Foster Power Saw and Ramsey -Waite Buildings. Should these three
buildings be included in the master plan, the currently contemplated
commercial/retail use is a permitted primary use in the Commercial Mixed -
Use Zone and a permitted secondary use in the Residential Mixed -Use zone.
As all three of these buildings are in the Residential Mixed -Use zone and a
secondary use cannot occupy more than 50% of the area and only occur with
the presence of a primary use, the contemplated change in zoning
boundaries to include these buildings in the Commercial Mixed -Use zone
becomes essential.
How to utilize SDC 3.4.230 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District
Modifications in regard to the non -conforming uses.
o There are two types of modifications – minor and major. A minor modification is
subject to a Planning Director review and decisions. A major modification is
subject to a Planning Director review and recommendation and a Planning
Commission review and decision following a public hearing. As the master plan
application already includes a Planning Commission hearing, neither a minor nor
a major modification will have much effect on the overall process.
o Minor modifications include a change to the streetscape, street design, a change
to a building design standard of 20 percent or less, and a modification to a
driveway location.
• A change to a streetscape standard, street design standard, or driveway
location do not apply to the discussion of non -conforming uses.
• A change to a building design standard does apply. However, the likely
changeswill be greater than 20 percent. Therefor a major modification
applies. See below.
o Major modifications include a change to a building design standard of more than
20 percent, a change that requires a street, mid -block connector, multi -use path
or other transportation facility to be shifted, a modification not specifically listed,
or an alternative to a development standard or building design standard.
• A change to a street, mid -block connector, multi -use path of other
transportation facility do not apply to the discussion of non -conforming uses.
• It is the building design standards which will need to be addressed.
o Approval criteria include the following:
• Maintain the integrity of the north -south street grid that provides multi -modal
internal circulation as established by the GRP Transportation Chapter policies
and implementation strategies.
• Not significantly affect the landscape, stormwater management, design,
circulation and access policies and implementation strategies of SDC
3.4.270(A)(3) Public and Private Development Standards—Public Streets,
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 6 1 8
Alleys and Sidewalks, or the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual.
• Result in a development design that meets or exceeds the applicable
purposes of SDC 3.4.205 Purpose.
How to utilize SDC 3.4.235 Design Standards Alternatives/Exemptions from Design
Standards in regard to the non -conforming uses.
o As opposed to requesting a modification as above in SDC 3.4.230, this section
addresses requesting an alternative or exemption. The initial request is to be
made at the Development Initiation Meeting. Should it go forward, it will need to
be fully articulated and included with the Master Plan Pre -Application Report,
then again with the Master Plan application itself.
o It will be determined at the Development Initiation Meeting, but it is this
subsection (SDC 3.4.235) thatwill apply in this instance as a request to a design
standard alternative or exemption is expected to be made, not a modification to
the Plan District itself.
o This subsection focusses on SDC 3.4.270 Public and Private Development
Standards and SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards. In regard to non-
conforming uses, it is subsection 3.4.275 that will need to be addressed as it is
the five existing non -conforming structures that are the topic.
• Beginning with the Development Initiation Meeting, the master plan
application will need to propose either an alternative or exemption.
2. MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL
The master plan proposes exemption to applicable building design standards for the five
non -conforming buildings for the following reasons.
• There is very little architectural fabric within the design area that remains or is in
continued use. Although we may not see the architectural styles in the 5 existing
buildings as historic or fine examples of their period, they do speak to the history of
the site and contribute to furthering a sense of place and distinctiveness (SDC
3.4.275 (A)).
• The buildings are not only socially sustainable but sustainable in terms of material
reuse, reducing the need for new materials to be harvested, manufactured, and
transported to the site. Adaptive reuse can reduce construction cost and reduce
materials going to the landfill.
• Attempting to bring the existing buildings up to current design standard in SDC
3.4.275 will alter the character of the buildings and negate the social and financial
value of their own character. Adding canopies, fagade articulation, window patterns,
etc. may or may not be in character of the existing building and can only be dealt
with on an individual basis.
• The existing buildings are human scaled and have the opportunity to promote
aesthetically pleasing for the MP area.
3. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY
GRP Policies
There is only one applicable policy and associated implementation strategy—that
detailed above regarding the Roaring Rapids Pizza Company and Riverfront Street. The
master plan includes the pizza parlor in its present location and configuration, with the
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 7 1 8
riverfront street located in proximity to the parlor allowing for parking and pedestrian
facilities.
b. SDC Standards
The building complies with applicable standards except those associated with SDC
3.4.275 Building Design Standards. There, the master plan utilizes SDC 3.4.235 Design
Standards Alternatives/Exemptions from Design Standards. See the Master Plan
Proposal above for documentation in that regard.
