Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 6/12/2008 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD - FINAL MASTER PLAN DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR VILLAGES @ MARCOLA MEADOWS DISTRIBUTION DATE JUNE 12, 2008 TO v ~ f ~ =Z / L Planning Staff Gary Karp, Planner III Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor Steve Hopkins, Planner II Engineering Matt Stouder, Englneenng Supervisor - Public Works Department Les Benoy, Engineer Group, EnglneenngfPubllc Works Transportation' Gary McKenney, Transportation Planning Engineer, Public Works Department Bnan Barnett, Transportation Supervisor, Public Works John Dnscoll, Transportation, Public Works FIre: Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Fire Marshall, Fire & Life Safety Department City Attorney C -J _ 11 . , ~. ,-, ) Joe Leahy, City Attorney ~ ~ ~) PLEASE REMEMBER. THIS IS NOT A COMPLETENESS REVIEW; THIS IS THE ONLY REVIEW OF THE FINAL MASTER PLAN APPLICATION. THIS MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 17,2008 @ 2.00 - 4.00 P.M. IN NW6. PLEASE ATTEND, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE All written comments must be sent to Gary Karp by June 17, 2008 by 5:00 p.m Date ReceIved' ," ,',' '"'if l' ," , "~,'1,r' :'UN '1' i' 'ZOOs '", ,~, I, ,'c r I IV\. .<..\.,r ,,/ ~:.i'- -.\ ',"r"l),.-IV\1I.l CiJl"V j//~ _____f)evlew~ '~ ~{~ ~..~/, 1 i.l-j ",Jfi " + ~)..( ....~I ~...~ ] ~ \\ AGENDA FINAL MASTER PLAN REVIEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET Conference Room NW6 (ESD AREA) Staff Review' June 17, 2008 @ 2:00 - 4 00 pm. 1 FINAL MASTER PLAN #LRP2007-00028 VILLAGES @ MARCO LA MEADOWS Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00 TL 1800 Assessor's Map 17-03-25-11 TL 2300 Address Vacant - Marcofa Roadf31" Street EXisting Use CCfMDRfNodal Dev AreafCommerclalfNodal Dev Area Applicant submitted final master plans for the Villages @ Marcola Meadows development Planner Gary Karp Gary has prepared three attachments which will help you through the review process 1 A list of the conditions with persons responsible to review a particular condition 2 A copy of the staff report that addresses prevIous staff comments and reasons for the conditions 3 A copy of Condition #27 with a concern about compliance With Item #5 Please note that the large plan sets are for your review convenience, they are the same plan sets that are In the bound document. " OVERVIEW FINAL MASTER PLAN REVIEW TO REVIEWERS FM GARY M KARP, SENIOR PLANNER RE FINAL MASTER PLAN REVIEW THE CONDITIONS BELOW WERE ATTACHED TO THE MASTER PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 20, 2007 AND MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE APPEALS DECISION ON JANUARY 28,2008 THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO EACH CONDITION AND EXPLANING EACH RESPONSE IN FULL DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE ATTACHED PACKET, AND IN CONSIDERATION OF EVERYONE'S SCHEDULE, I HAVE PREPARED AN ABBREVIATED LIST OF MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS AND "ASSIGNED" THOSE PERSONSfDIVISIONS "I THINK" SHOULD REVIEW EACH CONDITION AT OUR MEETING WE WILL GO THROUGH EACH CONDITION DURING THE MEETING, WE CAN RESOLVE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING ANY CONDITION The various conditions of approval are broken down Into the follOWing categories 1. Conditions reoUlrlno comollance p'rlor to Final Master Plan Apl!roval (44) #1,4,6, 7,8,9,10,11,12, 13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,29,30,31,33,34, 35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,46,49,50,51,52,&53 Note 19 of these conditions require a deed restriction 2 Conditions deferred to Phase 1 (8) SubdivIsion Tentative PlanfPlat submittal ~,~, 26, 32. 45. 47, 48. & 54 Note Conditions 22, 27, 31, 36, 27, 38, & 39 which apply to Final Master Plan approval as listed above, are Implemented In part or entirely dUring Phase 1 3 Conditions deferred to Phases 2. 3 and or 4 (1) a Phase 2 ~ Note Conditions 16, 27, & 36 which apply to Final Master Plan approval as listed above, are Implemented In part or entirely during Phase 2 b Phases 3 & 4 Note Condition 16 which applies to Final Master Plan approval as listed above, IS Implemented In part or entirely during Phase 4 4 Condition deleted bv the Plannlno Commission _ (1) I MASTER PLAN CONDITION I #1 deed restnctlon I W2 letter from 00011 W3 ODOT mltlqatlon ImDrovement~ APPLICANT'S STATEMENT ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval jfhls condition IS not reaulred for Final, Master Plan approval I [fhls COridltl9~ liS not reaUlred for Final Master Pelan'8DDrova[ I TO BE REVIEWED BY Joe LeahyfGary Karp Steve HODklns Phase 11 Steve HopkinS ThiS condition WilL ~eaUlre bondlna as part of Phase 1 J ,>teve Hopkins AiletterJforTl}0DOT Will Je sUc!;>l1)!re9!LaJJPJ:oof ot WbJ!,:cj , lcceptance' as'paitt.o! Iilliase 21 A~ I #4 deed restnctlon I 5 Metro Plan deSignation Zonmd Istnct Ie al'deschptlons I #6 deed restnctlon I #7 deed restnctlon I #8 resolution of open space Issues I #9 deed restnctlon I #10 deed restnctlon I #11 Lowe's elevations I #12 deed restnctlon #13 deed restnctlon 1- #15 deed restnctlon 1 #16 deed restnctlon 1#17 deed restnctlon 1#18 deed restnctlon 1#19 deed restnctlon 1#20 deed restnctlon #21 revised street widths #22 mclude construction of 2f3 street Improvements along the entire property frontaqe of 31" Street on phasmq plan #23 show 30 feet of paved width (two 15-foot lanes) With no on-street parkmg for the section of Belle Boulevard north of the Parcel 6f7 access #24 provide two 15-foot through lanes and an 11-foot Wide left-turn lane where needed for the section of Belle Boulevard south of the Parcel 6f7 access #25 resolve all Identified street Width Issues m order to comply With SDC Table 4 2-1 I W26' suofriit a Street Name Chanqe. I ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ifhls condition IS 'not reaUlred for Fmal Master Plan amlroval ' ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUired for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval ThiS Condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval _Immtillltlm ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS ,reqUIred for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS COndition IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condlllon IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Fmal Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ffhls condition IS not reqUired for Fmal , Joe LeahyfGary Karp Steve HODkms Phase 11 Joe LeahyfGary Karp Joe LeahyfGary Karp Gary Karp Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Gary Karp Joe LeahyfGary Karp Joe Leahy/Gary Karp IDlIl Joe LeahyfGary Karp Joe LeahyfGary Karp ISleYellil obklnslP.hasest2fa ndl'.4i Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Joe LeahyfGary Karp Joe LeahyfGary Karp Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Public WorksfTransportatlon Gilbert Gordon Public WorksfTransportatlon Public WorksfTransportatlon Public WorksfTransportatlon Public WorksfTransportatlon Ulm Donovan/Steve Hopkms Phase 1\ / I l3ppllcatlon I I #27. resolution of Marcola Road desl~n and financial security Issues I #28 coordinate with L TD regarding the location of required bus stops I #29 Direct vehicular driveway access to 28'hf31 'I Streets shall not be shown I #30 deed restriction I #31 deed restriction ~32 maintenance responsibility of t~ proposed private pathwavs alongJ!!g water feature} I #33 EWES crossing agreement #34 deed restriction Note accessway maintenance IS a public responsibility #35 accessway maintenance Note ThiS condition concerns those portions of the accessways that encroach EWES's property and IS addressed In the EWES Revocable License Agreement required In Condition #33 I #36 show the extent of bikeway Improvements on EWES property I #37 sanJtary sewer study #38 show the 10 Inch public sewer pipe on the westerly property line In a location outSide of the enhanced dralna~e swale #39 sewer service Issues regarding the eXisting bUilding to be removed I #40 reVised drainage study #41 revise the drainage study recommendation that the minimUm street ~rade on the site be 464 38 feet #42 supply drawdown results In the drainage study for the two proposed detention ponds #43 submit additional information regarding the proposed swale along Marcola Road I #44 submit a reVised street cross section detail which shows area for a lroposed roadSide water quality swale ~45 enter Into a malntenancd ,greement With the City for the're:1 ocated storm channel and asso;,~ Master Plan approvalJ ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval jrhls COnditiOn IS not reaulred for Final Master Plan ;moroval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUIred for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS required for Final Master Plan approval jrhls condition IS not reaUlred for Final Master Plan aoorovall Public WorksfTransportatlon I Public WorksfTransportatlon I Public WorksfTransportatlon I Joe Leahy/Gary Karp I Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Steve HopkinS Phase 11 I Gary Karp Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Joe Leahy/Gary Karp I Gary Karp Steve Hopkins Phases 11 ~ I PubliC Works Engineering PubliC Works Engineering Gary Karp Public Works Engineering Public Works Engineering Public Works Engineering Public Works Engineering Public Works Engineering :Steve HopkinS Phase 1L, Public Works EnDlneerlnq I \Nater,(qTIalifm,,-atu(Ets~ #46 designate specific areas set aSide for water quality management on each lroposed parcel 14;7. suomi! a cJetalle(J p'fanfln~g Rlan'I'" '" , ;ompliance Willi tlie €Ity~ stormwate w;o;, " 1ualitYj,sta.QQar.as 1~8 Install lIie reQUii:ea~tmasllij 05l r.eJo_cate_a a(aloaqel'dltth'1 #49 provide additional detail shOWing that installation of the 12 Inch water line paralleling the eXisting 42 Inch sanitary sewer line Will not Impede maintenance access or replacement of the eXisting 42 Inch sanitary sewer line I #50 deed restnctlon I #51 PhaSing Plan #52 submit a proposal to guarantee that the PhaSing Plan can be achieved ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval ~~~nlIS1'n6tlreoUlred f6rd,lnal aste~Rla,,;'~~'Zfo~'81 ' ThiS condition IS reqUired far Final Master Plan approval ThiS COnditiOn IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final I Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUired for Final Master Plan approval ThiS condition IS reqUired far Final Master Plan approval i!l'1;1c'6nCl~~~in?t reoUlred'for Final f\iJastEmP.lanWapprovaI1 " Public Works Englneenng p.~o15klns P.liase ;1 P.uolic, Wo'rKS1EinolOeemn Joe Leahy/Gary Karp Gary Karp Public Works Englneenng Gary Karp Joe Leahy Gary Karp Stevelr.J opklns\P.hasek11, ATTACHMENT 1 STAFF REPORT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Applicant Satre Associates PC, Applicant, representing SC Springfield, LLC Case Number ZON2007-00028 PrOject LocatIon Northwest Corner of Marcola Road and 281hf31" Streets Assessor's Map# 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot 01800 and 17-03-25-11, Tax Lot 02300 ZOning Community Commercial, Medium Density ReSidential, and Mixed Use Commercial Metro Plan Designation Community Commercial, Medium Density ResldentlalfNodal Development Area, and CommerclalfNodal Development Area Application Submittal Date September 28, 2007 120 Day Review Time-Ime January 26,2008 Related Applications ZON 2005-00028, LRP 2006-00027, ZON 2006-00030, ZON 2006-00054 and SUB 2007-00037 Request The applicant requests Master Plan approval for a phased, mixed-use development on 1003 acres formerly known as the "Pierce" property, now called the" Villages at Marcola Meadows" The proposed development consists of a total of 518 homes on 54 7 gross acres, and a total of 449,600 square feet of retallfoffice use on 45 6 gross acres There are 11 4 acres of proposed common open space proposed Site Map Ott-~ ~ 1 II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I I The size ~f this staff report IS almost as large as the IMarcola Meadows development area This IS the last major staff review and evaluation before the land IS dived by the SubdivIsion process and developed by , the Site Plan Review process Staff and the applicant have worked on the project for over two years , The applicant IS anxIous to obtain approval of thiS Master Plan application However, as staff stated In the Planning COmmission Transmission Memo, staff has Idenltfied two Issues the Planning Commission should consider before making their deCISion I 1 Resolulton of Issues regarding the required PhaSing Plan, and I SDC 5 13-105 says In part " Assure that mdlvldual phases of a development Will be coordmated With , each other "The matenals submitted by the applicant on September 28, 2007 did not resolve Issues regarding the PhaSing Plan The applicant did not create a relationship to the nodal aspect of thiS master Plan application where the coordination of the residential and commercial development IS , essential The applicant also did not explain hOWl the reSidential development would be coordinated as each phase developed Finally, the applicant did not address grading Issues for the entire resldenltal portion of the Site, which are essential to protecting adjacent property owners, who have expressed these concerns at prevIous public heanngs Staff has discussed these Issues through out thiS staff report Staff met with the applicant on Novemberi13th and again on November 21st After the last meeting staff felt we had something to work With and generated the two opltons discussed on Pages 52 , to 57 of thiS staff report Of the two options presented, staff prefers Option 2 because It establishes the more logical and safe PhaSing Plan I 2 Resolution of Issues regarding the City's needs for the installation of roundabouts as opposed to traffic Signals preferred by the applicant These Issues are discussed on Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report I In addition, several persons have testified about their concerns regarding what happens to "big box" stores that close and remain vacant over time The Planning Commission may want to conSider the follOWing condition of approval requlnng an "Adaptive Reuse Agreement" With Lowes (See Attachment 9, , POSSible Master Plan ConditIOn #56) Adaptive reuse occurs when a bUilding or a site loses ItS onglnal , function, It may be pOSSible to save It from abandonment or demolition by adapting It to a new use The Adaptive Reuse Agreement could require Lowes, after a certain penod of time, to either remove the , bUilding or redeSign the bUilding so that It would be ready for a number of new tenants I Finally, City staff members and representatives from other agencies who participate on the City'S Development ReView Committee have reViewed thiS Master Plan application Based upon thiS reView, City , staff has concluded that thiS application, as conditioned, complies With the cntena of approval However, the Planning COmmiSSion must determine that appropnate conditions of approval have been applied to thiS , application to guarantee quality development on thiS site over the life of thiS Master Plan The attached ' conditions are staffs recommendations These conditions may be subject to reVISion as requested by the , Planning Commission dunng the public heanng process based on both new information Introduced Into the , record andfor direction from the Planning CommiSSion Itself I I II SITE DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS I The site consists of two properties Identified as Tax Lot 1800 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-02-30- , 00 and Tax Lot 2300 of Lane County Assessor's Map 17-03-25-11 Tax Lot 2300 was platted In 1994 as Parcel 3 of land partition plat 94-P0491 A property line adjustment was recorded With Lane County In , 1997 affecting the common boundary between parcels 2 and 3 of land partition plat 94-P0491 In so dOing , completing the current configuration of the development site (City of Spnngfield file# 97-02-029) I The site IS entirely Within Spnngfield's Urban Growth Boundary and City limits and IS located north of , Marcola Road and West of 28th Street The site has preViously been used for a vanety of agncultural 2 uses Currently the site contains a machine shop bUilding located near the southeast corner of the site, which IS proposed to be removed pnor to development A storm water drainage ditch (Pierce Ditch) bisects the site running from east to west, the site IS located outSide of both the 1 DO-year flood and 500-year flood areas Site topography IS generally very flat With seasonal wetlands A small group of trees IS located along the site's east frontage and extends Within the Pierce Ditch The site abuts reSidential development to the east (across 31st Street), west, south (across Marcola Road), commercial development to the southwest, Industnal development to the southeast (across 28th Street and Marcola Road), and undeveloped WI llama lane park land to the north (across the EWEB corndor path) 1111 CURRENT PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The City CounCil approved the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment applications (LRP 2006- 00027 and ZON 2006-00054) on June 18, 2007 Plan Deslanallon The Metro Plan Diagram applies multiple plan deSignations to the development site Medium DenSity ReSidential, Commercial, and Commerclaif Nodal Development and IS summanzed In Figure 1 Figure 1 EXisting Metro Plan DeSignation lAs amended per Ordinance No 6195, June 18, 2007) Plan DeSignation Acres Medium DenSity ResldentlalfND* 547 Commercial 196 CommerclalfND* 260 Total 1003 /NO = Nodal Development Area 80 7 Zanlna DistriCts The OffiCial ZOning Map applies multiple ZOning Dlstncts to the development site Medium DenSity ReSidential, Community Commercial, and Mixed-Use Commercial and IS summanzed In Figure 2 Figure 2 EXisting ZOning DistriCts lAs amended per Ordinance No 6196, June 18, 2007) Zoning District Acres Medium DenSity ReSidential Community Commercial Mixed-Use Commercial Total 547 196 260 1003 IIV PROJECT BACKGROUND In July, 2005, the Martin Co submitted a Development Issues Meeting application (ZON 2005-00028) to generally diSCUSS a proposed commerclalfresldentlal development on the development site In May, 2006, Satre ASSOCiates, PC submitted a Pre-Application Report application (ZON 2006- 00030) as the reqUired prerequIsite for Master Plan approval (SDC 5 13-115B) Staff had a 3 number of concems about that proposal and contracted with Crandall Arambula, a Planning , consultant In Portland, for a peer review (See Attachment 7) The application was placed on , hold until approval of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments occurred I In September, 2006, Satre ASSOCiates, PC submitted the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment applications (LRP 2006-00027 and ZON 2006-00051) These applications were determined to be complete for review on January 11, 2007 The City CounCil approved these applications on June 18, 2007 (Ordinance Nos 6195 and 6196) Master Plan approval IS required by terms of Condition #1 of Ordinance No 6196 (Zoning Map Amendment) I On July 20,2007, Satre ASSOCiates, PC resubmitted the Pre-Application Report application The majority , of Crandall Arambula's recommendations have been Incorporated Into the current proposal I On September 6, 2007, City staff held a meeting With the applicant's representatives and Interested , outSide agencies to review the Pre-Application Report application I On September 24, 2007, the Pre-Application Report staff report was Issued I On September 28, 2007, the applicant submitted thiS Master Plan application I On October 10, 2007, thiS Master Plan application was accepted as complete for review I I V APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 was approved by the Planning Commission and City CounCil earlier thiS year With 14 conditions of approval Thelappllcant has submitted information addreSSing these conditions The ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance COnditiOnS of approval are In "dallcs" The applicant's , response IS In "bold ItaliCS" Most of these conditions relate directly to the Master Plan criteria of approval and In order to reduce redundancy, Will be addressed In that section of thiS staff report I STAFF NOTE The phase numbenng on thiS Master Plan application IS slightly different from the phaSing , shown In the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment submittals The phaSing referenced In staffs response to these conditions of approval IS based onlthe phaSing proposed In thiS Master Plan application STAFF NOTE Phase 1 of thiS Master Plan application as deSCribed by the applicant In Plan Sheet 7 and as discussed below depicts Infrastructure necessary to prepare the site for Initial development activity which Includes the construction of Martin Dnve from Marcola Road to 31" Street, the construction of Belle Blvd from 28th Street to Marlin Dnve, construction of the off-Site traffic mitigation Improvements at the Eugene- Springfield Highway east bound off-ramp at Mohawk Blvd, construction of the shared access drives connecting Parcel 1 to Martin Drive, Belle Blvd, and Marcola Road, construction of the greenway from 31" , Street to Martin Drive, construction of stormwater quantity and quality faCIlities as reqUired, construction of , associated backbone utilities (water, electrical lines, etc ), establishment of rough subgrade for Parcel 1 , and , installation and maintenance of erosion control measures for the above Phase 1 Will be Initiated by a , SubdiVISion Tentative Plan that Will diVide the site Into 11 lots (Plan Sheet 8) Phase 1 will Include additional , construction as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report I Condition 1 Zonmg Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 The submittal and approval of a Master , Plan application pnor to any development on the development site shaff be reqUired I Applicant's Response "The submittal of thiS applicatIon and the prevIous Pre-ApplicatIon Report (ZON 2006-00030) shall satIsfy thiS conditIon" Staff's ResponsefFmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's response to the "submittal" portion of Condition 1 However, the word "approval" IS hlghllg lted because It IS up to the Planning CommiSSion to approve or deny thiS application Staffs recommen iabon to the Planning Commission IS approval, With 4 conditions Based on staffs response, Condition 1 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Will be met If and when the Planning Commission approves thiS Master Plan application Condition 2. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of documentation from the Department of State Lands and! or the Army Corps of Engmeers With the Master Plan applIcatIon demonstratmg the eXlstmg dramage ditch IS not a regulated watercourse/ wetland, and If necessary, submTttal of a wetland delmeatlon for other wetlands that may be on the development sIte Applicant's Response "The eXlstmg dramage dItch IS not a regulated watercoursefwetland by the Department of State Lands, however, the Army Corps of Engmeers does regulate the dramage as an 'other water' " Staff's Response/Fmdmg The Pierce Ditch and wetlands on the site are addressed under Master Plan criterion 5 13-125E beginning on Page 57 of thiS staff report As condlltoned under that criterion, Condition 2 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met Condition 3 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan applIcation that mcorporates the relocation of the eX/stmg dramage dItch and conversIon to a majOr water feature that Will be an mtegral part of the proposed development area shall be reqUired The construction of the entIre water feature must be completed as part of the Phase 1 development 'The appl1cant has stated that Phase 1 Will mclude the home Improvement center ThIS means that thIS and all other condItions referencmg "Phase 1" must be mcorporated mto proposed Master Plan Phase 1 development Applicant's Response "The construction of the entIre water feature IS to be mcluded wlthm Phase 1 As such thIS condItion IS satisfied" See Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan for more mformatlon " Staff's ResponsefFmdmg The relocation of the Pierce Ditch and construction of the water feature that Will be a functional part of the drainage system for thiS site are addressed under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 3 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met Condition 4 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmTttal of a Master Plan appl1catlon that addresses compl1ance WIth the Dnnkmg Water Overlay Dlstnct standards m SDC SectIOn 3 3-200 and how these regulations Will be appl1ed for each proposed phase Applicant's Response "The applIcant addresses thIS standard under the dISCUSSIon of SDC SectIon 3 3-200 below As such thIS condItion IS satisfIed" Staff's ResponsefFmdmg The applicant or future owners must submit a Drinking Water Overlay District application concurrently With the Site Plan ReView appllcalton that IS required for proposed Phase 2 Addlllonal Drinking Water Overlay District applications Will be required for any additional proposed development Within the commercial zOning district where materials listed In SDC Section 3 3-200 are stored The Drinking Water Overlay District IS discussed under criterion 5 13-125B beginning on Page 12 of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 4 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met Condition 5 Zonmg Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan applIcatIon that addresses the relationshIp of the proposed development to Wlllamalane's future park on the north Side of the EWEB Bike Path and an explanation of any coordmatlOn efforts WIth Wlllamalane concernmg the sltmg and development of the future park Applicant's Response "The applicant met WIth representatives from Willamalane, the CIty of Sprmgfield, Spnngfield School Dlstnct and EWES on September 13, 2007 At thIS meeting Willamalane personnel mdlcated that there were no reqUIrements of the applIcant regardmg Wl/lamalane's property other than to not worsen storm dramage " 5 Staff's ResponsefFlndlng Condition #5 of the zone change DecIsion required the applicant to address coordination With Wlllamalane concerning "siting and development of the future park" The applicant correctly states that he has met With WI llama lane on'these Issues However, the Intent of the condition IS I to proVide for ongoing coordination regarding speCific park deSign Issues In order to fully meet that Intent, I WI llama lane recommends that the Master Plan Include language to the effect that, as conditioned below, the park coordination Issue portion of Condition 5 of:Zonlng Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 has been met Wlllamalane's storm drainage Issue IS addressed under cntenon 5 13-125C on beginning Page 30 I of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS portion of Condition 5 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #1 Pnor to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the Wlllamalane: Park and Recreation Director stating that the applicant or any successor owners shall give WI llama lane Park and Recreation Dlstnct an opportUnity to I review and comment on future plans for speCific Improvements to the proposed Oak Prairie Park, In order I to better ensure that the deSign IS compatible With and complimentary to planned Improvements at Wlllamalane's Pierce Park dunng the life of the Master Plan I Condition 6 ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan appltcatlon that addresses coordmatlon WIth EWEB to determme If any easements are reqUIred m order to cross the EWEB BIke Path to access the future park Staff's Response/Flndlng The EWE8 access Issu,e IS complicated The access Issue IS addressed undercntenon 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of this staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff I report, Condition 6 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I Condition 7 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan appltcatlon that shows the proposed home Improvement center bUlldmg extenor deSIgn SImIlar to the eXlstmg bUlldmg m I Scottsdale, Anzona or a bUlldmg deSIgn that compIles WIth the current bUlldmg deSIgn standards m SDC SectIon 3 2-400 I Applicant's Response "The applicant has submitted Within the General Retail section of , Attachment " l1Iustratlve OverView the proposed home Improvement center bUilding extenor design I that IS Similar to the bUilding In Scottsdale, Anzona As such thiS condition IS satisfied" I Staff's Response/Flndlng Staffs Intent was to Incorporate bUilding deSign elements Similar to those In the Campus IndustnalfDlstnct, the former zOning dlstnct for thiS portion of the Site, andfor the MUC Dlstnct Staff did not want Just another "big box" Without any Significant deSign features