4. DIM QUESTION
a. Permitted Uses
The master plan proposal is expected to include a recommendation to change the
boundary location of the RMU and CMU zoning districts (by way of a Zoning Map
Amendment application) as well as a recommendation to amend select areas of the
Springfield Development Code text (byway of a Development Code Amendment
application. As for the five existing non -conforming uses (buildings), the anticipated
amendment proposals to the zoning districts and code text result in the following:
• Roaring Rapids Pizza Company.
o Zoning Boundary: The pizza pador is currently in the RMU zone and will remain
so.
o Code Text: The code text will be amended to permit free-standing commercial
buildings within the RMU zone.
• Brombaugh Pipe Organ Building.
o Zoning Boundary: The Brombaugh building is currently in the CMU zone but will
be located in the RMU zone post zoning map amendment approval. The building
is in a location which is expected to be part of the new riverfront linear park/park
block component of the master plan. The use, riverfront linear park, is a
permitted use in the RMU zone.
o Code Text: The code amendment application will ensure that the building as a
free-standing public use will be permitted.
• Skillern Machine Shop, Foster Power Saw Building and Ramsey -Waite Building.
o Zoning Boundary: The Skillern and Foster buildings are currently in the RMU
zone. The Ramsey -Waite building has a split zone of RMU and CMU. Post
zoning map amendment approval all three of these buildings will be in the CMU
zone.
o Code Text: It is anticipated that these three buildings will remain free-standing
one-story buildings containing commercial/retail use. The code amendmentwill
ensure that free-standing one-story 100° commercial use buildings are
permitted. The list of commercial useswill be expanded to include'maker-
space'as a permitted use.
At this level of master plan application progress —the Development Initiation Meeting —
does staff agree that this is a potential path forward in terms of accommodating the
existing non -conforming uses (buildings)?
b. Building Design Standards
Does staff agree that utilizing SDC 3.4.235 is appropriate to address the retention and
re -purposing of these five existing non -conforming buildings?
' There is more on both ofthese recommended land use applications elsewhere in the DIM submittal.
Permitted types of'maker-space' will be defined during the master plan application process.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 8 1 8
5 — PLAN I CODE ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS
B — MASTER PLAN COMPLIANCE — 6. PERMITTED USES
The master plan will include uses in each of the two zoning districts — Glenwood Residential
Mixed -Use (RMU) and Glenwood Commercial Mixed -Use (CMU) — that are not currently
permitted in those zones. The analysis below will cite current regulations, outline the proposal
and analyze the implications of seeking a code amendment regarding the current list of
permitted uses.
1. REGULATORY CONTEXT (EXISTING REGULATIONS)
a. GRP policies
LAND USE AND BUILT FORM — LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, ZONING & SUBAREAS
(P 43)
OBJECTIVE. Implement land use and transportation -related land use policies found in
the Metro Plan, TransPlan (and/or Springfield Transportation System Plan), and the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan to support pedestrian -friendly, mixed-use
development in the Glenwood Riverfront.
POLICY. Designate and zone land that meets the fundamental characteristics of the
Mixed Use and Nodal Development Area designations, as defined in the Metro Plan,
and Multimodal Mixed -Use Areas (MMA), as defined in OAR 660-012-0060. (Policy
A.1. a)
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE PLAN DISTRICT — URBAN FORM (p 48)
OBJECTIVE. Implement the Land Use Framework for the Glenwood Rivertmnt by
adopting the Glenwood Rivertmnt Mixed -Use District (GRMt9 Plan District.
POLICY. Adopt the GRMU Plan District and apply it to all parcels in the Glenwood
Rivertmnt. (Policy A.2.a)
b. SDC Standards
Permitted uses are codified in the development code at SDC 3.4.245
Land Use Designations, Zoning District Descriptions and Applicable
Overlay Districts and SDC 3.4.250 Schedule of Use Cateaories.
• Definitions.
o Primary Uses:
"The principal use approved in accordance with this code that usually occupies
greater than 50% of the gross floor area of building or greater than 50% of
development area'."
o Secondary Uses:
' Development Area: The area abject to any application required by this code.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 1 1 7
"Any approved use of land or a structure that is incidental and subordinate to the
primary use and located on the same development area as the primary use.
Secondary uses shall not occur in the absence of primary uses."
Residential Mixed -Use Zone – at SDC 3.4.245.
o Subarea A.
o Characteristics:
• High-density.
• Pedestrian -friendly.
• Includes park blocks, riverfront linear park and public open space.
• Includes stormwater management facilities.
• Opportunities for ground floor retail to serve the neighborhood.
o Primary Uses:
• High-density residential, min 50 du/net ac.