Home I Improvement center deSign Issues are discussed under cntenon 5 13-1258 beginning on Page 12 of thiS I staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 7 of Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I Condition 8 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submttlal of a Master Plan appltcatlon that , demonstrates that the reSIdentIal development WIll occur at not less than 12 dwellmg Units per net acre I Applicant's Response "Sheet 6 shows the proposed Site plan for the Marcola Meadows Master Plan I The sheet show that there are two residential Villages composed of Single-family homes and town I homes A total of 518 homes are proposed on 39 net acres, or 13 2 umts per net acre As such thiS condition IS satisfied" Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant complies With the minimum reSidential denSity requirements for a deSignated mode The reSidential denSity Issue I~ discussed undercntenon 513-1258 beginning on Page 12 of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhee In thiS staff report, Condition 8 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 has been met 6 Condition 9 ZOning Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 SubmIttal of prellmmary desIgn plans wIth the Master Plan applIcation addressmg the proposed mItigatIon of Impacts dIscussed m the T1A The plans shall show the proposed traffic control changes allowmg left-tums from the eastbound ramp center lane at the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boufevard! Eugene-Spnngfield Highway mtersectlon The mtent of this condItion IS to have the applicant demonstrate to ODOT that the proposed mitIgation IS feas/bfe from an engmeenng perspectIve and WIll be constructed on a schedule that IS acceptable to ODOT ProvIded that constructIOn of the proposed mitIgatIon IS determmed to be feasible, then dunng Master Plan revIew and approval a condItIon shall be applted reqUlnng the mdlgatlon to be accompltshed pnor to the temporary occupancy of any use m Phase 1 of the development Applicant's Response "Attachment 3 3, Marcola Meadows MItIgatIon Traffic Englneenng Study shows the proposed prelIminary deSIgn plans showing the proposed mitIgatIon of Impacts dIscussed In the TIA The plans show that the proposed traffIC control changes allowing left-turns from the eastbound ramp center lane at the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk Boulevard! Eugene- Springfield HIghway intersectIon are feasIble As such thIS condItion IS satisfied " Staff's ResponsefFmdmg For the record, the Phase 1 as referenced In Condition 9 IS Phase 2 development as proposed In the Master Plan application The applicant has submitted only a feasibility study addreSSing traffic Impacts at the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk BoulevardfEugene-Sprlngfield Highway intersection The Intent of this condition IS to have the applicant demonstrate to ODOT that the proposed mitigation IS feasible from an engineering perspective and Will be constructed on a schedule that IS acceptable to ODOT ProVided that construction of the proposed mitigation IS determined to be feaSible as determined by ODOT, then concurrently With the SubdiVIsion Tentative Plan reqUired for Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the feaSibility letter Signed by ODOT DUring the Site Plan ReView application for Phase 2, a condition Will be applied requIring the mitigation reqUired by ODOT to be accomplished prior to final occupancy of the home Improvement center The term "final occupancy" IS used because there may be no need for a "temporary occupancy" ThiS IS actually to the advantage of the applicant As conditioned below, Condition 9 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 IS met MASTER PLAN CONDITION #2 Concurrent With the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan application reqUired for proposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a letter from ODOT stating that plans for the eastbound ramps of the Mohawk BoulevardfEugene-Sprlngfield Highway intersection plans have been approved MASTER PLAN CONDITION #3 Construction of the reqUired mitigation Improvements at the sole expense of the applicant and shall be complete and accepted by ODOT prior to final occupancy of the proposed home Improvement center shown In Phase 2 Condition 10 ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Submittal of a Master Plan applIcatIon that mcorporates a "Development Phasmg Plan" shall be reqUired m order to comply WIth SDC Section [513-120(12)J The mtent of this condItion IS to a) Address the "mternal tnp" Issue by reqUlnng a certam percentage of the reSidentIal portIon of the site to be developed With a SimIlar percentage of the commercIal portIon The speCIfic percentages Will be made part of the approved Master Plan, and b) Ensure that, for each type of land use, the amounts proposed do not exceed those shown m Table 4C of the T1A Applicant's Response "Sheet 7, PhaSing Plan shows the development phaSing plan Phase 1 WIll Incorporate the development of Martin Dnve, Belle Boulevard, the Internal dnve network that WIll connect to the home Improvement store and the Open Space/Common Area that separates the commercIal and reSIdential parts of the development Phase 2 Includes the development of the home Improvement store Phase 3 Includes the development of 87 Single-famIly resIdences located adjacent to Belle Boulevard, north of Marlin Dnve east towards 31st Street Phase 4 Includes the remaining development of resIdential and commercIal areas In conformance with the Internal tnp dlstnbutlon table within the Master Plan Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (Attachment 3 1) As such thIS condItIon IS satIsfied" 7 Staff's ResponsefFlndlng The phasing componen. of this Master Plan submittal has been the most difficult Issue to resolve dUring the review of this application The applicant has submitted a number of phasing scenarios whIch are addressed under criterion 5 13-1250 on beginning Page 52 of thiS staff report As conditIoned elsewhere In thiS staff report, 'Condition 10 of Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met Condition 11 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196: Submittal of a Master Plan applicatIOn , that shows the entire length of the collector street [Martm DnveJ from Marcola Road to V Street bemg constructed as part of Phase 1 I Applicant's Response "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows that the collector street, Martin Dnve, IS to be developed wlthm Phase 1 As such thiS cond'ttonl's sattsfied" Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant has agreed to construct the entire length of proposed Martin I Drive as part of Phase 1 Streets are discussed under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of thiS , staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 11 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I Condition 12 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan application that shows the construction of all streets selVmg the GG and MUG portions of the development sIte bemg constructed shall be reqUired as part of Phase 1 Applicant's Response "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows that all streets, Martin Dnve, Belle Boulevard , and the mternal dnve network shall be constructed as part of Phase 1 As such thiS condltton IS sattsfied " I Staff's Response/Flndlng The applicant has agreed to construct all streets and the Internal drive network as part of Phase 1 Streets and drives are discussed under criterion 5 13-125G beginning on , Page 30 of thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thIS staff report, Condition 12 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I Condition 13. Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 SubmIttal of a Master Plan applIcation , that shows proposed connectivity between the reSidential and commercial development areas I Applicant's Response "The resldenttal and commercial areas of the development are connected via , a pnvate network of pathways that surround the common/open space areas of the development site, , see Sheet 5, Master Plan lIIustratton for more mformatlon The network of pathways combmed with street Sidewalks, commercial area Sidewalks and'connecttng accessway to the eXlsttng resldenttal I area to the west creates a convenient and effiCient method of pedestnan and bicyclist movement on , the development site As such thiS condition IS satisfied" I Staff's ResponsefFlndlng The applicant demonstrates connectivity via a pnvate network of pathways t between reSidential and commerCial areas and Within proposed open spaces The pathwaysfaccessways , are discussed under criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of thiS staff report As conditioned , elsewhere In thiS staff report, Condition 13 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met I Condition 14 Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 The Master Plan shall be submitted , wlthm one year of the CIty CounCil approval of these applications [Ordmance Numbers 6195 and 6196, approved June 18, 2007J Applicant's Response The Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications IOrdlnance Numbers 6195 and 6196) were approved June 18, 2007 With thiS submittal thiS condition IS satisfied I Staff's Response/Flndlng ThiS Master Plan appll~atlon was submitted to the City on September 28, 2007 ConditIon 14 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 has been met 8 STAFF NOTE In addition, Section 4 of Ordmance 6196 states "The legal descnptlOn of the ent/fe property IS specified m Exhibit B The proposed zonmg IS shown on the map m Exhibit C The specific boundanes of the zonmg dlstncts shall be determmed as a conditIOn of approval of the reqUired Master Plan" Applicant's Response "The applIcant mtends to finalIze the legal descnptlon for the amended zomng dlstncts WIth the first land dIVISIon appllcatton (partttton or sUbdIVISIon) after Master Plan Approval as reqUired by Sectton 4 of Ordmance Number 6196 (June 18, 2007) The Spnngfield CIty CouncIl approved Metro Plan amendments that desIgnated 54 7 acres MedIum-DensIty Resldenttal and 45 6 acres CommercIal (perOrdmance No 6195, June 18, 2007) In addltton, all of the Medlum- DenSIty Resldenttal and 26 acres of the CommercIal receIved the Nodal Development Overlay (80 7 acres) Zonmg classifIcatIons Spnngfield Crty CouncIl approved Zonmg classificatIon amendments that deSIgnated 54 7 acres MedIum-DensIty ResIdentIal, 196 acres Commumty CommercIal, and 260 acres Mixed-Use Commercial (per Ord No 6196, June 18, 2007)." Staff's Response/Flndlng Staff allowed the final plan deSignation and zOning boundanes to be delayed and conditioned under the Master Plan application review process Finalization of these boundanes IS discussed undercntenon 513-125A beginning on Page 11 of this staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report As conditioned elsewhere In thiS application, the requirement In Section 4 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that all of the conditions of approval attached to ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196, either have been met, met as conditioned In thiS section or can be conditioned to be met or other sections of thiS staff report I VI MASTER PLAN APPLICABILITY SDC Section 5 13-110 states "The Master Plan process applies when Imtlated by an applicant when the followmg cntena are met A The development area IS under one ownershIp, or B If the development area has multIple owners, then all owners of record have consented m wntmg to the Master Plan review process, and C The development area IS 5 acres or greater D Notwlthstandmg the foregomg, the Director may determme that the proposed development IS mappropnate as a Master Plan and the applicatIon WIll not be accepted" Applicant's Response "The submIttal of thIS Master Plan applIcatIon was required by terms of CondItIon #1 of Ordmance No 6196 (Zonmg Map Amendment, June 18, 2007) Only SubsectIons A and C Sectton 513-110B), and the development sIte IS larger than five acres (SDC SectIon 515- 110C), therefore, the proposal meets Master Plan applIcabIlity reqUirements establIshed m SDC Sectton 5 13-110 " Staff's Response/Flndlng Staff concurs With the applicant's response concerning Master Plan applicability I VII MASTER PLAN REVIEW SDC Section 513-115 states 9 "A Master Plans are revIewed under Type 11/ procedure, unless the D/fector determmes that the , applicatIon should be reVIewed as a Type IV deCISion by the CIty CounCIl due to the complexity of the application B A Pre-ApplicatIOn Report applicatIOn as speCIfied m SectIon 5 1-100 IS reqUired pnor to submIttal of a Master Plan applicatIOn" I Applicant's Response "The Marcola Meadows Master Plan shall be reVIewed as a Type III appllcatton as determmed by the Plannmg Director per SDC SectIon 5 13-115(A) A Pre- , Appllcatton Report was submItted July 20, 2007 and a staff report was Issued September 24, 2007 , Ilstmg prevIous condItIons of approval per Zonmg Map Amendment Ordmance 6196 (June 18, 2007) and addItIonal submIttal reqUirements (ZON 2006-00030) " I Staff's ResponselFlndlng Staff determined that thiS Master Plan application should be reviewed as a , Type III review Staff concurs With the applicant's response concerning review type and the submittal of a Pre-Application Report application I I VIII MASTER PLAN BASIC UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS I Staff ResponselFlndlng SDc Section 5 13-135, Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule, uses the term "underlYing assumptions" when an applicant wl~hes to modify an approved Master Plan Proposed modifications are reviewed based on the IntenSity of their affects on the baSIC underlYing assumplions , resulting In review from Type I (staff deCISion, Without notice) through Type III (Planning Commission public heanng) I On November 20, 2007 staff asked the Planning Commission to conSider, and then direct staff to utilize the , follOWing as baSIC underlYing assumptions for thiS Master Plan application 1) streets, 2) nodal reqUIrements, , 3) land uses, 4) phaSing, 5) stormwater management, 6) sanitary sewers, and 7) grading The Planning Commission's approval of the baSIC underlYing assumptions gives staff more certainty up front when , determining the review process for a Master Plan modification Since the baSIC underlYing assumptions , have been approved pnor to the completion of thiS staff report, they Will be used here too when staff finds It necessary I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #4 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a , deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and Development Services Director stating that the applicant or successor owners shall address baSIC underlYing assumptions approved by the Planning Commission when applYing for a Master Plan modification as speCified In SDc Section 5 13 135 I IIX NOTICE I SDC 5 2-115 states "A Mailed NotIce Where reqUired, notice of a publIC heanng WIll be sent by mall at least 20 days before , the date of the heanng If two public heanng!, are reqUired, notice may be sent 10 days before the first heanng The mailed notice WIll be sent to the applicant and the owners of record of the subject , property, all property owners and occupants wlthm 300 feet of the subject property, the appropnate , neIghborhood aSSOCIatIon, and any person who submIts a wntten request to receive notice In , addItion, the applicant shall post one sign, approved by the D/fector, on the subject property Information pertammg to property ownership shall be obtamed from the most recent property tax assessment role B Newspaper Notice - QuasI-JudicIal and leglslltlve land use deCISions Notice shall also be published m a newspaper of general clrculat,?n 10 Staff's ResponselFlndlng Notice of the November 20, 2007 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to property owners and residents, as well as those on the "Interested Person's LIst" staff established for the Metro Plan and ZOning Map amendment applications on November 1, 2007 In accordance with Subsection A ,above Newspaper notice was also published on November 13, 2007 In accordance With Subsection B , above I X MASTER PLAN CRITERIA OF APPROVAL SDc Section 5 13-125 states "A Master Plan may be approved If the Plannmg CommIsSion finds that the proposal conforms With all of the followmg approval cntena In the event of a conflict WIth approval cntena m thIS Subsection, fhe more specific reqUirements apply A The zonmg of the property shall be consistent wlfh the Metro Plan dIagram and/or applIcable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan Dlstnct map, and Conceptual Development Plan, B The request, as condItIoned, shall conform to applIcable Spnngfield Development Code reqUirements, Metro Plan poliCies, Refinement Plan, Plan Dlstnct, and Conceptual Development Plan poliCies C Proposed on-site and off-Site Improvements, both public and pnvate, are suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacIty reqUirements of publiC fac1l1tles plans, and proVIsions are made to assure constructIon of off-Site Improvements m conjunction WIth a schedule of the phasmg D The request shall proVide adequate gUidance for the deSign and coordmatlon of future phases, E PhYSical features, mcludmg but not limited to steep slopes With unstable saIlor geologiC condItions, areas WIth susceptIbIlity to floodmg, Significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated npanan areas, wetlands, rock outcroppmgs and open spaces and areas of hlstonc and/or archaeological slgmficance as may be specified m SectIon 3 3-900 or ORS 97 740-760,358905-955 and 390 235-240 shall be protected as specified m thiS Code or m State or Federal law, and F Local pUblic faCIlities plans and local street plans shall not be adversely Impacted by the proposed development" The 6 crltena of approval are addressed below rCRITERION 5 13-125A 1 "The zonmg of the property shall be consIstent With the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan Dlstnct map, and Conceptual Development Plan, Applicant's Response "The applIcant mtends to fmallze the legal descnptlon for the amended zonmg dlstncts WIth the fIrst land dIVISIon applicatIon (partltton or subdIVISIon) after Master Plan Approval as reqUired by SectIon 4 of Ordmance Number 6196 (June 18, 2007) whIch states 'The legal descnptton of the entire property IS speCIfIed m ExhIbIt B The proposed zonmg IS shown on the map m EXhIbIt C The precise boundanes of the zOning dlstncts descnbed m ExhIbIt A shall be determmed as a condItIon of approval of the reqUired Master Plan' Spnngfleld CIty CouncIl approved Metro Plan amendments that deSIgnated 54 7 acres MedIum-DensIty ReSIdentIal and 45 6 acres CommercIal (per Ordmance No 6195, June 18, 2007) In addItIon, all of the MedlUm- DenSIty ReSIdentIal and 26 acres of the CommercIal receIved the Nodal Development Overlay (80 7 11 acres) ZOning classIfIcatIOns Sprmgfleld CIty C;:,uncll approved ZOning classIficatIon L amendments that desIgnated 54 7 acres MedlumjDenslty ResIdentIal, 196 acres Community CommercIal, and 260 acres MIxed-Use CommercIal (per Ord No 6196, June 18, 2007) As stated , above the fmallzatton of the zonmg boundanes WIll occur as a condItIon of Master Plan approval" I Staff's Response/Flndlng Staff concurs With the applicant's response because the zOning IS consistent With the Metro Plan designation There IS no Refinement Plan, Plan Dlstnct map, Of Conceptual , Development Plan that applies to this site The appropriate timing for the finalization of the zoning and , plan boundaries are dUring the land divIsion process which requires the services of a professional land , surveyor Staff addfessed this Issue preViously as p,art of the discussion on Section 4 of Ordinance 6196 Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, criterion 5 13-125A can be met I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #5 Concurrently, IWlth the submittal of the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan application that IS fequlred for pfoposed Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the reqUIred legal , descriptions to the satisfaction of the City Surveyof fOf the approved Master Plan dlagfam and ZOning Map amendments CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned, criterion 513-125A has been met I rCRITERION 5 13-125B 1 "The request as conditIoned shall conform to applicable Sprmgfield , Development Code reqUirements, Metro Plan poliCIes, Refinement Plan, Plan Dlstnct, and Conceptual Development Plan policies" STAFF NOTE The SDc requirements feferenced In this criterion are related to those standards that afe necessary for the review and approval of this Master Plan application contained In SDc Chapters 3 , and 5, but are typically outside of the nOfmal development standards that are contained In SDc Chapter 4, which afe referenced and evaluated under criterion 513-135C, below Applicable Metro Plan poliCies, , Refinement Plan, Plan DiStriCt, and Conceptual Development Plan poliCies Will be addressed under this criterion I Applicant's Response "The followmg demonstrates the proposal's conformance WIth the above , cntenon for Master Plan approval ThIs sectIon IS broken down to address the applicable goals , and polICIes m vanous relevant plans, as well as, applIcable statutes and admmlstratlve rules, and relevant portIons of the Spnngfield Development Code" APPLICABLE SDC REQUIREMENTS Applicant's Response "The following are sectIons from the Sprmgfleld Development Code (SDC) , applIcable to thIs Master Plan applIcatIon and are cIted WIth fmdmgs demonstrattng the project's conformance WIth these SDC reqUirements and the above cntenon " RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS SDC SECTION 3 2-205 - ESTABLISHMENT { F RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS I Applicant's Response "The Master Plan contams approxImately 54 7 gross acres on-site m the MDR zonmg dlstnct (39 net acres) SDC Sectton 3 2-205B reqUires that resIdentIal denSItIes m thIS , dlstnct range from more than 10 to 20 Units per developable acre The nodal development , standards of TransPlan reqUIre that the denSItIes be a mmlmum of 12 umts per developable acre , The Cluster SubdIVISIon reqUIres that the development not exceed the maxImum allowed wlthm thezonmg dlStrtCt, Ie, 20 umts per developable 'acre As referenced m SDC SectIon 513-120 F of , thIs submIttal and Illustrated on Plan Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon, the VIllages at Marcola , Meadows Master Plan denslttes are wlthm the range allowed m MDR dlstncts Because the Master Plan demonstrates that housmg can be prOVIded m suffiCIent quantttles to eaSIly exceed the , mInimum denSIty and number of Units outlmed above, and thus meet the denSIty reqUirements 12 establIshed m SDC SectIon 3 2-205B , the Metro Plan, and TransPlan thIs applIcatIon IS consIstent wIth thIs standard" Staff Response/Fmdmg SDc Section 32-205B establishes the Medium Density District The MDR density range IS from 10 to 20 dwelling Units per net developable acre The Nodal Development Area Oveflay deslcnatlon* applies to the entire portion of the site that IS zoned and designated MDR, as well as that portion zoned MUc, approximately 80 acres Because development within a node must occur at least 12 dwelling Units per net developable aCfe, this shall be the minimum development density for the MDR portion of this site The applicant has stated In the response to SDc Section 32-210, below that the minimum development density for the MDR portion of the site will be 13 3 dwelling Units per net developable aCfe This Master Plan demonstrates that the residential portion of the site can be proVided In sufficient quantities to eaSily exceed the minimum density of 12 dwelling Units pef net acre and therefore complies With SDc Section 32-205 'ST AFF NOTE A discussion on the differences between the Nodal Development Area Overlay and the Nodal Development Overlay District will occur on Page 22 of this staff report SDC SECTION 3 2-210- SCHEDULE OF USE CATEGORIES Applicant's Response "Uses proposed m the MDR-zoned portIons of the site mclude those reSIdentIal uses that are permItted outnght and/or are subject to specIal use prOVISIons for cluster subdIVISIons WhIle the concepts Illustrated on Plan Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon and Attachments 1, illustratIve OverVIew and Attachment 2, DesIgn GUldelmes, were developed to meet the various provIsIons for smgle-famlly and townhouse housmg contamed m the Code, these should not be taken to represent a specifIC development proposal or to establIsh a reqUirement that future reSIdentIal development mIrror one of these concept IllustratIOns However, adherence to the speCIfIC development standards m SectIon 3 2-200, and other applIcable SDC prOVIsIons, WIll be consIstent WIth future subdIVISIon submIttals consIstent WIth thIS Master Plan" , The applicant also states "F The densIty or mtenslty of proposed uses The prevIous Metro Plan DIagram and Zomng Map amendment appllcattons referred to a development scenano to proVIde a VIsual aId for the approval process Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon, IS the development scenario, and Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan IS the proposed development phasmg for the Marcola Meadows Master Plan Proposed resldenttal densItIes fall wlthm ranges allowed by Code (see DIscussIon under NeIghborhood Comments, Comment 2, above, for more informatIon on allowed density) Housmg densItIes wlthm the sIte WIll be a functIon of the ulttmate desIgn types selected by future bUilders However, the concept proposal Illustrates the abIlIty to develop resldenttal housmg denslttes wlthm the range allowed for nodal development, MedIUm DenSIty Resldenttal (MDR) and Cluster SubdIVISIon (appltcable to smgle-famlly umts) development The concept mcludes a total of 247 townhouses WIth parkmg to the rear of the umts and wlthm pnvate dnves/ alleys In addltton, a total of 271 detached smgle-famlly umts are proVIded WIth some parkmg proVIded at the rear of the umt wlthm publIC alleys The Master Plan Identtfies that 518 umts are proposed wlthm two VIllages conslsttng of smgle-famlly detached houses (271 umts, 121 umts per net acre) and attached townhouse untts (247umts, 15 0 umts per net acre) The smgle-famlly detached umts are assumed to average 1,900 square feet (sq ft) per umt (and range from approxImately 1,480 sq ft. to approxImately 2,100 sq ft) The townhouse umts average approxImately 1,700 sq ft The overall net denSIty of the reSIdentIal VIllages IS 13 3 umts per net acre m complIance WIth the nodal development and medIum denSIty reSIdentIal standards The applIcant notes that If developed to the maxImum that the Code allows wlthm the MedIUm-DenSIty ReSIdentIal Zone a total of 780 umts are pOSSIble, yet only 730 umts are pOSSIble WIth the reqUired tnp cap (see T1A for more mformatlon) " Staff Response/Fmdmg Single-family dwellings and townhouses are listed as pefmltted uses In SDc Section 3 2-210 Consequently, the proposed fesldentlal uses are consistent With SDc Section 32-210 However, what IS being reViewed and evaluated In thiS Master Plan application Includes a mix of hOUSing 13 types and the location of housing In respect to eXisting adjacent residential development The mix as , submitted Includes 271 detached single-family hous,?s (beginning In the east portion of the site, stretching to the west, just south of the EWEB Bike Path) and 247 attached townhouses south of Martin Drive and , north of the proposed commefclal development) Upon Master Plan approval, this will be the authorized fesldentlal mix The TIA approved dUring the Metro ~lan diagram and Zoning Map amendments did place a limitation of 730 dwelling umts based on the required tnp cap Nevertheless, based on the Master Plan , BaSIC UnderlYing Assumptions approved by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2007, and I because the adjacent reSidents have raised IIvabllityjlssues dUring this public hearing process and dUring the public hearings fOf the Metro Plan dlagfam and ZOning map amendments, this Issue must be addressed by a condition of approval Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, this application complies With SDc Section 3 2-205 I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #6 PrlOf to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall pfepare a , deed festrlclion to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Dlfectof that states any change In the mix of hOUSing Units, any change In the location of hOUSing types, or any mCfease In , the 518 residential dwelling Units shown on the approved Final Master Plan by the applicant Of successor , ownefS shall require a Master Plan modification as specified In SDc Section 5 13 -135 I SDC SECTION 3 2-230 - CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS Applicant's Response I "The applIcant has chosen to apply the Cluster SubdIVISIon standards to the development Site, , and per SDC ~3 2-230(A)(4) Cluster SubdIVISIons, 'Shall not exceed the maxImum denSity of the applIcable zonmg dIstrict and the Metro Plan DenSIty IS calculated on the gross acreage' . ApplIcabIlIty and Purpose The proposal uttllzes the fleXIbIlIty mherent m the Cluster SubdIVISIon development standards , through reduced lot sIze and street wIdth, allowlf,lg the preservatIon of open space The common open space prOVIdes passIve recreatIon for residents, preservmg eXlstmg wetlands and treed , dramage basm, and the creatIon of a constructed open stormwater management area featurmg a wetland aesthetIC I . PermItted Dwellmgs, Structures and Uses The applIcant proposes a mIxture of detached slf,lgle-famlly dwellmgs and attached townhomes combmed WIth common private open space as aI/owed DetaIls of the deSIgn are proVIded wlthm Sheet 5, Master Plan l1Iustratlon and Attachment 1, l1Iustratlve OvervIew and Attachment 2, DeSIgn GUldelmes . DenSIty and Setbacks A dISCUSSIon of reSIdentIal denSity wlthm the Cluster SubdIVISIon IS prOVIded above and the appltcatlon conforms to the reqUired standards I . Penmeter A 10-foot penmeter setback IS proposed per the reqUirements of SDc SectIon 3 2-215 . BUlldmgs HeIghts I No resIdentIal structure WIll exceed the 35-foot maxImum heIght as defmed m the SDC See , Attachment 1, illustratIve OvervIew and Attachment 2, DeSIgn GUldelmes for more mformatlon . Solar ProtectIon I The propertIes to the north of the development sIte are deSIgnated Parks and Open Space and , MedIUm DenSIty ResIdentIal, as such thIS standard does not apply . Lot Coverage I The development WIll not exceed the 45% maxImum lot coverage of the net development area However, mdlvlduallots may exceed thIS, see Attachment 2, DesIgn GUldelmes . NeIghborhood Compatlblltty I The proposed dwellmg Units aIm to reduce the 'rr'pact of new development on the eXlstmg neIghborhood by bemg generally compatIble WIth the surroundmg homes m style, detaIl, , proportIon, and materials Please see Attachment 1, illustratIve OvervIew and Attachment 2, , DesIgn GUldelmes for more mformatlon on desIgn detaIl In addltton, the followmg Items further defme thIS standard 14 . Front Yard Setbacks Shown setbacks meet 10-foot mmlmum code reqUirement There are no eXlstmg smgle-famlly resIdences located wlthm 25 feet of the subject sIte and frontmg on the same street as the proposed development, therefore setback compatIbIlIty reqUirements do not apply . BUlldmg HeIght TransItIon Smgle story homes eXIst adjacent to Parcel 3 and 8 of the TentatIve Land DIvIsIon and Street Plan (Sheet 8) These homes appear to be less than 21' m heIght and the closest eXlstmg structure IS setback 15 feet from Its property Ime, however, measurements were not taken In all cases reSIdentIal structures wlthm Parcel 8 wIll be setback a mmlmum of 10-feet from the property Ime Parcel 3 of the Sheet 8, Tentattve Land DIvIsIon and Street Plan wIll have commercIal development that IS setback at least 25 feet from the property Ime and IS buffered by a landscaped dramageway and/ or parkmg area As such, the proposed houses and commercIal development wIll be located well outsIde of the 25-foot hortzontal zone . BUIlding Onentatlon and ConnectIVIty to Fronting Street Dwellmgs have front doors openmg directly to the frontmg street WIth a mInimum 3' \paved walkways connectmg the doors to the publIC SIdewalk . Garage Doors Garage doors facmg the street do not exceed the 40% of the house fa~ade WIdth . Garage Fa~ade The maJonty of the proposed homes WIll receIve access from alleys Where front fa~ade garage facades are shown on the proposed homes they shall meet the code reqUirement for a 4-foot mmlmum setback from front fa~ade of house and/ or have a porch that, 50 square feet or more, m sIze encroachmg mto the setback . Wmdows Dwellmg Units meet the reqUired 15% wmdow/dwellmg door reqUirement on street facmg facades . DesIgn Vanety Sample house elevatIons are shown wlthm Attachment 1, /IIustratlve OverVIew and Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon . Common Open Space Common Open Space mcludes the areas surroundmg the relocated PIerce DItch, the stormwater detentIon pond area In the north portIon of SIte, the neIghborhood park m the north portIon of the SIte, the landscaped stormwater buffer area adjacent to some of the neIghborhood streets These areas total 11 4 acres, 20 8% of the cluster subdIVISIon area See Sheet 6, VIllages, Land Use and Area TabulatIOn . Landscapmg Common open space areas are predommantly vegetated WIth eXlstmg vegetatIon wlthm the relocated PIerce DItch and shall be planted WIth SUitable wet-tolerant materta/s, natIve trees and low growmg, drought tolerant grasses Pathways prOVIde access and enjoyment of the areas . Proposed fencmg The reSIdentIal development Will mclude the development of a Uniformly desIgned fence along the north property line that abuts the EWEB Easement/BIke Path The desIgn of the fence IS detaIled wlthm Attachment 2, DesIgn GUldelmes " The applicant also states "SDC SectIon 61-110, Meaning of SpecifIC Words and Terms prOVIdes a defmltlon for Gross and Net DensIty, repnnted here to prOVIde clartty DensIty, Gross The number of dwelling Units for each acre of land, including, but not lImIted to areas devoted to streets, parks, SIdewalks and other publIC facllttles DensIty, Net The number of dwelling Units for each acre of land m reSIdentIal use, excluding dedIcated streets, parks, SIdewalks and other publIC faCIlItIes Based on the Cluster SubdIVISIon densIty measure, the gross densIty of the development sIte IS 9 5 Units per gross acre The applIcant's proposed development does not exceed the maxImum densIty allowed wlthm the MDR dlStrtCt, as such the applIcatIon conforms WIth thIS standard The Master Plan Illustrates the abIlIty to develop as many Units as conSIdered m the mc/uded TransportatIon Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) whIle also meetmg Sprtngfleld code housmg reqUirements, mc/udmg the densIty range for MDR housmg m SDC SectIon 3 2-205(B) The cluster subdIVISIon development standards would also be met, mc/udmg the mmlmum of 12 resIdential Units per net acre" 15 Staff Response/Fmdmg SDC Section 32-230 lists standafds fOf Cluster SubdivIsions Staff has the , following concerns regarding the proposed cluster development I 1) there are deSign Issues concerning the reduction In street widths which Will be addressed under Master Plan criterion 5 13-125C beginning on Page 30 of this staff feport, I 2) the applicant has stated that both the proposed single-family dwellings and the townhouses Will be processed undef Cluster SubdiVISion standards I The applicant has not addressed the deSign elements or the open space requirements unique to multi-family development as speCified In SDc Section 3 2-240, Multi-Unit DeSign Standards The applicant shall utilize the multi-family deSign , regulations fOf the pfoposed townhouses and eV,aluate and address any potential open space requirement conflicts between SDc Sections 3 2-230 and 32-240 The more strict open space , standards shall apply to the proposed townhouses, I 3) based on the Master Plan BaSIC UndeflYlng Assumptions approved by the Planning Commission on November 20, 2007 and due to the prevIous livability Issues falsed by the adjacent neighbors, no , fesldentlal structure shall exceed the 35-foot maximum height standard speCified In SDC 32-215, and I 4) the applicant proposes to subdiVide the MDR portion of the site ovef the life of the approved Master , Plan The applicant states that the residential development will Include the development of a Uniformly deSigned fence along the north property line that abuts the EWEB Easement/Bike Path I The deSign of the fence shall be as discussed In Attachment 2, DeSign GUidelines, Page 8 under , fence standards In ordef to guafantee that a "Uniform" fence IS constfucted by successor owners, , the applicant shall address this Issue With a deed restriction I Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, this application complies With SDc Section 32-230 I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #7. PrlOf to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepafe a , deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states the applicant and successor owners shall address the Mulll-Famlly DeSign Standards speCified In SDc Section 3 2-240 In a fevlsed Attachment 2, DeSign GUidelines I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #8 PrlOf to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall evaluate , and address to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director any open space requirement conflicts , between SDC Sections 3 2-230 and 3 2-240 The more strict open space standards shall apply to the I proposed townhouses The results of this evaluation shall be made part of a deed festrlcllon approved by , the Development Services Director and the City Attorney The applicant shall also calculate all requlfed , open space fOf the MDR portion of the site to demonstrate that the open space standard can be met and how the open space standards Will be addressed In the Phasing Plan ovef the life of the Master Plan I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #9 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a , deed restriction to the satlsfaclion of the City Attomey and the Development Services Dlrectof that states no proposed fesldentlal structure shall exceed the 35-foot maximum height standard speCified In SDc 32-215 I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #10 Prior to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a , deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Dlfectof that states the applicant Of successor ownefS shall agfee that the deSign of the Uniform fence along the north , property line that abuts the EWEB Easement/Bike Path shall be as shown In revised Attachment 2, DeSign GUidelines I SDC SECTION 3 2-300 COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS I Applicant's Response "The commercIal VIllages do not contam any reSIdentIal Units These are , dIVIded mto two zones, MIxed-Use CommercIal '''ld Community CommercIal The Community 16 CommercIal portIon of the sIte consIsts of the General Retail VIllage and the Community RetaIl The MIxed-Use CommercIal portIon of the property contams three VIllages ProfeSSIOnal OffIce, Neighborhood RetaIl and Main Street Retail The recent Metro Plan DIagram and Zonmg ClassifIcatIon amendments mc/uded the appltcatlon of the Nodal Development Overlay (/ND) to the area zoned MIxed-Use CommercIal The recently approved MIxed-Use CommercIal ZOning ClaSSIficatIon enacts a FAR of 0 30 In the area outSIde of the downtown mIxed-use area The proposed development wlthm the sIte seeks to meet the mInimum floor area ratIo (FAR) of 0 30 as reqUIred m SDC SectIon 3 2-630(A)(3) The Community CommercIal portIon of the development, except for the area desIgnated for the home Improvement center, shall meet code standards for the MIxed-Use CommercIal development except that It does not need to meet the FAR standards of SDC SectIOn 3 2-630(A)(3) See Sheet 6, VIllages, Land Use and Area TabulatIon for more mformatton on the mtenslty of non-resIdentIal development Staff Response/Fmdmg SDc Section 32-605A states "The MUc Dlstnct IS established where a mIx of commercial wIth residentIal uses IS compatIble wIth eXisting nearby uses Development WIthin the MUc Dlstnct shall have a commercIal dominance, With resIdential and publiC uses also allowed The pnmary development objectIves of the MUc Dlstnct are to expand hOUSing opportumtles, allow bUSinesses to locate In a vanety of settings, prOVide optIons for liVing, working, and shopping enVironments, facJiJtate more intensIVe use of land while minImizing potentIally adverse Impacts, and to proVide options for pedestnan-onented /lfestyles Lots/parcels In the MUc Dlstnct shall generally have frontage on eIther an artenal or collector street" The Intent of the MUc District IS to proVide opportunities for a mix of commercial and reSidential development Within a bUilding The applicant has submitted a proposed 1003 acre development that has separate reSidential and commercial components However, the City CounCil's approval of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments approved the concept of "mixed use" development shown In thiS Master Plan application The applicability of the FAR (FloOf Area Ration) standards Will be addressed under SDc Section 3 2-305, below SDC SECTION 3 2-305 ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Applicant's Response "The Master Plan contains approxImately 45 6 gross acres on-sIte wlthm commercIal zonmg dlstncts, approxImately 19 6 acres are wlthm the Community CommercIal (CC) zonmg dlstnct and 26 acres are wlthm the MIxed Use CommercIal (MUC) zOning dlstnct Per the continUity dISCUSSIon wlthm the CIty'S response wlthm the Pre-AppltcatlOn Report - Marcola Meadows (ZON 2006-00030, September, 24, 2007) 1 All Community CommercIal development other than Lowes, must comply WIth MUC deSIgn standards (exceptIOn - the FAR WIll not apply), and 2 The proposed Lowes [home Improvement center bUlldmg must] mcorporate a bUlldmg exterior deSIgn SImIlar to the eXlstmg Lowes m Scottsdale, Anzona or one that compIles WIth the current bUlldmg deSIgn standards In SDC [SectIon 3 2-400] as speCIfIed In Metro Plan Dlagram/ Zonmg Map Amendment CondItIon of Approval #7 As noted above the applIcant shall apply deSIgn standards of the MUC zone to all community commercIal development (except FAR) Attachment 1, illustratIve OvervIew and Attachment 2, DeSIgn Standards show the deSIgn criteria and Illustrate the deSIgn of the Lowes whIch IS SImIlar to the one m Scottsdale, Anzona The Master Plan proposes a mIx of commercIal uses allowed WIthin the MUC and CC dIstriCts that WIll serve to meet nodal development obJectIves and meet the needs of the future reSIdents at the VIllages at Marcola Meadows, consIstent WIth the pOlICY d/fectlves found m the SCLS The appllcatton of thIS MUC and CC zonmg, WIth the prOVIded DeSIgn Standards (Attachment 2) helps reduce the eXlstmg defICIt of needed commercIal lands found m the SCLS The MUC dIstrict allows general office and other uses permItted m the GO dlstnct SDC SectIon 3 2-305D encourages use of the GO zone as a tranSItIon, providmg a buffer between reSidential uses and more mtenslve uses The arrangement of uses proposed m the VIllages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan seek to SImIlarly use the MUC zone to buffer the eXlstmg neIghborhood from the more mtense uses wlthm the development" 17 Staff Response/Fmdmg SDC Section 32-305B establishes the Community Commercial (CC) District , and Section 32-605A establishes the Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) District However, staff has the following concerns I 1) In ordef to establish consistent design standards for all commercial development on this site, and because the CC District does not have speCific design standafds, and whefe the MUc District does , have such standards, staff IS on record stating the compliance with MUc design standards shall also , be required In the entlfe area of the site that IS zoned CC The applicant has stated that a Lowes design used In Scottsdale Arizona would be similar to the MUc design standards Staffs Intent IS that the proposed home Improvement center not be Just anothef "big box" In lieu of a speCific approved design for the proposed home Improvement center, the applicant or successor ownefS shall submit , elevation drawings that are Similar to the "Scottsdale Lowes" design, or comply With the design , standards speCified In SDC Sections 3 2-620 through 630 (the MUc design standards), or SDC I Section 32-445 (the Campus Industrial design standafds that applied prlOf to the Metro Plan diagram , and ZOning Map amendment approvals) The applicant shall submit elevation dfawlngs fOf the , proposed home Improvement center With the Final Mastef Plan and specify which standards have been utilized, and I 2) staff agrees With the applicant that the MUc FA~ (Floor Area Ratio) standards will not apply to the proposed home Improvement centef or othef development Within the CC DiStriCt, and I 3) the CC and MUc Districts are the only approved commercial zoning districts on the site If the applicant Of successof owners propose to establish uses that may be permitted In the GO District but , are not allowed In the MUc Dlstnct use list, the applicant or successor owners shall obtain a ZOning , Map amendment to allow those uses Such an amendment shall be consldefed a Mastef Plan modification as speCified In SDc Section 5 13 -135 I Based on staffs fesponse, as conditioned below, this application complies With SDc Sections 3 2-305 and 3 2-605 I ' MASTER PLAN CONDITION #11 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit , elevations drawings for the proposed home Improvement centef With the required Final Master Plan to the , satisfactIOn of the Development Services Dlrectof and specify which design standafds have been utilized I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #12 Prior to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall prepafe a , deed festrlctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states the applicant and succeSSOf owners shall ulillze the MUc design standards, With the exception of the FAR standard, In all CC zoned portions of the site I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #13. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a , deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states the applicant and successor owners shall be fequlred to submit a ZOning Map amendment application If , any such person proposes to establish uses that may be permitted In the GO District but are not allowed , under the use list In the MUc District If thiS IS the case, the developer shall also apply for a Master Plan modificatIOn as speCified In SDC Section 5 13-135 I SDC SECTION 3 2-315 - LOT SIZE ST ANDAjDS Applicant's Response "In addItIon to the 19 6 acres of CC, the 26 acres of MUC proposed on the sIte wIll be subject to the lot sIze and dlmens/ontstandards m thIS sectIon of the code, as reqUired by SDC SectIon 3 2-615A Sheet 8, TentatIve Land DIVISIon and Street Plan Illustrates that all lots , wlthm the MUC and CC dlstncts meet the mmlmum reqUirements m SDC SectIon 3 2-315 by bemg , more than 6,000 s f m sIze and havmg more than 50 feet of street frontage" Staff Response/Flndmg Staff concurs With the aphllcant's submittal 18 SDC SECTION 3 2-315 - SETBACK STANDARDS Applicant's Response "MUC setback standards m SDC SectIon 3 2-615 refer back to the mInimum reqUirements m SDC Sectton 3 2-315 The Master Plan Illustrates that setbacks m the CC and MUC-zoned areas wIll be met Future bUlldmg locatIons wlthm the Mam Street RetaIl wIll be placed adJacent to the sIdewalk m conformance WIth the CIty Code The Master Plan also mcludes a 30 foot vegetated buffer along the development sItes frontage of Marcola Road, 28th Street and 31st Street rtghts-of-way - both well m excess of the standards m SDC SectIon 3 2-315 " Staff Response/Fmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal The proposed 30 foot-wide landscaped setback the applicant pfoposes to use IS based on a standard of the prevIous cl zoning that reqUired a 30 foot-wide bUilding setback ThiS exceeds any such setback In the MUc Of CC Districts The applicant has voluntarily chosen to use thiS standard to provide additional buffer for the fesldents on the south Side of Mafcola Road However, thiS setback shall also apply after the dedication of publiC rlght-of- way for the foundabouts feqUlfed as discussed on Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report MASTER PLAN CONDITION #14 Prior to Final Master Plan appfoval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states the applicant and successor owners shall be reqUlfed to adhere to the proposed 30 foot-wide bUilding setback along the Marcola Road and 28th Street frontages ThiS standafd shall also apply after any dedication of publiC right-of-way by the applicant for the fequlfed roundabouts SDC SECTION 3 2-315 - HEIGHT STANDARDS Applicant's Response "The MUC dlstnct has a bUlldmg heIght lImIt of 60 feet per SDC Sectton 4 60-100, except for when the MUC dlstnct abuts an LDR, MDR or MUR dlstnct In that case, the heIght lImIts of SDC SectIon 3 2-315 apply, whIch protect solar access for adJOIning propertIes No bUlldmgs wlthm areas proposed for CC or MUC zonmg exceed the 60-foot heIght lImIt (m fact, the proposed commercIal bUlldmgs are single-story and range from 22' to 38' and average around 28'- 301 Proposed development wlthm the MUC areas IS so dIstant from adjolntng resIdentIally zoned areas that solar access provIsIons m SDC SectIon 3 2-315 WIll be ensured SIte Plan ReVIew applIcatIons for future MUC development WIll have to demonstrate complIance WIth thIS standard" Staff Response/Fmdmg There are no height limitations In the CC District and thefe IS a 90 foot height limitation In the MUC District (SDc Section 3 2-615) The applicant has stated that the proposed commercial development Will be Single-story With a range from 22'-38' In the MUc DiStriCt, there IS an additional height IImltallon that states the "maximum bUilding height when abutting an LDR, MDR, or MUR to the east, west or south [shall be] no greater than that permitted In the LDR or MDR Dlstncts for a distance of 50 feet" Plan sheet 6 shows parking and a portion of the storm water greenway system separating the proposed commercial from the eXisting reSidential development of more than 50 feet As shown on the plan submitted, the applicant complies With SDc Seclion 3 2-315 ThiS being said, thiS Issue must be addressed by a deed restriction MASTER PLAN CONDITION #15 Prior to Final Master Plan appfoval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states that no commercial bUilding shall exceed the 30 foot bUilding height standard In the Low DenSity ReSidential District for a distance of 50 feet ThiS festrlctlon shall apply to the eXisting reSidential development at the Interface of the proposed commercial area west of Martin Drive SDC SECTION 3 2-600 SPRINGFIELD MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS SDC SECTION 3 2-605 - ESTABLISHMENT OF MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS 19 Applicant's Response "The Master Plan proposes wlthm the 26 acres proposed for MUC zonmg , developments that take advantage of the broad range of uses allowed m the MUC zone, and the , abIlIty to mIx these uses wlthm a gIVen portIon of the sIte Flankmg eIther SIde of Martm Drive (at , the west entrance to the VIllages at Marcola Meadows) IS proposed the core mIxed use gateway , area to support the nodal development concept conSIdered for the development sIte Urban , deSIgn consultants engaged by the CIty m response to the applIcant's draft master plan and pre- , applIcatIon submIttal IdentIfIed the need to esta~/lsh a mIxed use commercIal (Mam Street) retail presence adJacent to, and WIth VIsual accessIbIlIty from, Marcola Road Therefore, Sheet 6, , VI/lages, Land Use and Area TabulatIon, Identtfles an area of approXImately 6 5 acres WIth a mIx of , uses mcludmg nearly 62,200 sq ft of ground-Iev,el specIalty retaIl The remammg commerCIal vl/lages mc/ude approXImately 22 2 acres and 21,6,400 sq ft of offIce and retaIl space In addItIon, the home Improvement center WIll prOVIde an addItIonal 171,000 sq ft of retaIl space Together, , WIth the smgle-famlly reSIdentIal and townhome r,llages that together are to be developed m excess of 12 Units per net acre thIS applIcatIon fulfIlls some of the obJectIVes of the nodal , development concept, and some of the obJectIVes for the MUC zone (I e , SDC SectIon 3 2-605A , mcludes objectIVes such as expandmg housmg opportunitIes and proVldmg optIons for IlVmg, , workmg, and shoppmg enVIronments) Also proposed for MUC zonmg are areas meet the , reqUirement m SDC SectIon 3 2-605A for frontage onto an arterial or collector street WhIle the remammg areas proposed for CC development are mtended for pnmanly for the home Improvement center and/or general-office related uses, the MUC dlstnct allows the fleXibIlity to , mclude a WIder range of uses ConsIstent WIth the obJectIves for the MUC zone outlmed m SDC , SectIon 3 2-605A , the Master Plan a/lows busmesses to locate m a vanety of settmgs, and faCIlitates more mtenslve uses adJacent to the hIgh traffic comdor of Marcola Road, Martm Drive and Be/le Boulevard (to buffer the eXlstmg reSIdentIal neIghborhood from the more mtense home Improvement center use) Some components of the MUC zone standards (I e , Lot SIze and , DImenSIOn, Setback, HeIght, Off-Street Par1cmg standards) are CIted above wlthm the sectIon that , dISCUSSes SDC SectIon 3 2-300, CommercIal Zonmg DIstricts as reqUired" I Staff Response/Fmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's diSCUSSion about MUc fegardlng SDc Section 3 2-605 However, the applicant states "thIS' applIcatIon fulfills some of the obJectIves of the , nodal development concept" TYPically the reSidential portion of the node IS developed first Of at least , concurrently With the commefclal development Local resldentlallcommerclal mixed use developments (Crescent Village and Valley River Village) constructed reSidential area prlOf to commefclal areas In , ofdef to achieve the nodal development concept, the applicant must proVide a PhaSing Plan that coordinates both the reSidential and commerCial portions of the site The pfoposed PhaSing Plan does not demonstrate how thiS Master Plan Will comply with the TransPlan definition of nodal development speCified on Pages 28 and 29 of thiS staff report I SDC SECTION 3 2-625 - GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED-USE DISTRICTS I Applicant's Response "Development proposedl WIth thIS Master Plan for the MUC Dlstnct WIll conform to these development standards Although speCIfIC reVIew and a determmatlon of , complIance WIth these standards WIll be deferred to SIte Plan ReVIew and, as appropriate, subdIVISIon reVIew, mformatlon mcluded WIth thIS Master Plan applIcatIon confirms that such , compliance can be determmed to be reasonably feaSIble at thIS tIme" I Staff ResponselFmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal pertaining to MUc District genefal development standafds I SDC SECTION 3 2-630- SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED-USE DISTRICTS I Applicant's Response "As descrtbed above, mformatlOn submItted WIth thIS Master Plan demonstrates that It IS reasonably feaSIble to ac "eve complIance WIth the standards of thIS 20 subsectIon subJect to final approval under SIte Plan ReVIew In addItIon to the MUC dlstnct, the CC DIstrict shall adhere to the standards of Section 3 2-630, except that the FAR standard shall not apply" Staff Response/Fmdmg Staff conCUfS with the applicant's submittal pertaining MUc District speCific development standards Staff has already discussed the FAR exception In the CC DistriCt, above SECTION 3 3-200 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT IIDWP\ Applicant's Response "Spnngfield has several wellhead protectton areas Nmety percent of Sprmgfield's dnnkmg water comes from wells In every mstance, care shall be taken to prevent groundwater contammatlon, Contractors/developers/owners shall be responsIble for the safe handlmg and storage of chemIcals, petroleum products, ferttllzers, and the preventton of groundwater and storm water runoff contammatlon SpecIal reqUirements may be necessary for groundwater protection at thIS development" "Plan Sheet 3, SIte Assessment of EX/stmg CondItIons, Plan Sheet 9, Storm water Plan and Attachment 6, Stormwater Master Plan Illustrate the groundwater TIme of Travel Zones (TOTZ) extendmg on portIons of the development sIte relatIVe to eXlstmg condItIons and to future development proposed m the Marcola Meadows Master Plan These TOTZ were mapped usmg data receIved from the CIty of Sprmgfleld dIgItal GIS database (2004), applIed to Lane County assessment and taxatIon maps, whIch were then added to detaIled topographIc and sIte boundary data to create detaIled maps md/catmg the locatIon of TOn on-sIte consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 3 3-220C " "Pursuant to SDC Sectton 3 3-225A , a DWP Overlay Dlstrtct Development ApplIcatIon WIll be reqUired concurrent WIth any future SIte Plan ReVIew (SPR) appltcatlon for development that may result m the storage or use of hazardous matenals The above-referenced maps mdlcate that the home Improvement center IS located wlthm the 1-5 year TOTZ for the PIerce groundwater well field As such, use, storage and contamment reqUirements outlmed m SDC Sectton 3 3-235B and m the Uniform FIre Code WIll be observed as part of the SPR reVIew process for future development Furthermore, stormwater treatment faclllttes such as dry wells for roof dramage, are permItted wlthm the 1-5 year TOTZ, and WIll otherwIse be subject