• Typically, 4-6 stories.
o Secondary Uses:
• Business-related needs of the neighborhood.
• Including:
— Primary/secondary educational facilities.
— Retail sales and services, including.
• Groceries.
• Eating/drinking establishments.
— Professional, scientific, technical services.
— Personal service uses.
• Limitations:
Onlywithin mixed-use building.
• No stand-alone commercial building is permitted.
Only on the ground floor.
Single commercial use is limited to 10,000 sf.
Grocery is limited to 25,000 sf.
• Exception:
For buildings fronting Franklin Blvd, multi -floor commercial uses,
other than retail sales and service uses, are permitted provided at
least 50% of the gross floor area of the building is residential.
Residential Mixed -Use Zone – at SDC 3.4.250.
o Primary Uses:
• Residential (High -Density).
• Public Open Space.
Riverfront Linear park/multi-use path
Park blocks, to include recreational facilities and stormwater
management facilities.
• Public Utilities and Other Public Facilities.
Low impact public or semi-public utility facility2.
o Secondary Uses:
• Commercial/Retail.
Eating/drinking establishments.
Loa lmpad Facility: Any pubic or sani-public facility that has minimal olfactory, Asual or auditory im pads which is permitted
subjed to the design standards of Ihis code.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 2 1 7
Personal services.
Professional, scientific, research, technical services.
Retail sales and services.
Educational.
Publidpnvate educational facilities for primary/secondary
education.
Parking.
Public or private parking lots/structures.
Commercial Mixed -Use – at SDC 3.4.245.
o Subarea B.
o Characteristics:
• Flexible mixed-use development.
• Unique riverfront destination.
• Responding to developer interest and market demand.
o Primary Uses:
• Hospitality uses.
• Office employment uses.
• Eating/drinking establishments.
• Personal services.
• Professional, scientific and technical services.
• Educational facilities.
• High density residential, min 50 du/net ac.
No more than 50% of a development area' may be residential.
o Secondary Uses:
• Retail sales and services.
Only within a mixed-use building.
Only on the ground floor.
No more than 50% of the ground floor.
No more than 50% of the total ground floor of a development area.
No single use may exceed 10,000 sr.
Commercial Mixed -Use Zone – at SDC 3.4.250.
o Primary Uses:
• Commercial/Retail.
— Eating/drinking establishments.
— Personal services.
— Professional, scientific, research, technical services.
• Educational.
— Publidpnvate educational facilities for higher education. business,
professional, technical, trade and vocational schools. job training
and vocational rehab schools.
• Employment.
Office employment.
• Hospitality.
Conference facilities.
Hotels.
• Residential (High -Density).
• Public Open Space.
Riverfront linear park/multi-use path.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN – DIM 3 1 7
• Public Utilities and Other Public Uses.
Low impact public or semi-public utility facility.
Secondary Uses:
• Commercial/Retail.
Retail sales and services.
• Parking.
Public or private parking lots/structures.
How this applies to the master plan and permitted uses
• The limitation on permitted uses, including type, size (s.f.) and location has been
identified as a barrier to economic viability of the Master Plan by the Master
Developer, Economic Consultant and the Property Owners. Some of the
observations and concerns are as follows:
o Other than an overall goal to achieve a minimum housing density in the Master
Plan area, the limitations and targets for residential units and commercial space
inventory during the drafting of the SDC are no longer applicable.
o Highly specific percentages of mixes of uses do not reflect the reality of changing
market conditions.
o Mixed use nodal development in this context is typically a combination of
horizontal mixed use (i.e. standalone uses) on a site or in a district, as well as
vertical mixed use. The allowable uses is strongly biased toward vertical mixed
use, which may be a barrier to feasible and desirable development.
o Ratios of uses and primary and secondary uses are inter -related with occupancy,
building types, and construction systems. Over -defining uses and percentage of
uses can make a project infeasible.
o Uses are currently not allowed that would be desirable and potentially feasible,
for example hospitality in R -M U.
o A single mixed use zone would be desirable. The degree of distinction between
R -MU and C -MU is arbitrary in this context and unrelated to an integrated nodal
development vision for Master Plan area.
In regard to the master plan, there are three possible pathways:
o Work with the code as is.
• For the reasons cited above this is not a preferred pathway.
o Look to see if a proposed change to permitted uses could qualify for a Plan
District Modification (SDC 3.4.230 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed -Use Plan District
Modifications) or a design standard alternative or exemption (SDC 3.4.350
Design Standards Alternatives/Exemptions from Design Standards).
• An initial review of these two code sections appears to limit requests for a
modification, alternative or exemption to either a development standard
(SDC 3.4.270 Public and Private Development Standards) or a design
standard (SDC 3.4.275 Building Design Standards). A request to modify
the permitted uses is not a development standard or design standard.