to permlttmg through the Oregon Department of EnVIronmental QualIty These provIsIons WIll ensure that future development compIles WIth the reqUirements of Sectton 3 3-200 and WIll preserve groundwater qualIty " The applicant also states "Relevant porttons of a letter dated August 22, 2007 from Amy Chmttz, SUB Water DIVISIon IS proVIded below 'The proposed Marcola Meadows development IS within Spnngfield's adopted Dnnklng Water Protection Area ThIS area IS hIghly susceptible to contaminatIon from chemicals that may spill or leak onto the ground surface Dunng all phases of constructIon and operations, speCIal precautions must be taken to prevent groundwater contamination Any chemical spills or leaks must be cleaned up ImmedIately and cleanup matenals disposed off-Site and In accordance WIth Lane County and DEQ reqUirements The property lIes WIthin the 0 -1 and 1 - 5-year tlme-of-travel zones (TOTZs) to the Pierce well The use, storage, and production of DNAPL chemicals Will be prohibited at thiS SIte, both dunng construction and operations (DNAPL and Exempt LIsts attached) The comments below respond to informatIOn proVided In the pre-applicatIon report More speCific gUidelines for constructIon and operations Will be proVided dunng sIte plan reVIew (emphaSIS added) , " As noted m Ms Chlnltz' comments the Wellhead ProtectIon Areas Contammant Source Inventory Map for Spnngfleld md/cates that the property IS Identified as wlthm the 0-1 Year, 1-5 Year TIme of Travel Zone (TOTZ) Development of the property WIll be subJect to the provIsIons of SDC SectIon 3 3-200 Each developer, whether dunng development of the entIre parent parcel or dunng development of mdlvlduallots, must follow the reqUirements of SDC SectIon 33-200 SDC Sectton 3 32203 C stIpulates that tax lots havmg parts Iymg wlthm more than one TOTZ shall be governed by the standards of the more restnctlve TOTZ At the tIme of Master Plan approval applicatIon, the applIcatIon therefore applIes uniformly to the entire parent parcel, subJect to the exceptton set forth m SDC SectIon 3 3-2203 C After Plat recordatton, mdlvlduallots wlthm the Master Plan may be determmed to be outsIde the 0-1 year 21 Ton and be determmed Instead to overlIe other. ime of Travel Zones In that event, those lots would be subJect to the reqUirements specific to the other TOn." Staff Response/Fmdlng Pursuant to SDc Seclion 13 3-225A , a DWP Overlay District application Will be concufrent With any Site Plan ReView application fori development that may result In the stofage or use of hazardous materials The specific fequlrements listed In the Amy Chintz lettef dated August 22, 2007 Will , be made condllions of approval of this Master Plan application Based on staffs fesponse, as conditioned below, this appllcalion complies With SDc Section 313-200 I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #16 PrlOf to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall pfepafe a , deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states except fOf the fequlrement pertaining to pervious surfaces In the pafklng lots, the applicant and successor owners shall comply With the follOWing reqUlrementsl requested by SUB at the time of Site Plan ReView application submittal for the home Impfovement center proposed In Phase 2 and for any additional commercial development proposed that IS Within the Drinking Water Protection Oveflay District as shown In Phase 4 As noted In the report, each Individual developer Will need to follow the requirements of SDC Section , 3 3-300 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Applications may be reqUired , SDc Section 3 3-300 requires that all hazardous materials that pose a nsk to groundwater be stored In , secondary containment In order to meet the secondary containment fequlrement, the developer of the home Improvement store Will need to Incorporatelsecondary containment Into the deSign of the bUilding flOOf and any other afeas where hazafdous matenals, Including fertilizers and other landscaping , products, will be stored Chemicals stored outdoors (fertilizers, pesticides, etc ) must be covered and placed In secondary containment I The north-central portion of the site fOf the home Improvement store lies Within the 0 - 1 TOTZ The 0-1 , year TOTZ standards, Including the 500-gallon stofage limit, Will apply to the facIlity unless no , hazardous matenals afe stofed In Of Within 50 feet of the portion of the site that lies Within the 0-1 TOTZ (Hazardous matenals offered fOf sale In their original sealed containers of five gallons or less are exempt from the 500-gallon storage limit) I . All lease agreements fOf the commercial spaces must Include language requlnng compliance With Article 17 Dnnklng Water Protection (DWP) Oveflay District of the Springfield Development Code , Occupants may need to complete a DWP Overlay District Appllcalion . No fill matenals containing hazafdous matenals shall be used on thiS site . Injection wells afe prohibited Within the two-year TOTZ Any injection wells outside the two-yeaf TOTZ , (If applicable) must be approved by both the City of Springfield and DEQ based on proximity to , domestic/public drinking watef wells, SOils type, and depth to groundwatef , The plctufes In the application suggested that parking lots Will have pervious surfaces Please consult , With the City of Spnngfield Public Works Engineering regarding specific gUidelines and restrictions for , pervious pavement Within wellhead protection areas . ThiS development's emphaSIS on waterways and Inatufal processes offefs a unique voluntary opportUnity for public educalion about stormwater quality and groundwater protection SpeCial , educational slgnage would fit nicely Into the plans for the waterways and open spaces I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #17. Prior to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall prepafe a , deed restnctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that states no pervious pavement shall be pefmltted In any pafklng afeas on the entlfe site I SDC SECTION 3 3-100 NODAL DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT I/NDO\ I Applicant Response "As noted above, the mfoflratlOn submItted WIth thIS Master Plan applicatIon demonstrates that complIance WIth applIcable provIsIons of SDC SectIon 3 3-100 or adopted alternate exceptIon standards can be reasonably achIeved SubJect to such prellmmary , vIews as part of thIS proceedmg, fmal complIance WIll be determmed through SIte Plan ReVIew" 22 Staff Response/Flndlng The "as noted" phrase refers to MUc Development Standafds discussed earlier In this staff report However, as stated previously, the Metro Plan designation on 80 acres (both MDR and MUC) IS Nodal Develooment Area Staff did not apply the Nodal DeveloQment Overlav District 'to the MUc portion of this site because the FAR requirement IS more restrictive In the Overlay DiStrict, than In the MUc District because the applicant IS proposing single-story commercial bUildings, without residential uses above The Overlay District FAR standard could affect the proposed commercial development In the MUC However, staff believes that In order to comply with the TransPlan definition of nodal development on Page 23 of this staff feport, the following Nodal Development Overlay District prohibited uses found In SDC Section 33-1010B should be applied to this Mastef Plan application 1 caf washes 2 Auto Parts stores 3 Recreational vehicle and heavy truck sales/rental/servlce 4 Motor vehicle sales/rental/servlce 5 Service stations, Including qUick servicing 6 Tires, sales/service 7 TranSit park and ride, majOf or minor, except whefe there IS a shared parking arrangement with another permitted use 8 Agricultural machinery rental/sales/service 9 Boats and watercraft sales and service 10 EqUipment, heavy, rental/sales/service 11 Manufactured dwelling sales/service/repair ThiS prohibited use list shall also apply to all proposed development In the CC District MASTER PLAN CONDITION #18 Prior to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states lists all uses on the Nodal Development Overlay District prohibited use list specified In SDc Section 3 3- 1010B applicable to the MUc and CC Districts SDC SECTION 512-100 LAND DIVISIONS- PARTITIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS Staff Response/Flndlng The applicant has stated several times In the submittal materials that the site will be subdiVided over the life of the Master Plan Any SubdiVISion Tentative Plan application, including the one proposed to accomplish Phase 1, shall comply With the Final Master Plan MASTER PLAN CONDITION #19 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restrlclion to the salisfactlon of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states that the applicant and successor owners shall submit SubdiVISion Tentative Plan applications that comply With the approved Final Mastef Plan SDC SECTION 517-100 SITE PLAN REVIEW Staff Response/Fmdmg The applicant has stated several times In the submittal materials that both the proposed MDR development and CC and MUc development site will fequlre Site Plan ReView approval over the life of the Master Plan Any Site Plan ReView application, including the ones proposed to accomplish Phases 2 and 4, shall comply With the Final Master Plan MASTER PLAN CONDITION #20 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed festrlctlon to the satisfaction of the City Attomey and the Development Services Director that states that the applicant and successor owners shall submit Site Plan ReView applications that comply With the approved Final Master Plan SDC SECTION 519-100 TREE FELLING STANDARDS 23 SDC SECTION 5 19-105 - PURPOSE Applicant's Response "Sheet 5, Master Plan lI1u,stratlve Illustrates proposed bUlldmg locatIons and envelopes, and the accompanymg Sheet 3, SIte Assessment of Exlstmg CondItIons, depIcts , the eXlstmg trees on the development sIte A Tree Fellmg Pen",t shall be submItted pursuant to l approval of thIs applIcatIOn and future subdIvIsIon request per the reqUirements of SDC SectIon , 519-115 The trees shown on Sheet 3 are all over 5" dbh and most WIll be removed to prOVIde for , future transportatIon mfrastructure, utIlItIes and the relocatIon of the PIerce DItch ThIs removal IS permItted subJect to SDC SectIon 5 19-110 upon 'approval of constructIon plans to Improve the , sIte roadways, and Utlltty easements The appltcant WIll prOVIde an enhanced vegetated , landscapmg wlthm the PIerce DItch of natIve trees and shrubs that WIll meet CIty reqUirements " I Staff Response/Fmdmg Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal The eXisting trees on the site are , located along the eXisting Pierce Ditch SpeCifically, ,SDc Secllon 519-110B 2 states that 'No tree felling permIt WIll be reqUired In the follOWing Instances Any felling necessary to Install or maintain , Improvements, including, but not lImited to streets and sewers Within publicly owned and accepted nghts- , of-way or utIlity easements pursuant to approved cO[lstructlon plans or encroachment permits" Proposed Phase 1 Includes the submittal of a SubdiVIsion Tentative Plan appllcallon that Will allow the dedication of , public rights-of-way and public utility easements necessary for the Improvements that have been discussed preViously as being part of Phase 1 Thelappllcant shall be reqUired to Install landscaping and tfees In the relocated "water feature" and Install street trees along the streets that are reqUired to be , constfucted dUring Phase 1 The newly Installed trees Will gfeatly exceed the number of trees proposed to , be removed No sepafate Tree Felling Permit Will be reqUired for any proposed development In Phase 1 I APPLICABLE METRO PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY 24 "To accomplIsh the Fundamental Pnnclple of compact urban growth addressed In the text , and on the Metro Plan Dlagrom, overall metropolitan-wide denSity of new reSIdential constructIOn, but , necessanly each project, shall average approxImately SIX dwelling Units per gross acre over the planning penod " I Applicant's Response "The proposed development seeks to achIeve a denSIty for all reSIdentIally , deSIgnated and zoned land of approxImately twelve dwellmg umts per net acre The Master Plan of , - the SIte, therefore, WIll help the regIon achIeve Its goal of compact urban development" I OBJECTIVE 8 "Encourage development of SUitable vacant, underdeveloped, and , redevelopable land where services are available, thus capItalIZIng on publiC expendItures already made for these services" Applicant's Response "The subJect sIte is curre,ntly underdeveloped WIth access to readIly avaIlable publIC faCIlitIes and serVICes Approva/l of thIS proposal WIll capItalIze on the publIC servIces and expendItures already made and planned for m the ImmedIate area In short, the underdeveloped subJect sIte IS SUItable for reSIdentIal and commerCIal uses (specIfIcally the , proposed mIxed resIdentIal and commerCIal area) and has access to publIC faCIlitIes and servIces" I A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING ELEMENT I POLICY A 8 "ReqUIre development to pay the cost, as determined by the local junsdlcflon, of extending public services and mfrastructure The cItIes shall e~amlne ways to proVIde subSidies or incentIVes for proViding Infrastructure that support affordable hOUSing and/or higher denSIty housing" 24 ApplIcant's Response "Through codIfIed approval processes for thIs and subsequent applicatIons, development shall conform to CIty of Sprmgfleld reqUirements to pay the fair cost of extendmg publIC serVIces and mfrastructure These reqUirements mclude System Development Charges whIch Will be assessed and applIed to future speCIfIC development permIts Infrastructure prOVIded by the proposed development WIll faCIlItate a vartety of housing types mcludmg small lot smgle-famlly detached homes and town homes " POLICY A 10 "Promote hIgher reSIdentIal denSIty inSide the UGB that utilIzes eXIsting Infrastructure, Improves the efficiency of publiC servIces and faCilities, and conserves (Ural resource lands outSide the UGB" POLICY A 11 "Generally locate higher denSIty reSIdentIal development near employment or commerCIal service, In proXImity to major transportatIOn systems or Within transportation-efficient nodes" POLICY A 12 "Coordinate hIgher denSIty reSidential development WIth the prOViSion of adequate Infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amemtles " POLICY A 13 "Increase overall reSIdentIal denSIty In the metropolitan area by creating more opportumtles for effectIvely deSigned In-f1II, redevelopment, and mixed-use while conSIdering Impacts of Increased resldenflal denSity on hlstonc, eXisting and future neIghborhoods" Applicant's Response "The proposed Master Plan Implements hIgher denSIty development on MedIUm DenSIty ReSIdentIal deSIgnated and zoned land wlthm the metropolItan area The resIdentIal portIon WIll be developed under Spnngfleld and Metro Plan nodal development standards, WIth a mmlmum net denSIty of 12 Units per acre In addItIon, the smgle-famlly portIon IS proposed under the standards for cluster development WIth notably smaller lot sIzes and common open space proVIded Along WIth the mIx of smgle-famlly small-lot development and townhouse development, the applIcant IS proposmg commerCIal development provldmg employment opportunitIes and commerCIal serVIces for current and future reSIdents of the area DeSIgned to be a walkable community, It WIll prOVIde a combmatlon of hIgher reSIdentIal denSItIes combmed WIth employment and commerCIal opportunitIes The Master Plan mtegrates hIgher denSIty development WIth eXlstmg neIghborhoods m several ways Most of the development's boundary WIth eX/stmg reSIdentIal neIghborhoods to the west and north WIll be composed of the lowest denSIty development (smgle-famlly detached lots) The plan WIll locate hIgher denSIty housmg along the east SIde of the subJect SIte, separated from development to the east by North 31st Street The proposed development WIll mInimIze the dIsturbance to eXlstmg development whIle achlevmg the CIty'S and regIon's need for hIgher denSIty, mIxed-use development" POLICY A 17 "ProVIde opportunitIes for a full range of chOIce In hOUSing type, denSity, SIze, cost, and locatIon " Applicant's Response "The Master Plan mcludes small-lot smgle-famlly development and townhomes The denSIty of development IS proposed wlthm the deslfed ranges for medIum denSIty reSIdentIal and mcludes more than 20% of common open space for use by the reSIdents of the development The locatIon of the housmg IS central to the nodal development area and shall prOVIde a vartety of employment and commerCIal opportunitIes for the eXlsttng reSIdents of the area and future reSIdents of the development" POLICY A 20 "Encourage home ownershIp of all hOUSing types, particularly for lOW-income households" ApplIcant's Response "The applIcant's proposed development WIll mclude a vanety of home ownershIp optIons on small smgle-famlly lots and townhome lots The sIze of the lots and the optIons for home ownershIp WIll mcrease the supply of affordable ownershIp housmg m the region ., 25 POLICY A 22 "Expand opportumtles for a mix of uses In newly developing areas and eXIsting , neIghborhoods through local zoning and development regulations" I ApplIcant's Response "The Master Plan WIll facIlItate expanded opportunities for resIdentIal and , commercIal (mam street, neIghborhood retaIl, profesSIonal offIce) development The proJect WIll , mcrease the dIversIty of uses where current opportunitIes are lImIted Current resIdents of adjacent neIghborhoods and future reSIdents of the development Itself WIll all benefIt from , mcreased commercial and employment opportunitIes" F TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Applicant's Response "The proJect area IS currently served by Marcola Road, 28th, and 31st , streets Marcola Road, the southern border of the subJect SIte, IS fully Improved and IS deSIgnated as a Mmor Arte"al 28th and 31st streets border the eastern boundary of the subJect sIte The CIty , of Sprmgfleld's Conceptual Road Network Map IdentifIes 28th and 31st streets as the "31st Street Connector" The 28th street portIon of the 31st S'treet Connector IS fully Improved and classIfIed as a Collector street ThIrty-FIrst Street IS not fully Improved and IS classIfIed as a Collector street Currently, 31st street IS a two-lane asphalt paved road that does not have gutters, curbs, or , SIdewalks There IS a CIty of Sprmgfield 10' utIlIty and SIdewalk easement on the west SIde of 31st street to faCIlItate road Improvements m thei'uture " POLICY F 13 "Support transportatIon strategIes that enhance neighborhood lIVability " POLICY F 14 "Address the mobilIty and safety nee~s of motonsts, transIt users, bIcyclIsts, pedestnans, , and the needs of emergency vehicles when planmng and constructing roadway system Improvements" I POLICY F 26 "ProVIde for a pedestnan environment that IS well Integrated With adjacent land uses and IS , deSIgned to enhance the safety, comfort, and convemence of walking" I Applicant's Response "The proposed development shall be served by the eXlstmg streets , (Marcola Road, North 28th Street, North 31st Street) and future streets mcludmg a collector and local streets It WIll be easy to get around, and to: do so on foot All streets WIll have WIde SIdewalks, many of them setback from vehicle traffIC The entire community WIll be connected , WIth all-weather multI-use off street pathways It WIll be convenient and safe to walk from each of the nme master planned VIllages to the others" I POLICY F 36 "ReqUire that new development pay for Its capacIty Impact on the transportatIOn system" I Applicant's Response "A TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) determmed the effects of the proposed Master Plan The T1A proposes necessary mItIgatIons of transportatton system capacIty Impacts , Future development Impacts WIll be offset by system development charges (SDC's) WIth regard , to the TransportatIon Element of the Metro Plan, the CIty can fmd that the proposed Master Plan , WIll not make the Metro Plan mternally mconslstent " I G PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENiT I POLICY G 5 "ConSider wellhead protectIOn areas and surface water supplIes when planning stormwater faCIlities " ApplIcant's Response "A stormwater management plan shall be created durmg the Master Plan , approval process SpeCIal emphaSIS WIll be placed upon the wellhead protectIon area and surface water supplIes when plannmg stormwater faCIlItIes " H PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT 26 ApplIcant's Response "The changes proposed by thIs applIcatIon WIll have no Impact on any recreatIon area, facIlIty or opportumty that has been mventorled and desIgnated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facIlIty plan regardmg the CIty'S recreatIonal needs The recreatIonal needs of the community are adequately met by the eXlstmg and planned facIlItIes enumerated m the Wlllamalane 20-year Park and RecreatIon ComprehenSIve Plan, 2004 and other assocIated documents " I HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT "ApplIcant's Response "The changes proposed by thIS applIcatIon WIll have no Impact on any hIstoric resource that has been mventoned and deSIgnated by the Metro Plan or any relevant facIlIty plan or mventory regardmg the CIty'S hlstonc resources WIth regard to the Hlstonc Preservatton Element of the Metro Plan, the CIty can fmd that the proposed Master Plan WIll not make the Metro Plan mternally mconSlstent " J ENERGY ELEMENT METRO PLAN, GOAL 1 "MaXimIze the conservation and effiCient utilizatIon of all types of energy" Applicant's Response "The proposed Master Plan and subsequent development of the sIte WIll encourage conservatIon and effiCIent utIlIzatIon of energy by a concentratIon of employment, servIces and resIdences on the SIte, and facllltatmg transIt servIces to the sIte " POLICY J 8 "Commercial, reSIdentIal, and recreatIOnal land uses shall be Integrated to the greatest extent pOSSible, balanced With all planning polICIes to reduce travel distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optImIze potential on-sIte energy generation" ApplIcant's Response "The Master Plan WIll enable the subsequent development of a mIxed-use provldmg employment, servIces and resIdentIal opportunitIes The proposed development envISIons a senes of VIllages that mclude mam street retaIl, neIghborhood retail, general retail and reSIdentIal uses (smgle-famlly detached and townhomes) Workers and reSIdents WIll have the optIon to obtam dmmg, shoppmg, and other commercIal amenitIes less than a mIle from the subJect sIte consIstent WIth PolICY J 8's mandate to balance all plannmg polICIes to reduce travel dIstance EXlstmg reSIdentIal neIghborhoods are adjacent to the subject sIte Schools and the Wlllamalane Park to the north prOVIde access to recreatIonal (and educatIonal) facllttles and servIces ThIS master planned mIxed-use development WIth a mIx of commercIal and reSIdentIal uses adJacent to eXlstmg and planned recreatIonal uses (all wlthm reasonable walkmg dIstance, whIch reduces travel dIstances) IS consIstent WIth thIS polIcy" Staff Response/Fmdmg The applicant submitted these Metfo Plan goals, objectives and poliCies dUring the review of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments At that time, staff found that the applicant complied With the above Metro Plan fefefences OTHER FUNCTIONAL PLANS AND SPECIAL STUDIES ApplIcant's Response "There IS no applIcable refmement plan speCIfIC to the area contammg the development sIte Conformance WIth polICIes m the TransPlan, Sprmgfleld CommercIal Lands Study, ReSIdentIal Lands Study, and MetropolItan PublIC FaCIlItIes Plan has been addressed m pnor sectIons of thIS narratIve relatIve to synonymous polICIes contamed m the Metro Plan Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Staff concurs With the applicant's submittal However, speCific TfansPlan Findings Goals, Objectives and PoliCies afe discussed below In an effort to define the nodal development concept which IS the core of thiS Master plan application and IS especially Important fegardlng the reqUired PhaSing Plan discussed on Pages 52 - 57 of thiS staff report The PhaSing Plan question IS a Significant aspect of thiS application, which may affect staffs deCISion to recommend approval or denial of thiS appllcallon 27 :rRANSPLAN FINDINGS. GOALS. OBJECTIV.=S AND POLICIES I Staff Res,?onse/Fmdlno TransPlan Land Use Flndmg 9 states "Nodal development supports the fundamental pnnclples, goals, and poliCies of the ad,opted Metro Plan to achieve compact urban growth, Increase reSidential denSities, and encourage mixed-use developments In deSIgnated areas [Ref , TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 14] Thefe are a numbe:f of TransPlan goals, objectives and poliCies that the applicant has not specifically addfessed by the applicant, but should be Included In thiS staff report due to the significance of the nodal aspect of thiS Master P an proposal A definition of "nodal development" can be found under TransPlan Policv #1 below TransPlan Goals Goal #1 "Integrated Transportation and Land Use System , Provide an Integrated transportaflon and land use system that supports chOIces In modes of travel and , development patterns that WIll reduce reliance on the auto and enhance lIvabIlity, economic opportUnity, , and the qualIty of life" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 3 I Staff ResDonse/Fmdmo The required Final Master Plan will Incorporate condllions of approval that Will Implement TransPlan Goal #1 TransPlan Oblectlves ObjectIve #2 "Improve transportatIOn system safety through deSIgn, operations and maintenance, system Improvements, support faCilitIes, publIC informatIOn, and law enforcement efforts" Ref TransPlan chaptef 2, Page 5 I Staff ResDonse/Fmdmp Improvements along Ma\cola Road, 31st Street Will be conditions of approval If thiS Master Plan application In addition, as discussed on Pages 43 and 44 of thiS staff feport, , Improvements to the Bike Path on EWEB's utility COrridor may also be reqUired (by EWEB, not the City) , Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With Objective #2 TransPlan PoliCIes Land Use Policy #1 Nodal Development "Apply the nodal development strategy In areas selected by each junsdlctlon that have Identified potential , for thiS type of transportaflon-efficlent land use pattern I PolICY DefInitIon/Intent Nodal development supports mIxed land uses In deSIgnated areas to Increase , opportunities for people to live near their jobs and to make shorter tnps for a vanety of purposes Nodal , development also supports the use of alternatIVe modes of transportatIOn ThiS policy refines and , expands eXIsting Metro Plan concepts and polICY directIon that proVide for mixed-use development and higher average reSidential denSItIes In certain areaslof the Eugene-Spnngfield regIon ThiS policy IS not Intended to limIt the types of nodal development patterns Nodal development areas may va/}' In the , amount, type, and onentatlon of commercIal, CIVIC, and employment uses, bUIlding Size, amount and types of resIdential uses, and commercial intensIty 'The nodes Will be pedestnan-fnendly environments , With a mix of land uses, including publIC open spaces that are pedestnan-, translt-, and blcycle-onented , Nodes WIll have commercial cores that contain a compatible mIx of retail, office, employment, and CIVIC , uses The amount and types of commercIal and CIVIC uses In the core should be consIstent WIth the type of nodal development center The core should be adjacent to a frequently serviced transit stop Nodal development centers Will Include a mIx of hOUSing types that achIeve at least an average denSity that IS WIthin the medium-densIty range for reSidential uses [compliance With thiS Trans Plan Policy automatically requires compact and dense development] "Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 15 Staff ResDonse/Flndlnp The nodal strategy has qeen Implemented thiS site (approximately 80 aces) With the approval of the Metro Plan diagram and Zo ling Map amendments earlier thiS year ThiS IS the 28 core of the "nodal concept" In order to assure that the nodal concept IS a continuing aspect of this master Plan, the reqUlfed Phasing Plan must guafantee compliance with this concept through the life of the Master Plan (see Pages 52- 57 of this staff report) Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In this staff feport, this application complies with Land Use Policy 1 Land Use Polley #5 Implementation of Nodal Development "Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development desIgnatIOn to areas selected by each junsdlctlon, adopt and apply measures to protect desIgnated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completIOn of nodal plans and Implementing ordinances" Ref TfansPlan Chapter 2, Page 10 Staff ResDonse/Fmdmq, ThiS site was deSignated a "proposed Nodal Development Area" (7C) In TransPlan ThiS deSignation was Implemented by the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendments earlier thiS year Based on staffs fesponse, thiS application complies with Land Use Polley 5 TDM Policy #3 Congestion Management "Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at congested locatIons" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 10 ' Staff ResDonse/Fmdmo, Marcola Road IS claSSified as a MInOf Arterial and Will be,the primary access to the proposed development 31st Street IS claSSified as a MajOf Collector and does not curfently have Sidewalks The applicant has proposed tfaffic Signals to manage demand on Marcola Road, but staff IS requiring the construction of round-a bouts and a frontage road to prOVide safe backing movements fOf reSidents on the south Side of Marcola Road The applicant IS not volunteering any Improvements along the 31st Street frontage ThiS Issue IS discussed on Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies with TDM Polley 3 TSI Roadway Polley #4 Access Management "Manage the roadway system to preserve safety and operational effiCiency by adopting regulatIOns to manage access to roadways and applYing these regulatIons to deCISions related to approving new or modIfied access to the roadway system" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 11 Staff ResDonse/Fmdmo The proposed development Will necessitate access to both Marcola Road and 31" Street As stated above, staff will require the construction of round-abouts and a frontage road to proVide safe backing movements fOf reSidents on the south Side of Marcola Road and Sidewalks along 31 st Street (See Pages 35 to 37 of thiS staff report) Based on staffs fesponse, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TSI Roadway Policy 4 TSI Tfanslt Policy #1 Tfanslt Impfovements "Improve transit service and facilIties to Increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness, and convemence for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged populatIOn" Ref TransPlan chaptef 2, Page 11 Staff ResDonse/Flndmo L TD Will require two bus stops In the area of Marcola Road and 28th Streets In addition, L TD has requested that the applicant reserve space for two bus stops on Martin Drive Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TSI TranSit Policy 1 TSI Bicycle Policy #1 Bikeway System and Support FaCIlities "Construct and Improve the regIon's bIkeway system and proVIde bIcycle system support faCIlities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion" Ref TfansPlan Chapter 2, Page 11 Staff ResDonse/Fmdmo Staff has discussed the EWEB Bike Path Issue elsewhefe In thiS staff report Whether EWEB Will require reconstruction of the Bike Path IS thelf deCISion Based on staffs response, as may conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TSI Bicycle Policy 1 29 TSI Bicycle Policy #2 Bikeways on Arterials and Collectors "ReqUIre bikeways along new and reconstructed artenal and major collector streets" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 11 I Staff ResDonse/Fmdln.q There are already bike P!lths along the frontages of Mafcola Road and 31 st Stfeet Development of this site may feqUlfe alteration and/or Improvement of these paths Based on , staffs fesponse, as may conditioned elsewhere In this staff report, this application complies With TSI Bicycle Polley 2 I TSI Bicycle Policy #3 Bikeway Connections to New Development "ReqUire bikeways to connect new development With nearby neighborhood actiVIty centers and major destinations" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 11 Staff ResDonse/Flndma As stated elsewhere In this staff feport, EWEB controls the access from the , this site across thelf property to the Bike Path Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In this staff report, this application can comply With TSII Bicycle Polley 3 TSI Pedestrian Polley #1 Pedestrian Envlfonment 'Provlde for a pedestnan enVIronment that IS well Integrated With adjacent land uses and IS deSIgned to , enhance the safety, comfort, and convemence of walking" Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 12 I Staff ResDonse/Fmdma Except for the EWEB Bike Path conneclivlty Issue alfeady discussed, the , plans submitted proVide for an Integrated pedestrian environment This application complies With TSI Pedestrian Polley 1 TSI Pedestrian Policy #2 Contmuous and Dlfect Routes 'Provlde for a continuous pedestnan network WIth reasonably dlfect travel routes between destinatIon pOints" Ref TransPlan Chaptef 2, Page 12 Staff ResDonse/Fmdmq The plans submitted provide for a continuous reasonably direct pedestnan I network ffom the reSidential portion of the site to the commercial portion of the site and Within the , commercial portions of the site This application complies With TSI Pedestrian Policy 2 Staff Resoonse/Fmdlna TSI Pedestrian Policy #3 Sidewalks ""Construct Sidewalks along urban area artenal and collector roadways, except freeways Ref TransPlan Chapter 2, Page 12 Staff Resoonse/Fmdma Sidewalks Will be requlfed along the frontages of Marcola Road and 31st , Streets Based on staffs response, as conditioned elsewhere In thiS staff report, thiS application complies With TSI Pedestrian Polley 3 CONCLUSION Staff has demonstfated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125B has been met I rCRITERION - 5 13-125C 1 . Proposed on-sIte and off-Site public and pnvate Improvements shall be , suffiCIent to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacIty reqUirements of publIC , faCIlities plans, and proVIsions shall be made to assure constructIon of off-Site Improvements In conjunctIon With a schedule of the phaSing" STAFF NOTE The SDc reqUlfements feferenced In thiS criterion afe felated to those standards that are necessary for the review and appfoval of thiS Mastef Plan application, but are typically outside of the development standards that afe contained In SDc qhapters 3 and 5 referenced and evaluated under criterion 5 13-125B ,above The development stanC ards contained In SDc chaptef 4 afe refefenced and evaluated, below 30 SDC SECTION 41-100/4 2-10014 3-100. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS SDC SECTION 4 2-105 - PUBLIC STREETS Applicant's Response "The transportatIon network Illustrated on the VIllages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan (see Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon and Sheet 11, Street SectIons) meets the reqUirements of SDC SectIon 4 2-105A 1 by bemg consIstent WIth the locatIon of streets shown generally m TransPlan and the CIty'S Conceptual Local Street Map The Master Plan IS consIstent WIth the layouts In TransPlan and Conceptual Local Street Map m showmg a north- south, and west-east trendmg street at the locatIon of the proposed Martm Drtve nght-of-way proVldmg access to future reSIdentIal development, also consIstent With applicable plans and the SDC ThIS street serves as the "Mam Street" for the core nodal development area conSIdered for the sIte ThIS confIguratIOn IS generally meets the reqUirements establIshed m SDC SectIon 4 2- 105A 1 a All future development on the sIte WIll have frontage and access to a publIC street as reqUired m SDC SectIon 4 2-105A 2 The dedIcatIon of all publIC streets WIll be made consIstent WIth SDC SectIOn 4 2-105A 2 and B as part of a TentatIve SubdIVISIon Plan applIcatIon upon approval of the VIllages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan The accompanymg TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS (Attachment 3 1, Master Plan TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS) demonstrates that the proposed street network on-sIte and assocIated off-SIte transportatIon Improvements (see Attachment 3 3, Marcola Meadows MItIgatIon TraffIC Engmeenng Study) WIll mmlmlze IdentIfIed traffIC Impacts as reqUired m SDC SectIon 4 2-105A 3 Street rtght-of-way and roadway WIdths as proposed are consIstent WIth the standards m SDC SectIon 4 2-105C Table 4 2-1, and the functIonal classlf/cattons of streets IdentIfied on Sheet 11, Street SectIons are consIstent WIth SDC SectIOn 4 2-105D " The applicant also submitted the follOWing excerpt from a letter written by staff In 2006 "A meetmg was held In the offIce of Crandall Arambula on July fh CynthIa Pappas, AssIstant CIty Manager, Colm Stephens, Plannmg SupervIsor and I represented the CIty You and members of your desIgn team also attended That meetmg resulted In a Fmal RecommendatIon Memo prepared by Crandall Arambula whIch IS an attachment to thIS letter (Attachment 1) IncofDoratma recommendatIon from Crandall Arambula WIll aId I{ou and Mr Martm to obtain entItlements for the proDoseq Marcola Meadows deve/ooment "[emphasIs added by the applicant] Portions of the Crandall Arambula recommendations are also attached "B PrOVIde landscape separatIon between SIdewalk and street", "B PrOVIde one length of on-street parkmg for entire length of all reSIdentIal blocks" and "c PrOVIde landscaped curb extensIons at all mtersectlons " Staff ResDonse/Flndmo In response to the applicant's latter statement, Crandall Afambula, a PlannlnglDeslgn fifm In Portland experienced In mixed use developments, was hired at City expense In 2006 to perform a "peef fevlew" of the proposed development plan shown to staff Although the applicant Incorporated all but one of the Crandall Arambula's 6 recommendations (see Attachment 7 for the full letter explaining the recommendaltons), staff believes those fecommendatlons were conceptual and did not anticipate the transportation safety Issues raised by staff below EXisting Street System Abutting the site on the south, Marcola Road IS a three-lane minor arterial stfeet that proVides one motor vehicle lane In each direction, a center two-way left-turn lane and bicycle lanes EXisting Improvements Include curb/gutter, Sidewalks, low pressure sodium (LPS) street lighting and street trees Single family reSidential development extends along the south Side of Marcola Road opposite the site Abutting the site on the east fOf a distance of approXimately 1,700 feet north of Mafcola Road, 28th/31'I Street IS a three-lane minor arterial street that proVides one motor vehicle lane In each direction, a centef two-way left-turn lane and bicycle lanes, Improvements Include cUfb/gutter, Sidewalks, low pressure sodium (LPS) street lighting and street trees North of that pOint ('U' Street) the roadway transitions to a two-lane asphalt mat With roadSide ditches Land to the east of Marcola Road opposite the site IS developed as IighUmedlum industrial (LMI) for approXimately Y. mile north of Marcola Road, and low density reSidential (LDR) north of that pOint The Marcola Road/28th Street intersection IS controlled by a multi-phase traffic Signal Pierce Parkway, Short Street, 'U' Street, 'V' Stfeet and 'W' Street afe controlled by stop signs at their intersections With 28th/31" Street 31 SDC Section 4 2-105 G 2 fequlres that whenever a proposed land divIsion or other development will Increase traffic on the City stfeet system and that development has any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully Improved street, that stfeet frontage shall be fully Improved to City specifications The applicant has proposed Improvements along Mafcola Blvd and 281h Street (up to the intersection with U Street) dUring Phase 1 construction The property frontage along 31" Stfeet (from U Street north) has not been proposed for Improvement until Phase 4 Improvement of the street frontage along 31" Street will reqUlfe relocation of the eXisting storm dfalnage conveyance ditch to obtain necessary pavement widths "Table 4.2-1 Street Right-ot-Way and Curb- To-Curb WIdth Specifications I Type Of Street I Major Artenai I Minor Artenal I Collector I Local Street I <15 percent slope (1) I >15 percent slope (1) <1200' length and <1000 vehicle tnps per day Cul-de-sac bulb I Alley MInimum RIght-of-Wav 100' 70' 60' Mmimum Curb To Curb 76' 48' 36'(3) 50' 40' 40' 36' 28Y2) 28' 83' 20' 70' 20'(4) (1) Ie, the average slope of the development area (2) 20' streets are allowed with approved parking bays of 8'x 24' per vehicle (3) AddItIOnal nght-of-way may be reqUired to accommodate a center turn lane where slgmficant volumes of left-turn traffIC occur (4) Alleys do not have curbs, 20' IS the entIre paving width" SDc Table 4 2, above, specifies that local streets shall be 36 feet Wide In 50-foot Wide rights of way except where they are less than 1,200 feet In length and cafry fewef than 1,000 vehicle tripS pef day Local streets Within the fesldentlal areas are proposed to be 28 feet Wide Virtually all of the proposed east-west streets exceed 1,200 feet In length Parking on one Side of the street IS proposed, and curb extensions are proposed at street Intersections As a result, usable roadway Width IS limited to 20-feet throughout the network, including at approaches to sections With sharply curved alignments, and at cross street and alley Intersections The applicant must propose streets that conform to SDc reqUirements and Vehicle turning movement analyses uSing AASHTO passenger caf deSign vehicle fOf roadway seclions and intersections where proposed usable roadway Width IS less than 28 feet The applicant has provided the AASHTO passenger-caf vehicle turning movement analyses as described above ThiS analYSIS Indicates that, In general, the proposed street intersection deSigns would be adequate to accommodate passenger-caf deSign vehicles The reqUirements of SDc Table 4 2 remain to be addressed The pfoposed 50-foot Wide street rights-of-way would be adequate to construct a city-standard 36-foot Wide local stfeet With curbside Sidewalk In confofmance With SDc The Final Mafcola Meadows Mastef Plan should depict fevlsed stfeet Widths for sections of the east-west streets that meet the requirements of SDC Table 4 2 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer MASTER PLAN CONDITION #21. PrlOf to the approval of the Final Master Plan the applicant shall provided deSigns for revised stfeet Widths for sections of the east-west streets that meet the reqUlfements of SDc Table 4 2 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Sevefal public stfeet Intersections and changes In dlfectlon feature bump-outs, redUCing lane Width ffom 28 feet to 20 feet, which Will restrict maneuverability of fire appafatus to make a turn In addition, the pfoposed Martin Drive features tfaffic Islands which Irestrlct fire apparatus maneuverability even further 32 Based on a wall to wall turn fad IUS of 45 feet, fire apparatus would have to drive Into the opposite lane of oncoming tfaffic Should one or more vehicles be In that lane, fire response would be blocked Parcel 8 on Plan Sheet 8 dwelling Units (cluster townhouses) surrounding the "qUiet open space" (as Idenlified on Plan Sheet 5) fequlres fire appafatus access due to the distance from the public street and what may appear to be fenCing blocking access Access Will have to be upgraded to fire apparatus access road standards reqUiring 20 feet clear Width drivable all-weather drivable surface capable of supporting an 80,000 lb Imposed load, not less than 28 feet inSide turn radII at turns, and "No Parklng- Fire Lane" slgnage on both Sides of the access Plan Sheet 5 shows four dwelling Units accessible With only alley access from thfee pOints on unnamed public roads and an additional two dwelling Units accessible from an alley With one pOint off an unnamed publiC road on the west Side These houses are In the section Identified on Plan Sheet 8 as located In Pafcel10 These access pOints Will have to be upgraded to fire apparatus access road standafds reqUiring 20 feet clear Width all-weather drivable surface capable of supporting an 80,000 lb Imposed load, not less than 28 feet inSide turn radII at turns, and "No Pafklng-Flre Lane" slgnage on both Sides of the access Plan Sheet 11, Detail 3 shows cross section of the total lane Width In each dlreclion of 19 feet on the portions of Martin Drive With a 10 foot center median ThiS IS one foot short of the minimum 20 feet clear Width required by the fire code An additional foot In Width for each lane Will meet thiS requirement Plan Sheet 11, Detail 6 shows the cross seclion of an alley way It shows total travel lane cross section of only 18 feet FOf those alleyways that are required access as mentioned In #2 and #3, the full driVing Width IS fequlred to be 20 feet per 2007 Springfield Fire Code 503 2 1 Note Table 42-1 states that alleys reqUire 20 feet of paving Width Belle Boulevard between 28th Street and the access to Pafcels 6 and 7 on Plan Sheet 9 IS proposed to be 36-feet Wide With three 12-foot lanes at Intefsectlons, and 28-feet Wide With two-lanes and parking on one Side north of that pOint The TIA does not contain a traffic volume estimate for the proposed 28-foot Wide section, so It IS unclear whethef It would meet SDC street-width criteria Because Belle Boulevard links Martin Way and 28th Stfeet, which are both collectors haVing on-street bicycle lanes, It IS likely to attract Significant amounts of bicycle tfavel Additional lane Width IS needed to safely accommodate shared use by auto and bicycle traffic Street deSigns should be fevlsed for Belle Boulevard between Martin Way and 28th Street to provide minimum curbSide lane Widths of 15 feet SDc Subsection 4 2-1 05K states "Street names are assIgned as specIfIed m the Spnngfleld MUniCIpal Code, 1997" The applicant Intends to utilize Martin Drive and Belle Boulevard These proposed street names Will require a Street Name amendment application MASTER PLAN CONDITION #22 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, and consistent With SDc Section 4 2-105 G 2, the applicant shall revise the proposed PhaSing Plan to the satisfaction of the Development ServLces Director to Include construction of 2/3 street Improvements along their entire property frontage of 31" Stfeet In Phase 1 Construction of these street Improvements, Including any necessary relocation of the eXlsling ditch along 31" Street, shall occur undef proposed Phase 1 Public Improvement Project MASTER PLAN CONDITION #23 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall depict a deSign to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that proVides 30 feet of paved Width (two 15-foot lanes) With no on-street parking for the section of Belle Boulevafd north of the Pafcel 6/7 access MASTER PLAN CONDITION #24. Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall depict a deSign to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that proVides a minimum 41-foot Wide street Width to proVide two 15-foot through lanes and an 11-foot Wide left-turn lane where needed for the section of Belle Boulevafd south of the Parcel 6/7 access 33 MASTER PLAN CONDITION #25 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall , comply With all stfeet Improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to resolve all Identified street width Issues In order to comply With SDc Table 4 2-1 c I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #26 concurfent With the submittal of the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan , application for Phase 1, the applicant shall also submit a Street Name Change application In ofder to allow the use of the proposed stfeet names In this Mastef plan application TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Applicant's Response - General A TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS (TIA) evaluatmg the performance of , eXlstmg and planned facIlitIes as a result of the development proposed by thIs applIcatIon has , been performed That T1A (Attachment 3 1, Master Plan TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS) IS submItted , concurrently WIth thIs wntten statement and the findmgs of that analYSIS are hereby mcorporated , by reference The eVIdence m the applIcatIon demonstrates that the proposed on-sIte and prtvate , Improvements are suffiCIent to accommodate the proposed development and schedule of phasmg and the capacIty reqUirements of applIcable publIC facilItIes plans On-sIte Improvements mclude publiC streets and utIlitIes wlthm the boundartesj of the subject property, mcluding an extensIve multIUse traIl system Off-SIte publIC faCIlItIes outsIde of the boundartes of the subJect property , mclude street and mtersectton Improvements As explamed elsewhere m thIS applIcatIon and m the accompanymg reports (e g , Attachment 6, S'tormwater Master Plan), the eVIdence m the , submIttal demonstrates that off-SIte faclllttes a~ suffICIent to accommodate the proposed development and schedule of phasmg The off-SIte transportation faCIlItIes, as explamed m , Attachment 3 1, TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS (TIA), are suffICIent to accommodate the proposed phased , development at applIcable mobIlIty standards As explamed m the TIA, the development shall , develop mfrastructure m coordmatlon WIth the phases of development m order to maxImIze , mternal tnp generation. See Attachment 31, Marcola Meadows TraffIC Impact AnalYSIS for more mformatlon on the coordmatlon of phasmg and traffIC generatIon (trtp cap) begmnmg at p 11 through p 15 SDC Sectlon513-125(C) reqUires that off-Site publIC Improvements, mcludmg , streets, be suffiCIent to accommodate the proposed phased development and capacIty , reqUirements of publIC facIlitIes plans and to assure constructIon of off-Site Improvements m , conJunctIOn WIth the schedule of phasmg The 1'1'tlal development (I e , publIC mfrastructure, on. sIte drtves and common/ open space areas of Phase 1 and the home Improvement center of Phase 2) proposed m the Master Plan applIcatIon IS scheduled to be open m 2008 Accordmgly, the applIcant must demonstrate that off-SIte pUblIC faCIlIty capacIty IS avaIlable to accommodate , Impacts from the home Improvement store openmg m 2008 The TIA explams that the off-SIte , publIC Improvements mcludmg streets WIll be suffICIent to accommodate the proposed mlttal , development phases As such, the CIty can find that the LOS at the applIcable mtersectlons WIll , be eIther Improved to a level that IS better than or no worse than the eXlstmg LOS upon completIon of the Inttlal development." I Staff Resoonse/Fmdlno For tfansportatlon review purposes the pnmary documents applicable undef , thiS criterion are the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area transportation system plan (TransPlan) the , 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) and the SDc TransPlan IS a functional plan of the Metro Plan It , establishes the general location, functional claSSification and performance standards fOf arterial and collectof foadways Within the planning area The OHP establishes the function and performance , standards fOf state highways The SDc speCifies the right-of-way and street Width fequlfements fOf streets Within Springfield I Functional ClaSSIfication of Stfeets The proposed Martin Drive collector street and would Implement TransPlan Project #777 In the "New Collectors" category , I Level-{)f-servlce Standards TfansPlan's TSI Roadway Policy # 2 Motor VehIcle Level of ServIce , establishes performance standafds for local faCIlities and Includes OHP mobility standards for state faCIlities as follows 34 "1 Use motor vehicle level of servIce standards to maintain acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system These standards shall be used for b IdentJfYlng capacity defiCiencies on the roadway system c Evaluating the Impacts on roadways of amendments to transportatIon plans, acknowledged comprehenSive plans and land-use regulatIOns, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060) d Evaluating development applications for consistency WIth the land-use regulatIons of the applicable local government junsdlctlon 2 Acceptable and reliable servIce IS defined by the follOWing leve/s of service under peak hour traffiC conditions Level of SefVIce E WIthin Eugene's Central Area TransportatIon Area, and Level of ServIce D elsewhere 3 Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan shall be applied on state faCilities In the Eugene-Spnngfleld metropolitan area" The above TransPlan Levels of Service (LOS) standards afe based on criteria contained In the Highway Capacity Manual (HeM) published by the National Research CouncIl's Transportation Research Board For Signalized intersections the HeM uses seconds of average-vehicle delay to define LOS Tables 6 and 7 In the 1999 OHP establish mobility standards based on Volume-to-Capaclty (vie) fatlos TRAFFIC SIGNALS ~taff ResQ.onse/Fmdlno The applicant submitted the Marcola Meadows Master Plan Traffic Impact AnalYSIS (TIA), prepared by Access Engineering, that evaluated potential Impacts of the site development assuming the proposed phaSing schedule and bUild-out by 2015 The TIA applied the above deSCribed mobility standards and analyzed traffiC operations at the follOWing locations . Mohawk Boulevard/19th Street @ Mafcola Road/Q Street . Marcola Road @ Martin Drive . Marcola Road @ Home Improvement Center Driveway . Marcola Road @ 28th Street . 28th Street @ Pierce Parkway . 28'h Street @ Short Street . 31" Stfeet@ Martin DriveN Street . 31" Street @ Yolanda Avenue . 191h Street@ Hayden Bridge Road The TIA concluded that 1) The Marcola Road/Martin Drive, Marcola Road/Home Improvement Center Driveway, and Belle Boulevard and Martin Drive Intefsectlons on 281h/31" Street would not meet traffic Signal warrants In 2008 2) The southbound left-turn movements at Marcola Road/Martin Drive and Marcola Road/HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER Driveway would operate at LOS E In 2008 ThiS IS an acceptable level of service for a Single minor roadway movement 3) The Marcola RoadlMartln Drive and Marcola Road/ Home Improvement Center Driveway Intersecllons would meet traffic Signal warrants at some pOint prior to anticipated site bUild-out In 2015 Thus, from a capacity standpOint eXisting and proposed tfansportatlon faCIlities would be suffiCient to meet applicable performance standards for roadways Impacted by tfaffic genefated by the proposed development at bUlld-out In 2015 However, othef operational safety concerns are falsed by the applicant's proposal The applicant proposes to Install traffic Signals as part of Phase 1, In 2008, on Marcola Road at Martin Drive and the Home Improvement Center driveway . Assuming construction of Phases 1, 2 and 3, the applicant's TIA concludes that these traffic Signals would not be warranted In 2008, and that intersection levels of service would meet adopted mobility standards (LOS D Of bettef) Without Signalization '35 . The City has had success with foundabout Intersection designs In lieu of signalization, and the , benefits of roundabouts are well documented (See Attachment 8, Federal Highway Administration brochure) They Include I o Lives saved. Up to a 90% reduction In fatalities. 76% reduction In injury crashes. 30-40% , reduction In pedestrian crashes. 