Therefore, this pathway does not appear to be viable.
o Apply for a code amendment to change the permitted uses.
• A code amendment is a Type 4legislative decision (see SDC 5.1.600
Type 4 Procedures). It is a discretionary decision made by the City
Council following public notice and a public hearing. Preceding the City
Council activity, there is a staff review and recommendation and a
Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation, each of those
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 4 1 7
following their own public notice and opportunity to comment. Approval
criteria include findings demonstrating conformance to the Metro Plan,
Springfield Comprehensive Plan, Applicable State statutes and applicable
State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. As some of the
master plan area is outside City of Springfield City Limits, co -processing
and adoption by Lane County would also be required. The City Council
decision is the final local decision. It becomes effective 30 days after the
decision is made unless there is an emergency clause or another date or
timeframe is included in the ordinance. The decision may be appealed to
the Lane Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days of the date of the
decision.
A code amendment is not currently in the master plan scope of work. A
contract amendment would be required to undertake the code
amendment effort.
Per SDC 5.6.100 Refinement Plans, Plan Districts and the Development
Code—Adoption or Amendment, citizen initiation amendments are
allowed only twice each calendar year— on or before January 5' or July
5'^.
2. MASTER PLAN PROPOSAL (PROPOSED REGULATIONS)
a. Master plan amendments to permitted uses in the residential mixed-use zone include
the following:
• At SDC 3.4.245:
Primary Uses:
Add hospitality uses — hotels (include, but are not limited to, inns, bed and
breakfasts, guesthouses, extended stay hotels or apartment hotels, limited -
service hotels, and full-service hotels).
Add Eating/Drinking Establishments and Retail Sales and Services as a primary
use in the residential mixed-use zone.
Add that a stand-alone commercial building is permitted as a primary use in the
residential mixed-use zone.
o Secondary Uses:
Delete the requirement that secondary uses can only be in a mixed-use building.
Add that a stand-alone commercial building is permitted in the residential mixed-
use zone.
o Exemptions:
Change the sr limitation of a single commercial use to 25,000 sr.
Change the exemption of retail sales and services uses in multi -floor commercial
uses.
• At SDC 3.4.250:
o Primary Uses:
Add Commercial/Retail:
Eating/drinking establishments.
Retail sales and services.
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 5 1 7
Hospitality.
• Conference facilities.
• Hotels.
b. Master Plan amendments to permitted uses in the commercial mixed-use zone include
the following:
• At SDC 3.4.245:
Primary Uses:
Add Retail Sales and Services as a primary use in the commercial mixed-use
zone.
Delete the requirement that no more than 50% of a development area may be
residential.
Add that a building and a development area may be 100° residential in the
commercial mixed-use zone.
o Secondary Uses:
Delete the requirement that Retails Sales and Services are permitted onlywithin
a mixed-use building.
o Over -supply Limitations:
Delete the limitation that Retails Sales and Services may occupy no more than
50% of the ground floor of a building. may occupy no more than 50% of a
development area.
Change the sr limitation from 10,000 sf to 25,000 sf.
• At SDC 3.4.250:
o Primary Uses:
Add to Commercial/Retail:
Retail sales and services.
3. REGULATORY CONSISTENCY
GRP Policies.
There are two GRP policies that are applicable to the master plan and the permitted
uses analysis — that documented above.
• The master plan is consistent with the first of these policies as it does not propose to
change the Mixed -Use and Nodal Development area designations, nor the
Multimodal Mixed -Use Area.
• The master plan is consistent with the second policy as it does not propose to
change the fact that the GRMU district applies to all parcels within the Glenwood
Riverfront.
b. SDC Standards.
The master plan proposal is not consistent with current code standards in terms of
permitted uses. This will require submittal, processing and approval of amending
subsections SDC 3.4.245 and SDC 3.4.250 of the development code. If it is decided that
a code amendment be pursued, it should occur concurrentwith the preliminary master
plan application. In order for the master plan to be approved, itwould need to be found
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 6 1 7
consistent with the code. Thus, the code amendment would need to be approved and in
effect. To save calendar time (and overall costs) processing the two applications can be
concurrent with the code amendment decision occurring in advance of the master plan
decision.
4. DIM QUESTION
a. What is staff opinion of the contemplated amendments to the development code
b. Does staff concurwith the applicant that the proposed permitted use code amendment
can be found t be consistent with plan policies?
c. Does staff agree with the strategy to process a code amendment application
concurrently with the preliminary master plan application? Does staff agree that it'd be
best if the code amendment decision is issued and in effect prior to the preliminary
master plan decision? If so, in terms of calendar time, how close to one another could
the two decisions occur?
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MASTER PLAN — DIM 7 1 7