75% fewerl conflict pOints than fOUf way Intefsectlons o Slowef vehicle speeds (undef 30 mph) . Drivers have more time to judge and react to other , cars or pedestrians. Advantageous to olderland novice drivers. Reduces the severity of cfashes . Keeps pedestrians safef o Efficient traffic flow. 30-50% Increase In tfaffic capacity , o Reduction In pollution and fuel use. Improved traffic flow fOf intersections that handle a high I number of left turns. Reduced need fOf storage lanes , o Money saved. No Signal eqUipment to Install and repair. Savings estimated at an average of , $5,000 pef yeaf In electricity and maintenance costs. Service life of a roundabout IS 25 years (vs the 1 O-yeaf service life of Signal equipment) I o Communrty benefits. Traffic calming. Aesthetic landscaping I . Construction of these Signals before they afe wafranted would bUfden the City with undeslfable Signal , maintenance expense and preclude conSideration of bettef tfaffic contfol alternatives , . As depicted In the submittal, the slgnal-contfolled left-turn lanes at these intersections would create , traffic conflicts for vehicles uSing eXisting fesldentlal driveways on the south Side of Mafcola Road , These conflicts would festrlct movements at these driveways to rlght-In-rlght-out only, which would fOfce users to travel out of direction and make U-turns In order to approach the driveways ffom a Single direction FollOWing diScussions with staff, the applicant submitted a traffic analysIs indicating that, due to an Imbalance In tfaffic flows, roundabouts would not belthe preferred choice of intersection control In addition, the applicant submitted draWings that depict In a conceptual way how elthef a frontage road Of a , bypass road might be constructed to address the reSidential driveway Impacts of the proposed Signals I The City Tfaffic Engineer has performed a more detailed roundabout analysIs uSing the tfaffic volume , projeclions from the submitted TIA Results of this analysIs show that Single-lane roundabouts would , proVide accepted levels of service at the two intersections upon bUild-out of the proposed development, , and that U-turn opportunities proVided by roundabouts would help mitigate some Impacts to the affected reSidential driveways I The applicant disputes the conclUSions of the City Traffic Engineer and argues that driveway conflicts , result ffom eXisting development not In compliance with current standards for access control on arterial streets The applicant continues to propose traffic Signal control with limited mitigation of driveway Impacts as follows I "The preferred optIon skews the mtersectlon crosswalks to mcorporate at least one of the eXlstmg , dnveways at each mtersectlon The two other optIons submItted herem utlltze eXlsttng publIc , rtght-of-way to Its maxImum extent and document that solutIons wlthm eXlstmg nght-of-way may , be pOSSIble Any other alternatIves would reqUire more than proportIonal dedIcatIon of property , and or development and dedIcatIon of prtvate property outSIde the boundanes of the development" ApplIcant TestImony Regardmg Marcola SIgnals, November 27, 2007 Staff concludes that . Roundabouts are the appropriate intersection fOfms at these two locations because they would meet , adopted mobility standards, prOVide greater safety, and be less expensive to operate . A frontage foad IS needed to maintain safe and effiCient access to the reSidential driveways that would be Impacted by the pfoposed development The Transportation Planning Engineer has determined that . The sole purpose of the new Martin Way collector street IS to serve the Marcola Meadows Mastef , Plan site Absent development of the pfoposed Villages at Marcola Meadows, eXisting 36 transportation facIlities abutting the property would be adequate to meet current and future transportation needs . The sole purpose of the proposed Home Improvement Center driveway onto Mafcola Road IS to serve development on the Marcola Meadows Master Plan site Absent development of the proposed Villages at Marcola Meadows, the driveway would not be needed . Impacts to eXisting fesldentlal driveways along the south side of Mafcola Road flow directly and exclusively from the applicant's proposal for providing access to the Marcola Meadows Master Plan site The above facts demonstrate that 1) The need for the subject right-of-way IS dlfectly felated to the proposed development 2) The pfoportlon of needed right-of-way attributable to the applicant's proposal IS 100-percent MASTER PLAN CONDITION #27 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall 1) Include dedication of necessary right-of-way, and proVide a preliminary design acceptable to the City Englneef for a roundabout intersection at the Mafcola Road/Martin Drive Interseclion 2) Provide a preliminary design acceptable to the City Engineer and the Springfield Fire Marshal for a frontage road located within the eXisting Mafcola Road right-of-way that maintains safe and effiCient access fOf vehicles uSing eXisting residential driveways on the south side of Marcola Road opposite the development site These Improvements as speCified by the City Engineer shall be constructed as part of the proposed Phase 1 Infrastructure Improvements 3) At the Marcola Road/Home Improvement Center Driveway intersection a) The applicant shall prOVide financial security acceptable to the City Engineer In an amount equal to the average of the sum of estimated construction costs for traffic Signal control and a roundabout intersection to prOVide for tfaffic control at thiS intersection when warfanted, the deCISion to construct traffic control IS vested With the City Engineer, b) Dedicate right-of-way acceptable to the City Engineer to accommodate roundabout construction LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT Lane TranSit District (L TD) has the following comments on thiS application "Until the reSidential uses develop, thefe will be no need fOf tfanslt faCilities on Martin Drive At that time, there will pOSSibly be two- way bus traffic on Martin and potentially three to four stop locations on each side of the stfeet For now, we are recommending two standard (no pull-out) bus stops on Marcola Road fronting the site One would be afound 300 feet west of 28th neaf the pedestrian corndof, and the other would be approximately 100 feet west of Martin near that pedestrian connection These should be listed as "possible" or "conceptual locations to be confirmed by L TD" so we don't lock them Into hard locations at the tentative stage We can prOVide mOfe detail on the public Improvements There would also likely be new stops located on the south Side of Mafcola opposite the above mentioned locations, but these need to be more carefully Sited due to eXisting developed homes on that Side of the street ThiS IS a good time to plan for an area beyond the fequlred right-of-way fOf tfanslt faCilities such as shelters If deSired by the developef, however, L TD Will not be reqUiring any special right-of-way provIsions for those amenities or pull-outs" MASTER PLAN CONDITION #28 Prior to the approval of the Final Mastef Plan, the applicant shall coordinate With L TD regarding the location of required bus stops The conceptual bus stops shall be shown on the appropriate Plan Sheet SDC SECTION 4 2-110 - PRIVATE STREETS Applicant's Response "All streets shown on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon are publIC as such thIS standard does not apply" 37 SDC SECTION 4 2-115 - BLOCK LENGTH ApplIcant's Response "The dIstance from the j. -nctton of Marcola Road and Belle Boulevard and Belle Boulevard and Martm Drive (along 28th/31st Streets) exceeds the 600 foot block length The 2Et" Street Block between Marcola Road and Belle Boulevard IS approxImately 650 feet long and IS located opposIte PIerce Parkway, a developed street that conforms to the exceptton standards of SDC SectIon 4 2-115C The 28th/31st Street Block between Belle Boulevard and Martm Dnve , exceeds 600 feet but IS dIvIded near Its mldpomt1by the common/ open space area that IS developed WIth a pedestnan/ bIke path and surrounds the relocated PIerce DItch and conforms to the standards of SDC SectIon 4 2-11(C As such,lthe applIcant requests an exceptIon to the block length standard per SDC SectIon 4 2-115A and C " I Staff Resoonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 2-115 states "Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, unless the developer demonstrates that a block length shall be greater than 600 feet because of , the eXIstence of one or more of the follOWing conditions I A PhYSical condJtlOns preclude a block length of 600 feet or less These condItIons may Include topography or the eXlstencelof phYSical features, including but not lImited to wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, nvers, lakes or steep grades, or a resource under protection by state or federal law, I B BUildings or other eXIsting development on adjacent lands, including prevIOusly subdIVIded but vacant lots/parcels that phYSically preclude a block length 600 feet or less, conSidering the potential for redevelopment, or I C Where the extensIOn of a publIC street Into the proposed development would create a , block length exceeding 600 feet, the total block length shall be as close to 600 feet as possible" I Although It IS not a public stfeet mtersecllon, the pair opposing commercial driveways on Belle Boulevard , located 200 feet north of Marcola Road effectively create a 500-foot "block length" between that pOint and the east-west fesldentlal stfeet located 150 feetlsouth of Martin Drive Within the 28th/31st Street Block between Belle Boulevard and Martin Drive Intefsectlng stfeets on the south/east Side of 28'h/31", and proposed driveways opposite Short Street and l!J Street would effectively address the Intent of SDC Section 4 2-115 I SDC SECTION 4 2-120 - SITE ACCESS AND DRIVEWAYS I Applicant's Response "SpeCIfic driveway WIdths and locatIons are generally not shown on the Master Plan as they WIll be more appropnately s~ted as part of mdlvldual SubdIVISIon or SIte Plan ReVIew submIttals for each mcrement of future development However, Sheet 5, Master Plan , illustratIon Illustrates the general locatIons of access pomts to each development SIte The general publIC access entnes off Marcola Road, Martm Drive and Belle Boulevard are shown on , these Master Plan dIagrams and are mtended to Illustrate conformance WIth SDC SectIon 4 2-120, , speCIfIcally the spacmg reqUirements m SDC SectIon 4 2-120C, Table 42-2 " I Staff Resoonse/FlndlnQ EXisting site access consists of one driveway onto Marcola Road located 300 , feet west of 28m Street, and anothef located at the southwest corner of the Site, which IS shared With the , adJOInmg commerCial development The Mastef Plan proposes to close the first of these driveways and create new driveway accesses as follows I 1) A Signalized full-access driveway on Mafcola Road centered 500 feet west of 28th Stfeet 2) An un-Signalized full-access driveway on 28'h/31" Street opposite Short Street 3) An un-Signalized full-access driveway on 31" St eet opposite 'U' Street Internal access to the master plan area IS proposed Ila 38 1) A new collector street (Martin Way) extending south-westward through the site from a pOint on 31" Street opposite 'V' Street to a Signalized intersection with Marcola Road approximately 1,200 feet west of 28th Street, 2) A north-south local street (Belle Boulevard) connecting Martin Way to 28th/31" Stfeet at Pierce Parkway, 3) A westerly extension of W' Street as a local stfeet across the northern portion of the site, and 4) A netwofk of streets, alleys and private driveways providing direct access to commercial development and residential lots Finally, the southwest boundary of the site abuts the parking lot for an adjacent developed commercial site The two properties share a driveway onto Marcola Road, and 16 parking spaces fOf the developed site are located within the Main Street Retail (MSR-1) portion of the master plan The Master Plan proposes to prOVide connectivity to the adjacent site by extending a parking lot aisle eastward Into the MSR development on Parcel 4 The level of detail available In the Marcola Meadows Master Plan does not support approval of mlnOf site driveways such as the proposed un-signalized driveways on 28'h/31 'I Street opposite Short Stfeet, and on 31" Street opposite 'U' Stfeet Subsequent to Master Plan approval the Involved sites will feqUlfe at least two more land-use review processes Tentative SubdiVISion and Site Plan Approval of these two proposed access driveways should be deferred until Tentative SubdivIsion and/of Site Plan ReView where the necessary level of detail IS available The Installation of driveways on a street Increases the number of tfaffic conflict pOints The gfeater number of conflict pOints Increases the probability of traffic cfashes SDC 4 2-120 A 1 stipulates that all developed lotslparcels shall have "an approved access "As conditioned below Ingfess-egfess pOints will be planned to faCilitate traffic and pedestrian safety on public streets as speCified In SDC Chapters 4 (Sections 4 1 to 4 3) and 5 (Sections 5 15 & 5 17), applicable zoning and or overlay district Articles, and applicable refinement plans MASTER PLAN CONDITION #29 Direct vehlculaf driveway access to 281h/31" Streets shall not be shown on the final Marcola Meadows Mastef Plan The numbef, location and deSign 01 such driveways, II any, shall be determined dUring the subdiVISion and/of site plan feVlew process for speCific developments Within the Marcola Meadows Master Plan afea SDC SECTION 4 2-125 -INTERSECTIONS Applicant's Response "The applIcant shall desIgn and construct mtersectlons as speCIfIed m the CIty'S Engmee"ng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual Streets shall be laId out so as to mtersect as nearly as pOSSIble at fight angles The angle of mtersectlon between two mtersectmg streets shall be at least 80 degrees At mtersectlons, each local street shall be straIght or shall have a radIUS greater than 400 feet for a dIstance of 100 feet from each mtersectlon " Staff ResDonse/Flndmo Because of the compleXity of the transportation Issues regafdlng thiS application, speCific diSCUSSions InvolVing intersections afe discussed elsewhere In thiS staff report Compliance With Intefsectlon standards shall be assured by conditions Sited elsewhere In thiS staff feport SDC SECTION 4 2-130 - VISION CLEARANCE AREAS Applicant's Response "The applIcant WIll be submlttmg proposals for slgnage and monumentatlon on the SIte, but any and all proposals WIll ensure complIance WIth the standards In SDC SectIon 4 2-130" Staff Resoonse/Fmdmo SDC Section 4 2-130 states 39 B. "A All comer lots/parcels shall maintain I clear area at each access to a public street and on each comer of property at the intersection of two streets or a street and an alley In order to , provide adequate SIght distance for approaching traffic I No screen Of other phYSIcal obstructIon IS permitted between 2 112 and 8 feet above the established height of the curb In the inangular area (See FIgure 4 2-A) I EXCEPTION Items assocIated With utilities or publicly owned structures for example, poles and sIgns, and eXisting street trees may be permitted I The clear VISIon area shall be In the shape ofa tnangle Two sides of the tnangle shall be , property lines for a dIstance speCIfied In thIS Subsection Where the property lines have rounded comers, they are measuredl by extending them In a straight line to a pOint of intersectIon The thlfd Side of the tnangle IS a line across the corner of the lot/parcel jOining , the non-intersecting ends of the other two Sides The follOWing measurements shall establish the clear VISIon areas I Table 4 2-5 I I Measurement Along Each ProDertv Line Any Street I 25 feet(1) Any Alley I 15 feet(1 j I Any Dnveway I 10 feet{';) I I These standards may be Increased If warranted for safety reasons by the PubliC Works Director" C Type Of IntersectIon (1) The applicant and successor owners Will comply With Ithe vIsion clearance standards through the Site Plan ReView process The BUilding Safety DIVISion regulates sign standards Sign standards are contained In the Springfield MUniCipal Code, Sections 8 200 through 8'268 The location of signs relating to the VISion clearance standards IS handled through the Site PlanlRevlew process The slgnage Illustrations submitted as part of the applicant's Attachment 1, DeSign GUlde'lnes, should be conSidered as only "1IIustralive" for the purposes of thiS feVlew SDC SECTION 4 2-135 - SIDEWALKS ApplIcant's Response "Setback SIdewalks and planter stnps are proposed along all streets , (except alleys) as shown on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon and Sheet 11, Street SectIons consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 4 2-135(A) and meetmg or exceeding the WIdth standard m SDC SectIon 4 2-135(B) As shown on Sheet 11, Street SectIons, planter strtpS along these streets WIll meet or exceed the 4 5-foot WIdth reqUired m SDC SectIon 4 2-135(C) AddItIonally, mternal pedestnan pathways are proposed throughout the SIte, as shown on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon" Staff ResDonse/Fmdma The applicant proposes t ) utilize setback Sidewalks thfough out the , development site FOf feasons discussed elsewhefe In thiS staff feport, thiS concept may not be feaSible , Compliance With Sidewalk standafds shall be assufed by conditions Sited elsewhefe In thiS staff feport SDC SECTION 4 2-140 - STREET TREES Applicant's Response "As Illustrated on Sheet 5, Master Plan illustratIon, the appltcant proposes , to plant street trees consIstent WIth SDC Sectlo~ 4 2-140 along all publIC street frontages for a total of approxImately 790 trees across the sIte SpeCIfIC locatIons and types of mdlvldual street trees, and consIstency WIth other proVISIons of SDC SectIon 4 2-140 WIll be mcluded WIth 40 TentatIve SubdIVIsIon Plan and SIte Plan ReVIew applIcatIons submItted subsequent to approval of thIs Master Plan See Attachment 2, DesIgn GUldelmes for the proposed Street Tree lIst" Staff Resl!onse/Flndmq. SDC Section 4 2-140 states "Street trees are those trees located Within the publIC nght-of-way Street trees may be located WIthin planter stnps, In indiVIdual tree wells WIthin a Sidewalk, round-abouts, or medians A New street trees New street trees shall be at least 2 Inches In caliper New street trees shall be selected from the CIty Street Tree LIst and Installed as speCIfied In the City'S Englneenng DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual The PublIC Works Director shall determine whIch species are permitted or prohIbited street trees" The applicant has submitted a Street Tree List, which the City has reviewed and agfees to In order to guarantee street tree consistency Within the development area ovef the life of the Master Plan, the Street Tfee List shall be speCifically Included In a deed restriction MASTER PLAN CONDITION #30 Prior to the approval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall record a deed festrlctlon to the salisfactlon of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director staling that the applicant and successor owners shall adhefe to the approved Street Tree List ~DC SECTION 4 2-145 - STREET LIGHTING Applicant's Response "Street Itghts WIll be mstalled along all publIC and prtvate streets accordmg to SDC standards The precIse type and style of lIght fixture WIll be proposed as part of subsequent TentatIve SubdIVISIon Plan and SIte Plan ReVIew applIcatIons Staff ResDonse/Fmdlno. SDC Section 4 2-145 states "PublIC street lighting deSIgn and placement IS speCified In the City'S Englneenng DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual and the Public Works Standard ConstructIOn SpeCIfications and IS approved by the Public Works Director A Street lIghting shall be Included With all new developments or redevelopment EXisting street lights shall be upgraded to current lighting standards WIth all new developments or redevelopment as determined by the Public Works Dlfector The developer IS responsible for street lIghting installation costs B A developer may choose to Install decorative streetlights, as may be permItted In the CIty'S Englneenng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual and the Public Works Standard ConstructIon SpecIficatIons" In addition, the Englneenng DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual Section 5 02 1 B DeSign Standafds states" " 4 Decorative poles and fixtures shall be used on all streets Within any Nodal Overlay dlstnct, and all off street public access ways and multi-use paths Decorative poles and fIxtures may be used on local streets In any zone at the option of the land developer All decoratIVe fixtures shall use metal halide lamps 5 Roadway style "cobra head" fixtures, on standard poles, shall be used In all other locations Finally, there was oral testimony presented dUring the November 20th public hearing regafdlng light pollution Additional written correspondence has been submitted to the City on thiS Issue The SDC does not prOVide a definllion of "light pollution" The submitted comments proVide a subjective opinion regarding light pollution cause by decorative type street lighting In Ambleslde SubdiVISion but do not proVide any quantitative assessment or reference to objective standards 41 The SDC contains private, on-site, lighting standard~ In SDC Section 4 5-100 These standafds fequlfe a developer to provide lighting that does not cause light pollution Since constfuctlon of Ambleslde , SubdivIsion the City has changed Its standafd fOf the lighting fix1ufe used In decofatlve type street light , Units to a "cutoff' type design, which eliminates unwanted light spillover I SDC SECTION 4 2-1501 SECTION 4 2-155 - BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS I Applicant's Response There IS no bIkeway proJect wlthm TransPlan Identtfled on or adJacent to the development sIte However, the Spnngfleld BIcycle Plan (SBP) notes a ProJect #18, EWEB , TraIl, that IS partly adJacent to the development sIte ThIs path IS Included m the SBP and IS , noted m Table 6-2, ProJect Phasmg of the SBP as Pnonty III (2009-2013) The adopted 2004 , Wlllamalane Park and Recreatton Dlstnct ComprehensIve Plan's Exlstmg, Planned, and I Proposed MultIUse Paths and BIkeways map (Map 3, p 26) shows a "Exlstmg and Planned Off- Street MultI-Use Path" along the development sIte's northern frontage SDC SectIon 4 2-150 and- 155(B) requires that development abuttmg propOsed bikeways and pedestnan paths Identtfled m , TransPlan or the SBP mclude provIsIons for future extensIon of facIlItIes through dedIcatIon of easements or nght-of-way, and that mdependent shared-use paths have a 12-foot mInimum WIdth The development site IS adJacent to the EWEB TraIl, however, no addItIonal nght-of-way or , easements are reqUired for that path system In addltton to EWEB TraIl, the Master Plan , illustratIon (see Sheet 5) IdentIfIes other multI-use traIls extendmg along the relocated PIerce , DItch, and other pathways to meet the Internal connectIVIty and clrculatton obJectIves In SDC Sectton 3 2-625(E) These addItIonal multi-use pathways WIll also be developed consIstent wIth the standards outlmed m SDC SectIon 4 2-160(B) Sheets 10 and 11 also show the generalIzed locatIon and cross sectIon of a future traIl system mc/udmg a multI-use pathway In addltton to EWEB TraIl, the Master Plan illustratIon (see Sheet 5) IdentifIes other multI-use traIls extendmg along the relocated PIerce Ditch~ and other pathways to meet the mternal connecttVlty and CirculatIon obJectIves m SDC SectIon 3 2-625(E) These addItIonal multI-use , pathways WIll also be developed consIstent wIth the standards outlmed m SDC SectIon 4 2-160(B) I Staff's Response/Fmdmg The applicant demonstrates connectivity via a private netwofk of pathways , between reSidential and commerCial areas and within proposed open spaces, and from the proposed , development to the EWEB Bike Path In order to comply with Condition 13 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 Staff concurs with the applicant's statement concerning the Bike Path Itself which IS , speCifically discussed under the accessway tOpiC, below However, the majority of the pfoposed pathways, as shown on Plan Sheet 8, are proposed to be constructed privately, with the Phase 1 Public Improvements I Wlllamalane states "The applicant discusses the proposed multi-use pathways along the relocated , Pierce Dtfch The subject of the Cited provIsIons IS Dubllc facilities WhIle we do not assert that the proposed pathways are necessanly reqUired In order to satIsfy applicable cntena related to publiC , facilIties, we would pOint out that they don't fully qualify as such unless they are In publIC easements , ensunng the public's nght to use them For purposes of clanty, we recommend that the Master Plan state , eIther that the pathways Will be In public easements and Intended for public use, or that they Will be , pnvate Improvements (that the pubilc mayor may not be allowed to use, depending on the deCISIon of , future property owners) (The Master Plan should be SImIlarly clear on the Intended future ownership and , use of the proposed Oak Pralne Park, which as we understand It, IS proposed to be a pnvate park )" I The applicant has not proposed a pathway agreement of any form to deSignate maintenance responsibility for the paths MASTER PLAN CONDITION #31. Prior to the appfoval of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall pfepare a deed restriction to the satisfaction of the 6ty Attorney and the Development Services Dlrectof that states that all paths and accessways proposed to be constfucted by the applicant and successor 42 ownefs shall be private The applicant shall also prepare a pathway/accessway maintenance agreement as part of the required deed festrlctlon MASTER PLAN CONDITION #32 Prior to approval of the SubdivIsion Tentative Plan for the subject property and any associated construction, the applicant shall submit an agreement designating maintenance responsibility of the proposed private pathways as shown on Plan Sheet 8 to the satlsfac\iOn of the City Attorney, the Development Services Director and the Public WOfks Dlfector SDC SECTION 4 2-160 - ACCESSWA YS Applicant's Response "The applIcant met WIth representattves from Willamalane, the CIty of Sprmgfield, Spnngfield School Dlstnct and EWES on September 13, 2007 At thIs meettng dIscussIon regardmg the bIke path was made and It was determmed that the applIcant WIll reqUire receIpt of an access! use easement from EWES to connect the projects pathways with the pathway on EWES property EWES personnel saId they would proVIde dIrectIon m thIS regard as part of the development reVIew commIttee (DRC) acttVlty followmg submIttal of a master plan" Applicant Testimony Regafdmg Access to EWEB Property Submitted on Novembef 27, 2007 "The applIcant has met and communicated a number of tImes wIth EWEB representatIves regardmg the County's bIke path on EWES property and the applIcant's proposal to prOVIde two or more paved pathway connectIons from the applIcant's proposed development onto the EWES property and connect to the County pathway To date, EWEB has stated that It would be wlllmg to receIve an access easement request for their conSIderatIon EWEB representatIves noted that there IS precedence for grantmg such a request as It has been done elsewhere along the corrIdor It was mentIoned m these meetmgs that the approprtate ttmmg for such a request would be wIth an applIcatIOn for the adjacent reSIdentIal subdIvIsIon The appltcant belteves a reasonable Master Plan CondItIon of Approval m thIS regard IS Pnor to approval of a TentatIve SubdIVISIon applIcatIon for the adJacent reSIdentIal element of Marcola Meadows furnIsh EWEB access approval or eVIdence that EWEB WIll not permIt saId proposed access" Staff's Response/Fmdmg A 60 foot-wide strip of land owned by Eugene Water and ElectriC Board (EWEB) abuts the site on the north ThiS pafcel contains a major undefground water line and an overhead electrical transmission line A 10-foot Wide paved pedestrlan/blcycle path extends along the northern boundary of the EWEB parcel ThiS faCility IS owned and operated by Lane County undef permit from EWEB The applicant proposes to construct thfee accessway "connections" from the proposed development area across the EWEB parcel to the eXisting paved faCIlity ThiS construction Will require a pefmlt from the pfoperty owner (EWEB), and an executed "operalion and maintenance agreement" that deSignates opefatlonal authority and maintenance responsibility fOf the accessways The applicant submitted supplemental written testimony to the City on November 27, 2007, stating they have contacted EWEB about the proposed accessway connections Documentation from EWEB has not been pfovlded to the City shOWing appfoval for the proposed accessway connections as of thiS date Staff contacted EWEB and confirmed they might be Willing to receive an access easement fequest for conSideration from the applicant Howevef, staff has a dilemma regarding a condition of approval of the applicant over property (EWEB's) not In control by the applicant Granting the accessway easements requlfes approval by the EWEB Board Any conSideration required by EWEB In order to gfant the accessway easements Will be between the applicant and EWEB, not the City As part of the oral testimony dUring the public hearing held on November 20, 2007 the applicant stated" that EWEB might wish the applicant to do some Improvements to the bicycle path In return fOf that access permit" ThiS IS an example of one sort of conSideration EWEB might conSider The Master Plan submittal shows thfee proposed connections to the bike path Above, the applicant refers to two or mOfe Staff does not want to see a reduction In the numbef of proposed accessways The proposed accessways are necessary In ordef to comply with Condlllon 6 of Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 43 In addition, the northwest boundary of the site abuts an eXisting developed residential subdivIsion An eXisting paved accessway extends ffom Loch Drive In this subdivIsion to the western site boundary The applicant's proposed connection to this eXisting shall be a private facIlity as discussed above I Any constfucted accessways shall require an executed "operation and maintenance agreement" that , designates operational authOrity and maintenance responsibility for the accessways This shall be , guaranteed by a deed restriction applicable to the applicant or succeSSOf ownefS I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #33 Pnor to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall furnish , documentation to the City from EWEB satisfactory to the City Attorney and the Development Services , Director demonstrating the applicant has permission to construct the three proposed private accessways , on EWEB property If the applicant cannot obtain permission from EWEB fOf the proposed accessway , connections, the applicant shall feVlse the Plan Set such that no connection to the EWEB property IS shown I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #34 Prior to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a , deed restriction stating to the satisfaction of the City f.ttomey and the Development Services Director that any maintenance of the accessways shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant or succeSSOf owners I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #35 Prior to the approval of the Final Mastef Plan, the applicant shall , prOVide an executed operation and maintenance agfeement for the proposed accessways that meets the , approval of the City Attorney, the Development Services Dlfectof and the Public Works Director I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #36 PrlOf to the approval of the Final Mastef Plan, If EWEB requires bike way Improvements, the applicant shall desCribe the extent of those Improvements and submit , construction plans With the SubdiVISion Tentative plan required fOf the Implementalton of Phase 1 The construction shall be complete and approved by thelapproprlate agency prior to the occupancy of the home Improvement center proposed as part of Phase 2 I SDC SECTION 4 3-105 - SANITARY SEWERS I Applicant's Response "Sheet 10 1, Sanitary Sewer Plan and Attachment 7, Sanitary Plan show that a comprehensIVe samtary sewer system WIll be ",stalled and avaIlable to meet the needs of planned development consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 43-105(A) DetaIled speCIfIcatIons and , constructIon of the samtary sewer system WIll be submItted as part of tentatIve subdIVISIon and sIte plan reVIew submIttals, pendmg approval o~ thIS Master Plan, and meet the reqUirements of SDC SectIon 4 3-105(A)-(C) and the CIty'S Engmeermg DesIgn Manual I Staff Response/Flndlnc SDC Section 4 3-105 A feqwres that sanitary sewers shall be Installed to , serve each new development and to connect developments to eXisting mains Additionally, installation of , sanitary sewers shall proVide suffiCient access for maintenance activities I SDC Section 4 3-105 B requires that the City Engineer shall approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prlOf to development appfoval I The City'S Engineering DesIgn Standards and Procedures Manual states In Section 2 02 8 that sewers , shall be located In the right-of-way at street centefline Of Within 5 feet of the stfeet centerline Sewefs In , easements shall only be allowed after all feasonable attempts to place the mains In the rights-of-way have been exhausted I The applicant has shown pfoposed extension of public wastewatef lines throughout the developable area , as shown on Plan Sheet 10 1 Sizes of the proposed sewer lines afe not indicated The applicant has shown flow line elevations for some of the proposed sewefS In the phases EXisting grades In the area of some of the sewef extensions afe on the order of Y' foot higher than proposed flow lines 44 A large 42 Inch public tfunk sewer line bisects the subject property, flowing from east to west as shown on Plan Sheet 10 1 Additionally, a 10 Inch sewer pipe IS located on-site on the westerly pfoperty boundary, flowing north to south as shown on Plan Sheet 10 1 The applicant has proposed connection to the eXisting public system In 3 separate locations Two connections afe proposed along the eXisting 42 Inch trunk sewer, while one connection IS located on 3181 Street Plan Sheet 10 shows the proposed public connection pOints The City'S Engineering DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual states In Section 2 02 2 that a sewef study shall be completed and submitted to the City when a public sanitary system IS extended to serve a development generating a flow above 5000 gallons per day or exceeding ten percent of the total flow In the downstream system A sewer study has not been submitted With the Mastef Plan appllcalton The eXisting 10 Inch public pipe on the westefly portion of the property IS shown to be 12 Inches In diameter on plan sheet 10 1 ThiS line IS shown to be located underneath the enhanced dfalnage swale ThiS location does not proVide fOf adequate maintenance by City staff and allows an Increased chance of infiltration/inflow Into the sewer system There IS an eXisting building Sited on the property, located as shown on Plan Sheet 3 The applicant IS proposing to remove the bUilding and associated Improvements It IS not cleaf If the eXisting bUilding IS connected to the public sewer system, or If It IS served by a septic system It IS pOSSible the bUilding IS not connected to either septic or public sewer service MASTER PLAN CONDITION #37 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a sanitary sewer study In accordance With Section 2 02 2 of the City's Englneenng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual MASTER PLAN CONDITION #38 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall show on the Plan Set the eXisting 10 Inch publiC sewer pipe on the westefly property line In a localton outSide of the enhanced drainage swale The associated construction for either moving the swale or felocatlng the eXisting sewer pipe shall be the fesponslblllty of the applicant and shall OCCUf dUring the Phase 1 Improvements Any necessary easements associated With said construclion shall be shown on the SubdiVISion Tentative Plan, feqUlfed to Implement Phase 1 MASTER PLAN CONDITION #39. Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall furnish information to the City for reView, indicating how the eXisting bUilding located on the subject property receives sanitary sewer service If the bUilding IS served by a septic tank and drain field, the applicant or succeSSOf owners shall be fesponslble to femove and decommiSSion the tank and drain field In accordance With applicable state reqUirements The eXisting bUilding shall be removed prior to the recording of the SubdiVISion Plat fequlred to Initiate Phase 1 SDC SECTION 4 3-110 - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Applicant's Response "As noted m Attachment 6, Stormwater Master Plan (SMP), runoff WIll be treated consIstent WIth the prOVISIons m SDC SectIon 4 3-110 and other artIcles m the Code, the CIty'S Englneenng DeSIgn Standards Manual SpeCIfically, the Master Plan's SMP uses Best Management PractIces (as reqUired m the above-referenced manuals) mtegrated WIth the sIte design to treat stormwater qualIty at the source A combinatIon of vegetatIve swales and other bIologIcal means WIll be used to treat runoff from all ImpervIous surfaces wlthm the development sIte All surface runoff WIll be treated prtor to dIscharge off-SIte consIstent WIth CIty reqUirements, and clean roof runoff WIll be handled separately from on-sIte treatment and detentIOn of stormwaterfrom ImpervIous surfaces As reqUired m SDC SectIon 4 3-110(C), the SMP also mcludes treatment and conveyance to accommodate potenttal runoff from upstream drainage areas as well as on-SIte, and IS approprtately SIzed to detam, treat, and convey runoff consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 4 3-110(C)." 45 Staff ResDonse/Fmdma SDC Section 4 3-110 B requires that the Approval Authority shall grant , development approval only whefe adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems , provIsions have been made as determined by the Public Works Dlrectof, consistent with the Englneenng Design Standards and 'Procedures Manual I SDC Section 4 3-110 C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff , from ItS entire upstream drainage area, whether Inside or outside of the development The applicant has turned In a Stormwater Management Plan for the subject site In that plan, the applicant has provided calculations from the model EPASWMM to account for off-site drainage I SDC Section 4 3-110 D fequlres that funoff from a development shall be directed to an approved , stormwatef management system with suffiCient capacity to accept the discharge I SDC Section 4 3-110 E requires new developments Ito employ dfalnage management practices, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff Into receiving streams, and which promote water , quality To comply with SDC Sections 4 3-110 D and E, stormwatef runoff from the site Will be directed , Into a series of water quality swales, pipes, water quality ponds and ultimately a large relocated drainage , swale (the former Pierce channel) Two connection pOints have been pfoposed to the eXisting public system The first connection Will be at the southwest corner of the site at the eXisting 60 Inch stormwater , pipe In Marcola Road The second connection pOint Will be at the north centfal portion of the site, at the , eXisting 18 Inch culvert which crosses the EWEB bike path I The eXisting public stormwater system, to which the applicant proposes connection, has limited capacity , Thefefofe, the applicant has proposed 3 detention areas to limit the discharge rates to the public system , Two of these systems are ponds, located as shown on Plan Sheet 9 The remaining system IS a proposed concrete weir with a notch to restrict flow, located on the relocated Pierce channel at Martin Drive I The applicant has pfoposed extension of stormwater systems as shown on plan sheet 9 Flow line , elevations have been given for some of the proposed pipes In some areas where flow line elevations , have been given, the surrounding eXisting grades indicate the systems could not be bUilt as proposed without large volumes of fill I The applicant has submitted a conceptual Gravity utility and Gfadlng Plan as supplemental information , on Novembef 27,2007 The applicant has not indicated the proposed sizes of the public drainage pipes , on the plan set or In the dfalnage study The applicant has submitted several technical addendums to the , tentative dfalnage study to supplement the original study I The storm drainage study indicates the maximum hydraulic grade line associated With the felocated channel In the 25-year event Will be 463 38 feet Th'e applicant has proposed the lowest street elevation , be 1 foot higher, at 464 38 feet to meet reqUlfements In the City'S Englneenng DeSign Standards and , Procedures Manual Losses due to friction, pipe length, and bends at manholes have not Included In the elevation of the street gfade I The applicant has provided calculations and printouts from modeling results In the drainage study for the , area near Loch Drive The area near Loch Lane currently experiences flooding In larger storm events , The applicant has shown, through calculations In the drainage study, that development of the subject , pfoperty Will not exacerbate the eXisting problem In fact, the hydraulic grade line In the VICInity of Loch , Drive Will be lowefed by 1 13 feet dUring the 25-year storm event, and the elevation of the water surface , Will be slightly below that of the lowest curb elevation I The applicant has provided printouts from the hydraulic model EPA SWMM shOWing the maximum , volume feqUlred fOf the fOUf pfoposed detention afeas A drawdown graph has been proVided for the r concrete weir system on the felocated ditch, shOWing the ditch dfaws down In less than 24 hOUfS / Section 4 12 B 3 of the City'S Englneenng DeSign S andards and Procedures Manual fequlres that 46 detention faCilities dfawdown In less than 48 hOUfS for a 25-year, 24-hour storm event The applicant has not provided drawdown information for the two proposed detention ponds The applicant has proposed several water quality swales on the plan be public swales One swale, located directly adjacent to Marcola Road, will serve parcels 5 and 6 and IS proposed to be located In a public easement It IS not apparent If this swale will drain water from the public right-of-way It may be appropriate to locate this swale In a private drainage easement Many of the proposed water quality swales afe proposed as roadside swales and located directly adjacent to a proposed street These swales have not been reflected In street cross sections as shown on Plan Sheet 11 The proposed relocated Plefce channel will be constructed as part of the Phase 1 public Impfovements Ultimately upon subdivIsion of the property, the channel will be located on several different parcels The City of Springfield will provide routine "funclional" maintenance for the channel as It Will collect runoff from public rlghts-of-ways The City does not provide aesthetic maintenance for waterways located on private property As part of the Public Impfovement Plan process for the Phase 1 Improvements, the applicant shall enter Into a maintenance agreement with the City for the relocated channel, where specific maintenance responsibilities of the City and applicant Will be clarified Wlllamalane Park and Recreation submitted the follOWing comments "Several sheets In the Plan Set should be modified so that the stormwater management facli1tles on the proposed Oak Pralne Park are depicted consIstently on all sheets Plan Sheet 9 shows a larger detentIon baSin than the other sheets and It shows a water quality treatment area that IS not shown on the other sheets On page 15 of the applicant's narratIVe, In response to neighborhood comments regarding flooding, the applicant states that "post-development stormwater runoff volumes to properties to the north Will not exceed the eXIsting pre-development volumes 'As owners of the property to the north (PIerce Park property) that has expe"enced floodmg by storm water flowmg from the subJect SIte, we request that the Master Plan or the Master Plan condItIons of approval mclude language as needed to ensure that the Marcola Meadows storm water management system WIll prevent future floodmg of the PIerce Park property by runoff from Marcola Meadows '" MASTER PLAN CONDITION #40 Prior to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a reVised drainage study to the satlstactlon of the City Engineer, which Incorporates all the supplied supplemental information for the tentative drainage study In one final document MASTER PLAN CONDITION #41 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall revise the drainage study recommendalion that the minimum street grade on the site be 464 38 feet The applicant shall fecommend that minimum street gfade on the site be 464 38 feet plus all applicable hydfaulic losses associated With pipe length, friction, bends, etc MASTER PLAN CONDITION #42 PnOf to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall supply drawdown results In the drainage study fOf the two proposed detention ponds, verifying they meet the minimum required drawdown time of 48 hours for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, as speCified In Section 4 12 B 3 of the City'S Engineering DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual MASTER PLAN CONDITION #43 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall submit additional information fegardlng the proposed swale along Marcola Road SpeCifically, the applicant shall indicate why thiS swale IS proposed to be public and located In a public easement MASTER PLAN CONDITION #44 PrlOf to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a reVised street cross section detail which shows afea for a proposed roadSide water quality swale, as shown In plan view on Plan Sheet 9 ' 47 MASTER PLAN CONDITION #45 Prior to the fecofdlng of the SubdivIsion Plat, and prior to City , Council acceptance of the Phase 1 Public Improvement Plan fevlew, the applicant shall enter Into a maintenance agreement With the City to the salisfacllon of the City Attorney and the City Engineer for the , fe-located storm channel and associated Phase 1 watef quality features I SDC SECTION 4 3-115 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION I Staff ResDonse/Fmdm.D. Under Federal regulation, of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Dlschafge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield has , obtained a MUnicipal Separate Stofm Sewef System (MS4) pefmlt A provIsion of this permit feqUlfes the City demonstfate efforts to feduce the pollution In urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) I Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) fules require the City'S MS4 plan , address SIX "MInimum Contfol Measufes" MInimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwatef , Management for New Development and Redevelopment," applies to the proposed development I MInimum Control Meai?ure 5 requires the City of Sp\lngfield to develop, Implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduclion of pollutants In stormwater runoff to the MEP The City must also develop and Implement strategies that Include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriated for the community r MInimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an ordinance or other regulatory , mechanism to address post constfuctlon funoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law Regulatory mechanlsmsl used by the City Include the Springfield Development I Code (SDC), the City'S Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future Stormwater FaCIlities Master Plan (SFMP) As reqUIred In Section 4 3-110 E of the SDC, "a development shall be required to employ dfalnage , management praclices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent With Metro Plan policies , and the Englneenng Design Standards and Procedures Manual" I Section 3 02 of the City'S EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim design standards for stofmwater quality, water quality faCIlities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures , of either the City of Portland (BES), Of the Clean Water Services (CWS) I Section 3 03 3 B of the City'S EDSPM states all public and private development and fedevelopment , projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that In combination are deSigned to , achieve at least a 70 percent reduction In the total suspended solids In the runoff generated by that , development Section 3 03 4 E of the manual feqUlfes a minimum of 50 percent of the non-bUilding , rooftop Impervious area on a site shall be tfeated for stormwater quality Improvement uSing vegetative methods I SDC Seclion 5 13 125 C states the proposed on-site and off-Site Improvements, both public and private, , should be sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development The applicant has shown the I locations of the public watef quality facllllies on plan sheet 9 Not shown however, afe conceptual locations of private watef quality faCIlities requlfed to meet Section 3 03 4 E of the City's EDSPM I To meet the requirements of the City'S MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City'S , EDSPM, the applicant has shown conceptual locations on the mastef plan fOf water quality , Impfovements, Including two detenlion ponds, sevefal proposed swales and a large felocated dfalnage , ditch Several of the Improvements are proposed to be constfucted In Phase 1 as shown on Plan Sheet 9 48 The applicant has not indicated a proposal for the landscaping plan as It pertains to the relocated drainage ditch on the site, but has Included a planting plan proposal In the submitted JOint permit application submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and the DIvIsion of Stale Lands The vegetation proposed for use In the swales will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff, and will femove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtralion Satisfactory pollutant femoval will OCCUf only when the vegetation has been fully established MASTER PLAN CONDITION #46 PrlOf to Final Mastef Plan approval, the applicant shall designate on the Plan Set specific areas set aSide fOf water quality management on each proposed parcel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Specifically, the applicant shall show that adequate space IS available on each parcel to meet the City'S requirement of 50% vegetative treatment of non-bUildable rooftop area, as reqUired by the Englneenng DeSIgn Standards and Procedures Manual MASTER PLAN CONDITION #47 Concurrently with the submittal of the SubdivIsion Tentalive Plan required to Initiate Phase 1, the applicant shall submit a detailed planting plan In compliance with the City's stormwater quality standards MASTER PLAN CONDITION #48 DUring construction of the Phase 1 Improvements, the applicant shall, at thelf expense, Install the requlfed plantlngs In the relocated drainage ditch, as required and approved In the JOint Permit Application by the Army COfpS of Engineers and DIVIsion of State Lands SDC SECTION 43-120 TO SECTION 4 3-140 - UTILITIES Applicant's Response "LocatIons for electrical power, water and other utIlitIes m addItIon to those referenced above, are Identtfled on Sheet 3, SIte Assessment of Exlstmg CondItIons and Sheet 10 1, Sanitary Sewer Plan and Sheet 10 2 Power and Water Plan UtIlIty Imes are proposed ,to be placed underground consIstent WIth SDC SectIon 4 3-125 Sheet 10 2, Power and Water Plan Illustrates the locatIon of publIC water Imes wlthm publtc utIlIty easement locatIons consIstent WIth SDC 4 3-130(A) and SectIon 4 3-140(A) The relocated PIerce DItch wlthm the development sIte proposed to have storm water outfalls, and therefore thIS watercourse and riparian area IS proposed to be a part of the CIty Storm water Management System As such, there IS a need to prOVIde a mamtenance easement pursuant to SDC SectIon 4 3-140(B) In a meetmg WIth CIty staff on September 19, 2007, staff mdlcated that they WIll prOVIde directIon m thIS regard through the Master Plan DRC process UTILITIES. EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY WATER SERVICE Staff ResDonse/Fmdmg SDC Section 4 3-130 A requires each development afea to be provided With a water system haVing suffiCiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and suffiCient access for maintenance The Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the deSign of the watef system Within Springfield City limits and currently prOVides watef service to the site SIZing and location of facIlities shall meet SUB's needs and the long range needs of the City SUB stated that the site can be served With water The curfent plan depicts extension of water lines throughout the site to service the proposed development A lafge 24 Inch dlametef line Will be extended In Martin Blvd, while a 12 Inch water line Will be placed In Belle Blvd The 12 Inch line In Belle Blvd Will also pafallel the City's eXisting 42 Inch storm sewer line SDC Section 4 3-140 A requires applicants proposing developments make arrangements With the City and each utility Pfovlder for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development afea The minimum Width for public utility easements adjacent to street 49 rights of ways shall be 7 feet The minimum width fc.r all other public utility easements shall be 7 feet , The Public Works Director may require a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance The applicant has proposed placing the new 12 InChl water line that parallels the City'S eXisting 42 Inch , sanitary sewer In a 15 foot public utility easement, adjacent to the eXisting 20 foot public sanitary sewef , easement The 42 Inch sewer line IS approximately 116 feet deep to flow line of the pipe The combined 35 feet of public easement may not be sufficient to allow for adequate maintenance and/or replacement of , the 42 Inch sewer pipe, depending upon the depth and location of the new 12 Inch watef line The applicant has shown the water line to be located on the southerly side of the proposed 15 foot public utility easement I SDC Section 4 3-140 B fequlres that where the Public WOfks Director has determined that a watercoufse Of riparian area Will be part of the City'S Stormwater Management System, a maintenance easement shall , be required In ofder to maintain the functionality of these areas FOf watefcourses, the easement shall be , measured from elthef the top of bank, ordinary high water mark Of the delineated setback line The easement shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide where: no equipment IS fequlred for access or maintenance The easement shall be extended to a maximum of 25 feet wide to allow City maintenance vehicles to set up and perform the fequlfed maintenance The applicant has submitted a tentative land divIsion and street plan, which shows proposed easements , associated with the master plan Among other easements, a large blanket public dfalnage easement has , been proposed over the entire greenway area (felocated Pierce channel), thefeby satisfying Section SDC 4~~B I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #49 Prior to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall provide , additional detail, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, showing that installation of the 12 Inch water line paralleling the eXisting 42 Inch sanitary sewef line will not Impede maintenance access or replacement of the eXisting 42 Inch sanitary sewef line ELECTRICAL SERVICE SUB curfently provides water and electrical service to the site SIZing and location of faCIlities shall meet the needs of SUB and the long range needs of the City SDC Section 4 3-120 states "Whenever possible, all utilIty lines shall be placed underground:" SUB states that the site can be served by electriCity The applicant shall coofdlnate all required easements with SUB I SDC SECTION 47-100 - SPECIAL USE STANDARDS I Applicant's Response "Future surface parkmg lots m MUC areas WIll mc/ude pertmeter landscapmg and shade trees per SDc SectIon 3 2-315 and SectIon 4 4-105F At the tIme offuture , subdiVISIon and/ or sIte reVIew appltcatlon the Vegetatlon/ RevegetatIon Plan WIll Illustrate future landscape and tree plantmgs wlthm buffer areasladJacent to Marcola Road, 28th/31st Street, wlthm parkmg areas and between parkmg areas abuttmg publIC streets The , VegetatIon/RevegetatIon Plan shall meet the requirements of SDC SectIon 4 7-180A 2 a" I Staff Response/Fmdmg SDC Section 4 7-180 lists special use standards applicable to the MUC District and states I "A SpeCIfic development standards for the MUc DIStflct shall be the same as those specified In , Section 3 2-310 as an "S" use and listed In applicable Subsections of Section 4 7-100, and the follOWing I EXCEfTlONS 1 Dnve-through uses may conflIct With safe and convement movement of pedestnans and bicycles wlthm MUc Dlstncts A dflve-through use, for the purposes of thIS Section, IS defined as a bUSiness activity involVing bUYing or selling goods or pro.'lslon of services wherever one of the parties conducts 50 the actIVIty from within a motor vehicle Facilities usually associated With a dnve-through usually Involve queuing lines, service windows, service Islands, and servIce bays for vehicular use Dnve- through uses are therefore not permItted In MUc Dlstncts unless the use IS inCidental to a pnmary SIte use, and when deSIgned In conformance WIth the follOWing standards a The dnve-through use shall be limited to servIce Windows which are part of a pnmary use structure, and no more than two queuing lanes b Dnve-up facilities shall be deSigned so that cIrculatIOn and dnve-up Windows are not adjacent to Sidewalks or between bUildings and the street, to the maximum extent practIcable 2 Parking Lots and Parking Structures, Public and Pnvate a In MUc Dlstncts, surface parking lots abutting public streets shall Include penmeter landscaping and shade trees as speCified In SectIons 3 2-315 and 4 4-100 b Parking structures located WIthin 20 feet of pedestnan facilities, including, but not limIted to public or pnvate streets, pedestnan accessways, green ways, transIt stations, shelters, or plazas, shall proVide a pedestnan-scale enVironment on the far;ade faCing the pedestnan facilIty One or more of the follOWing techmques may be used ProVide retail or office uses on the ground floor of the parking structure faCing the pedestnan facilIty, " ProVide architectural features that enhance the ground floor of a parking structure adjacent to the pedestnan faCIlity, for example, bUilding articulation, awnings, canopIes, bUilding ornamentatIon and art, and/or 11/ ProVide pedestnan amemtles In the tranSItion area between the parking structure and pedestnan faCility, including landscaping, trellIses, seating areas, kiosks, water features With a sItting area, plazas, outdoor eating areas, and dnnklng fountains c ReSidential Uses I In areas deSignated for mixed-use In adopted refinement plans, speCIfic area plans, and specific development plans, multIple family development are reqUired to meet development standards as speCified In the local refinement plan MDR and HDR Dlstnct standards speCified In Section 3 2-200 shall be compiled WIth where local refinement plans do not specify development standards, or In areas where no local refinement plan has been prepared All multiple family developments shall meet the standards specified In Section 32-240 " Cluster SUbdIVISIons Development standards specified In Section 3 2-230 apply to cluster subdiVISions In the MUc Dlstnct d Small scale repair and maintenance services In MUc Dlstncts these servIces shall take place entIrely Indoors, and bUIldings shall be constructed and utilized to ensure that nOIse or odor do not disturb the normal operatIon and tranqUility of nelghbonng resIdential and bUSiness area" The applicant shall prepafe a deed festrlctlon that guarantees compliance With these additional MUC District development standards MASTER PLAN CONDITION #50 PrlOf to Final Master Plan approval, the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to the satlsfacllon of the City Attorney and the Development Services Director that reqUlfes the applicant and successor ownefS to comply With the additional MUC District development standafds speCified In SDC Section 4 7-180 51 CONCLUSION Staff has demonstfated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125C has been met rCRITERION - 5 13-125D 1 "The request shall pJvlde adequate gUIdance for the design and coordinatIOn of future phases," I Applicant's Response "Plan Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows the conceptual phasmg plan for the , VIllages at Marcola Meadows Please see comments under SDC SectIon 5 13-120(L) above for more mformatton )" The applicant's reference states "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan shows the order of , development for Marcola Meadows Please revIew the SIdebar on Sheet 7 for addlttonal , mformatlon on phasmg that has not already been presented m thIS document" I The apphcant also states "Sheet 7, Phasmg Plan ~hows the development phasmg plan Phase 1 WIll mcorporate the development of Martm Dnve, Belle Boulevard, the mternal drive network that WIll , connect to the home Improvement store and the Open Space! Common Area that separates the , commercIal and reSIdentIal parts of the develoP"1ent Phase 2 mcludes the development of the home Improvement store Phase 3 mcludes the development of 87 smgle-famlly resIdences , located adJacent to Belle Boulevard, north of Martm Dnve east towards 31st Street Phase 4 I mcludes the remammg development of reSIdentIal and commercIal areas m conformance wIth the mternal trip dIstributIon table wlthm the Master Plan TraffIC Impact AnalysIs (Attachment 3 1) As such thIS condItIon IS satIsfied" I Finally, under designation of responslblhty for proViding Infrastructure and services, the apphcant states I "As condItIoned m the preVIously approved Metro Plan amendments the appltcant IS reqUired to , prOVIde on-sIte and off-SIte mfrastructure Improv,ements necessary to serve future development. The Spnngfleld Development Code master plan 'iPurpose Statement" SDC SectIon 5 13-105(D) stIpulates that, 'SubJect to prior approval of a Master Plan, a separate subdIVISIon or sIte plan , applIcatIon shall be approved for each phase The Master Plan shall be the basIs for the , evaluatIon of all phases of development on any Issues that It addresses Phases may be combmed for consIderatIon' Therefore, the detaIls necessary to Implement the Master Plan and , Its condItIons of approval shall be addressed through subsequent applIcatIons subJect to the , CIty'S regular Type II land use reVIew and approval process ThIS Master Plan calls for phased I subdIVISIon development It mvokes the reqUirements for subdIVISIon approval, SDC SectIon 5 12- 120, whIch mc/ude I SDC SectIon 5 12-120(E) 'A Future Development Plan Where phasmg or lots/parcels are , proposed, the TentatIve Plan shall mclude a Future Development Plan that , 5 DIscusses the tlmmg and fmanclal prOVISIons related to phasmg , SDC SectIon 5 12-120(F) 'AddItIonal mformatlonland/or applIcatIons reqUired at the tIme of TentatIve Plan appltcatlon submIttal shall mclude the followmg Items, where applIcable , 11 All publIC Improvements proposed to be mstalled and to mclude the approxImate tIme of mstallatlon, and method of fmancmg I 13 Proposed deed restnctlons and a draft of a homeowner's AssocIatIon Agreement, where appropriate I 14 If the land dIvIsIon IS phased, a Future Dev;e/opment Plan for the remamder of the property shall be prOVIded, mcludmg tlmmg and fmanc/al proVIsIons' , The descnptlon of phasmg and sequence of development mcluded m thIS Master Plan , prOVIdes adequate gUidance for the desIgn and coordmatlon of future phases of development , Refer to the "Sheet 7" phasmg plan and to comments addressmg the criterion SDC SectIon 5 13- , 120(L) The Master Plan WIll be recorded agamst the property, thereby obltgatmg current and , future owners to create property owners assocIatIons WIth bylaws requlflng adherence to the , Master Plan and adherence to any development and Improvement fmancmg agreements , necessary to msure the conttnUlty and mtegnty of the plan The maJority of SIgnifIcant , mfrastructure necessary to serve development WIll be prOVIded by the current owner as a , condltton of subdIVISIon Phase 1 final plat approval CondItIons of approval for subsequent I subdIVISIon phases WIll msure that mfrastructures and servIces are prOVIded m a ttmely manner When the flfst subdIVISIon TentatIve Plan IS pro~ osed, appllcatton matenals WIll mc/ude drafts of 52 property owners AssocIatIon Agreements As condItIons of subdIvIsIon fmal plat approval, property owners assocIatIons wIll be created, one for commercIally zoned areas and another for resIdentIally zoned areas Both wIll be supported wIth bylaws and CC&Rs requmng adherence to the Master Plan, ItS DesIgn GUldelmes and any fmanc/al oblIgatIons for mamtenance of common areas Mutual and separate access nghts and mamtenance responsIbIlItIes WIll be defmed, as wIll mechanisms for coordmatlOn between the two assocIatIons" Staff Response SDC 5 13-105 defines and explains the purpose of a Master Plan as follows "A A Master Plan IS a comprehensive plan that allows phaSing of a specific development area over several years for public, commercial, Industnal or residential development A Master Plan, In thiS context, IS speCific to thiS Code and IS not conSIdered to be a refinement plan or any other Similar subset of the Metro Plan By addreSSing public serVice Impacts and development reqUirements at the time of approval of Master Plan, these Impacts and reqUirements need not be readdressed at subsequent phases and the developer may rely on the Master Plan approval In Implementing the development B The purpose of a Master Plan IS to 1 ProVide preliminary approval for the entire development area In relatIon to land uses, a range of mlmmum to maxImum potential intensities and denSIties, arrangement of uses, and the location of public faCilities and transportation systems when a development area IS proposed to be developed In phases, 2 Assure that indiVIdual phases of a develoDment Will be coordinated With each other: 3 ProVIde the applicant an assurance of the CIty's expectation for the overall development as a baSIS for detailed planning and Investment by the developer" lemohasls addedl SDC Section 5 13-120 J states that the Director may fequlre additional Information necessary to evaluate the proposed development The applicant has submitted a "Gravity Utility and Gfadlng Plan" plan sheet as supplemental information on November 27, 2007 The plan shows how the site can be graded to support gravity sanitary and stormwater systems The plan IS conceptual, and represents how the site Will graded upon full bUild-out of the entire site It does not proVide gUidance for grading on a phaSing plan level (I e - as the property develops over time), nOf does the plan deSignate responsibility Of timing of when the fill Will occur The applicant has proposed Installing a 2 to 3 foot landscaped retaining wall along the northern and western property line of Parcel 10 as shown on the "Gravity Utility and Grading Plan SDC Section 5 13-120 L requires that an overall schedule or deSCription of phaSing be submitted to the City for review If phaSing alternatives are contemplated, these alternatives shall be deSCribed SDC Seclion 513-125 D requires that the mastef plan request shall prOVide adequate gUidance for the deSign and coordination of future phases SDC Section 5 13-120 M reqUlfes that whefe off-Site or other Infrastructure Improvements are required, the applicant shall specify the timing and method of securing the Improvement, including bond, letter of credit, JOInt depOSit or other security satisfactory for Said Improvement construction SDC Section 513-125 C requires that proposed on-site and off-Site Impfovements, both public and pnvate, shall be suffiCient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity feqUlfements of the public faCilities plans, and that provIsions are made to assure construction of off-Site Improvements In conjunction With a schedule of the phaSing SDC Section 5 13-125 B requires that the mastef plan request shall conform to applicable Springfield Development Code requirements 53 The applicant's Phasing Plan submitted on SeptemL3r 28, 2007 depicts how the site IS proposed to be developed over the life of the Master Plan I Phase 1 - Construct Martin Drive, Belle Boulevard and other "backbone' Inffastfuctufe to support Phase 2 commefclal development and future commercial development I Phase 2 - Construct a 171,000 square-foot home Improvement center I Phase 3 - Construct 87 single-family homes In the northeast portion of the MDR site I Phase 4 - Constfuct the femalnlng proposed commercial and residential development I Phases 1, 2 and 3 are anticipated to be completed In 2008, the mulllple elements of Phase 4 afe expected to be completed between 2008 and 2015 I Only Phase 1 IS proposed to be constructed by the applicant Phases 2, 3 and 4 afe proposed to be constfucted by successor ownefS Phase 4 development IS described as occurring on the remaining parcels '(as market condItIons present opportunitIes" with supporting Infrastructure proVided "by owner of applIcable parcels" The TIA concludes that construction of at least 87 Single-family reSidential Units In conjunction with the home Improvement centef would address the Internal trip captufe assumptlonslused In the Metro Plan diagram amendment Goal 12 analysIs for development Phases 2 and 3 FOf Phases 2-4, the TIA presents analysIs that shows , amounts and types of residential development that would be needed In conJuncllon with the various , "commefclal Villages" to address this condition Howevef, nothing In the applicant's phasing pfoposal , ensures that this pattern of linked residential/commercial development would occur Staff expressed to the applicant that the proposed Phasing Plan did no "provide adequate gUIdance for the deSign and coordinatIon of future phases" because . there was no guafantee that the MDR portion of the site would ever be constructed, , . that diViding the Site, especially the MDR portion, IS problematiC because there IS no gUidance fOf the , deSign and coordination of future phases fOf Inffastructure Improvements (grading, and the logical extension of streets and utilities), and I . that there was no deslgnallon of responsibility and no method of financial security discussed or , submitted that would guarantee proposed development beyond Phase 3 I On November 13, 2007 staff met With the applicant The applicant submitted the phaSing scenario In , Attachment 6 which diVides the site Into "sub-phases" based on the TIA However, staff stili had the , same concerns Cited above Staff met again With Ithe applicant on November 21, 2007 The applicant submitted the follOWing information on November 21' 2007 "ApplIcant TestImony Regardmg Development Ifhasmg Plan Zonmg CondItIon of Approval 10 reqUires a certam percentage of the reSIdentIal portIon of the sIte to be developed WIth a SImIlar percentage of the' commercIal The mtent of thIS CondItIon IS to , address the "mternal trtp' Issue and to ensure that the proposed land uses m Table 4C do not exceed the mdlvidual caps for these uses I In response to staff concerns recently expressed, the applIcant offers the followmg I 1 It IS not necessary for the percentage formula to be Imposed m order to assure the , development of the reSIdentIal portton of the master plan and to assure that tnp numbers for , the commercIal portIon of the development do not exceed those shown m Table 4C of the T1A I o By Its zOning, a portIon of the master plan area IS commItted to commercIal development The , developer IS further legally commItted by the master plan agreement to develop the reSIdentIal portton ThIS agreement WIll be recorded I o Durmg the first phase of the development, the applIcant WIll make an addItIonal legal , commItment and vartous substantIal fmanclal commItments to full development The , condItIons of the zonmg map amendment mclude CondItIon 3 whIch reqUires that the eXlstmg , dramage ditch be relocated and be converted to a maJor water feature as an mtegral part of 54 the proposed development area, all as part of Phase One of the development Further fmanclal commlttnent IS represented by the reqUirement CondItIon 9 that mItIgatIon measures satIsfactory to ODOT be made to the Mohawk Boulevard/Eugene-Sprmgfleld mtersectlon The condItIon specIfIcally reqUires thIs mItIgatIon be accomplIshed pnor to temporary occupancy of any use m Phase One development ThIS IS also the case WIth the development of the entire length of the collector street, Martm Dnve, from Marcola Road to V Street as part of Phase One 2 The purpose of CondItIon 10 does not reqUire the percentage formula at each phase of the development and should not be mterpreted In that manner o The findmgs reflect that what IS here desIgnated as the percentage formula IS dIscussed m context of the need to account for "mternal tnps" (see Staff Report, March 27, 2007, page 6- 53) The dIscussIon under the headmg "Issues, subheadmg Future Traffic and AnalYSIS ReqUirements", concludes the statement 'One way to address the 'mternal trIp' Issue IS to condItIon the Master Plan phasmg to reqUire a certam percentage of the reSIdentIal portIon of the sIte to be developed WIth a SImIlar percentage of the commercIal' The percentage formula IS offered as only one pOSSIble way to control the number of gross tripS generated by development so that precedmg commerCIal development does not consume a dlsproporttonate portIon of the road capacIty prior to constructIon of the reSIdentIal development o WhIle the stated purpose of CondItIon 10 IS to address the 'mternal trip' Issue, It references Table 4C of the T1A 'b) Ensure that, for each type of land use, the amounts proposed do not exceed those shown m Table 4C of the TIA ' ThIS states "for each type of land use" (emphaSIS added) not for each phase 3 AddItIonally, the appltcant notes that thIS IS the fIrst applIcatIon of thIS master plan concept mvolvmg mIxed commerCIal and reSIdentIal use m Spnngfleld The applIcant should be afforded some deference to the practIcalitIes of achlevmg thIS large scale development, partIcularly gIVen the heavy Investment reqUired up front for publIC Improvements There must be some recognitIon of the practlcallttes of the marketplace and the vIcIssitudes of the economy 4 GIven the above, the applIcant proposed the followmg o Parcel 1 , sIte of the proposed home Improvement center, may be developed as the first phase of the Master Plan o Followmg thIS first phase of development, each subsequent commerCIal development shall permItted upon completIon of a reSIdentIal phase or phases that offset the proJected traffIC generatIon of the proposed commerCIal development ReSIdentIal traffic generatIon offsets m excess of that reqUired for currently approved reSIdentIal development WIll accrue WIth offsets of subsequent reSIdentIal phases and be applIed to future proposed commerCIal phases of the Master Plan o When development of a commerCIal phase depends on pnor completIon of a reSIdentIal phase, the approval and recordmg of saId reSIdentIal phase Final Plat fulfIls the reqUirement of completIon o The gradmg, dramage and publIC Improvements of the resIdentIal areas shall be designed so that each reSIdentIal phase may be developed WIthout dependmg on pnor development of an adJacent reSIdentIal phase, the reSIdentIal phases may be developed m any sequence o Each commerCIal phase of the Master Plan shall have a maxImum area of development expressed m gross floor area The aggregate of these floor area maxImums shall equal the commerCIal floor area maxImum for the entire Master Planned development based on the approved TIA o The Fmal Master Plan document shall mclude a table Identlfymg each reSIdentIal and non- resIdentIal phase of the Master Plan The table Will mclude mformatlon regardmg the proJected 55 traffIC generatIon of each phase, and the nw.;ber of dwellmg Units or non-resldenttal gross floor area assocIated WIth saId traffIC proJecbons , o Followmg occupancy of the fIrst approved bUlldmg m each commercIal phase of the Master , Plan, and approval of a Fmal Plat for each resIdentIal phase of the Master Plan, the applIcant shall submIt to the CIty an addendum to thlS[table calculatmg the current balance of non- resIdentIal development traffIC proJectIons and resIdentIal traffIC generatIon offsets A copy of each addendum WIll be added to the CIty'S plannmg fIles assocIated With the approval of the , Master Plan A copy of the updated table shall also be recorded as an addendum to the recorded copy of the Master Plan Staff dlsagfees With the applicant's Intefpretatlon of ~ondltlon 10 Zoning Map Amendment Ofdlnance 6196 states "Submittal of a Master Plan application that Incotporates a "Development PhaSing Plan" shall be reqUired In order to comply With SDc SectIon [5 13-120(12)] The Intent of thiS condItIOn IS to a) Address , the "Internal tnp" Issue by requlnng a certain percentage of the reSIdentIal portion of the sIte to be developed WIth a SImilar percentage of the commercIal portion "\he specific percentages Will be made part of the approved Master Plan, and b) Ensure that, for each tYpe of land use, the amounts proposed do not exceed those shown In Table 4c of the TlA "Staffs reason for plaCing thiS condition on the ZOning Map amendment , appllcalion was to ensure the Integrity of the "nodal concept" discussed under TransPlan PoliCies, Land , Use Polley #1 Nodal Development beginning on Page 28 of thiS staff report The commerclal/resldentlal percentage reqUirement serves two pUfposes 1) maintaining consistency With the TIA assumplions utilized , fOf Goal 12 compliance In the Metro Plan diagram application and ensuring compliance With the nodal concept Staff IS also aware of the current market conditions for new hOUSing However, thiS IS a mixed use , development Implementing nodal concepts, and stafflwants to work towafds achieVing the resldentlaVcommerclal balance Staff believes that portions of the applicant's latest PhaSing Plan have , merit, Nevertheless, staff prefers a more "logical" phaSing approach Staff stili has the same concems about , gfadlng Issues and the logical extension of streets and utilities, especially In the MDR portion of the site , The Planning Commission should also be aware that although thefe are 5 commerCial Villages proposed, , again, based on market conditions, commerCial development Will occur on a haphazard baSIS ThiS IS not a maJof concern of staff because Phase 1 will Include all of the Internal streets and Infrastfucture for the commerCial Villages PhaSing IS one of the baSIC underlYing assumptions 'or thiS Master Plan application appfoved by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2007 Staff has prepafed two options to address the logical phaSing of development on thiS site I 1 The TIA submitted With thiS Master Plan application concludes that construction of at least 87 Single- , family reSidential Units In proposed Phase 3 In conjunction With the home Improvement center would , address the Internal trip Issue as required by part a) of Condition 10 Due to the hOUSing market Issue , previously discussed, staff believes that compliance With part a) can be achieved by recording the , SubdiVISion Plat for Phase 3 prlOf to occupancy of the home Impfovement center Then, In ofdef to I maintain an appropriate balance of commerCial and residential development over the life of the , Master Plan, and provide fOf the logical development of the MDR portion of the Site, future reSidential , SubdiVISion appllcaltons shall occur In an east to west progression of contiguous development If the applicant or succeSSOf ownefS Wish to amend thiS PhaSing Plan option, to allow "flexibility" In phaSing, , the applicant or successor ownefS shall obtain a Master Plan amendment to allow phaSing modifications as specified In SDC Section 5 13-~ 35 ThiS IS close to the PhaSing Plan staff discussed With the applicant on Novembef 21, 2007 2 The Intent of the second oplion IS again to provld,3 fOf a for a logical PhaSing Plan fOf the MDR portion of the site In thiS case, proposed Phase 1 would Include all the Infrastructure feqUlfements Cited , elsewhere In thiS staff report The tool to Implement proposed Phase 1 IS a Tentalive SubdiVISion application As shown on Plan Sheet 8, the applicant proposes to subdiVide the MDR portion of the site , Into fOUf lots and only provide Inffastructure to the outer boundaries of these lots Staff proposes that In the MDR portion of the Site, the applicant dedicate all streets, alleys and accessways, but not constfuct , these faCIlities, Install all utilities, and grade the enltre MDR site as close as possible to the final grading , reqUired by the City Staff does not want the streets to be constructed In thiS option because the City 56 does not want to assume the maintenance costs without the assufance of residential development over the life of this Master Plan This IS staffs preferred option because residential development to OCCUf on a more random basIs, which IS what the applicant seems to desire This option will also help to fesolve some of the off-site drainage Issues discussed elsewhere In this staff feport Under both oplions the proposed park along the EWEB Bike Path shall be created as a sepafate lot, which shall be required to be developed as part of Site Plan Review approval of the first residential development on the site The applicant shall utilize a bond or other security mechanism to the satisfaction of the City Attomey, the Development Services Director and the Public Works Dlfector to guarantee that the phasing will occur as required Under either of these options, the applicant shall reconcile Plan Sheets 7 (Phasing Plan) with Plan Sheet 8 Tentative Land DIVISion and Street Plan MASTER PLAN CONDITION #51 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a PhaSing Plan to the satisfaction of the Development Services Dlfector and the Public Works Director based on one of the options prepared by staff, or as may be modified by the Planning Commission The Intent IS that the proposed phaSing shall provide adequate gUidance for the deSign and coordination of future phases of the proposed development MASTER PLAN CONDITION #52 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a pfoposal to the satlsfaclion of the Development Services Dlfectof, the Public WOfks Director and the City Attorney to guarantee that the PhaSing Plan feqUlred by thiS condition can be achieved MASTER PLAN CONDITION #53 PrlOf to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall reconcile dlscfepancles between Plan Sheets 7 and 8 CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125D has been met rCRITERION - 5 13-125E 1 "Physical features, including but not limited to, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water QualIty LimIted Watercourse (WQL~ Map and the" npanan areas, wetlands, open spaces, and areas of h/stonc and/or archaeological sIgnificance as may be specified In ArtIcle 30 of thIs Code or ORS 97 740-760,358905-955 and 390 235-240 shall be protected as speCified In thIS Code or In state or Federal law, " Applicant's Response "Comments to thIS standard have already been addressed under ~5 13- 120(D), please refer to those comments begmnmg on p 17 for detaIled mformatton " SDC Section 5 12-120 F 9 requires a wetland delineation approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL) be submitted concuffently With the proposed SubdiVISion Tentative Plan reqUired to initiate proposed Phase 1 development where wetlands are located on the property Due to the presence of wetlands on tax lots 1800 and 2300, the applicant has submitted a wetlands delineation that has been received by the DSL The delineation IS attachment F of the submitted JOint Permit Application SDC Section 5 12-120 F 10 requires the applicant submit concurrently With the application eVidence that any reqUired federal or state permit has been applied for or approved The applicant has submitted a JOint Permit application to the US Afmy Corps of Engineers and the Ofegon Department of State Lands for work to be done In the Identified wetland afeas Approval of the JOint Permit IS pending Based on staffs response, as conditioned below, Condition 2 of ZOning Map Amendment Ordinance 6196 can be met 57 MASTER PLAN CONDITION #54 Concurrent with SubdivIsion Tentalive Plan application reqUlfed as part of Phase 1, the applicant shall submit the following Informalion 1) a permit from the Army Corps , of Engineers and/of DSL for the felocated watercourse and work within the wetlands, 2) the approved , Mitigation/Monitoring Plan for the watercoufse, 3) a copy of any contingency bond and an explanation of , how compliance with the MOnitoring Plan will occur with any subsequent change In ownership over the , life of the Master Plan, and 4) any other condition Imposed by either the Afmy COfpS of Engineers or DSL The contingency bond and the explanation of compliance shall to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and , the Development Services Director and shall be made part of a deed restnctlon I CONCLUSION Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, cnterlon 5 13-125E has been met rCRITERION - 5 13-125F 1 "Local public facllltleslplans and local street plans shall not be adversely Impacted by the proposed development" I Applicant's Response "The Master Plan proposes street and utIlIty Improvements that are wholly , consIstent wIth reqUirements of the CIty'S local publIC facIlItIes plans and local street plans As , noted above m demonstratmg consIstency WIth reqUirements m SDC Sectlon4 2-100, the , transportatIon network Illustrated on the VIllages at Marcola Meadows Master Plan (Sheet 5, Master Plan lI1ustratton) IS also consIstent WIth the locatIon of streets shown generally m , TransPlan and the CIty'S Conceptual Local Stree,t Map Please refer to the comments for SDC SectIOn 4 2-100 for more mformatlon PublIC faclllttes IdentifIed m the Master Plan as needed to serve future development generally follow street nghts-of-way Therefore, the Master Plan's , proposal for development and utIlIty Improvements WIll not adversely Impact local publIC facIlitIes plans" I Staff Response Staff has demonstfated elsewhere In thiS staff report that the on-site and off-Site tfansportatlon Issues have been met, as conditioned However, dUring the reqUired Pre-Application Report review process reqUired pnof to the submittal of thiS Master Plan application, Lane County Tfansportatlon reqUired an additional TIA, which thell applicant submitted DUring the DRC review of thiS Master Plan application, Lane County submitted the follOWing comments "Lane County's main concern IS on their sectIon of 3,1 st St which IS a substandard road for an Urban Minor Collector Road 31st Street has only two travel lanes, which are 20 feet Wide WIthout curbs and , gutters, and Sidewalks The development plan proposes to Improve the City portIOn of 31st St to full urban , standards including bike lane and SIdewalks whIch stops at the northern edge of the property line As per , the TlA, a substantIal number of auto tnps are predIcted between Yolanda A ve to the development site In , the year 2015 Wh1le the capacIty of the Intersectlonl was concluded to be Within the Lane County performance threshold In 2015, the TlA did not address pedestnan and bIke traffic needs between the , County faCIlities and the development sIte We expect ped and bIke traffiC to Increase In the same , proportIOn as auto traffic In the future The discontinUity of bIke path and Sidewalks force the pedestnans , and biCyclIsts to compete for the narrow road To accommodate thIS bike and ped safety concern the , master plan must continue urban Improvement up to Yolanda Ave" I MASTER PLAN CONDITION #55 Prior to the submittal of the Final Master Plan, the applicant shall , submit plans approved by the Lane County Public Works Dlrectof for reqUired street Improvements along the west Side of 31'" Street from the EWEB Bike Path to Yolanda Avenue Construction of these , Improvements shall be concurfent With the Installalion of Improvements reqUired to be completed as part of Phase 1 CONCLUSION. Staff has demonstrated that, as conditioned above, criterion 5 13-125F has been met 58 I XI CONCLUSION Applicant's Response "The VIllages at Marcola Meadows IS an excltmg proposal, offe"ng an entlcmg mIx of resIdentIal enVIronments, commercIal and specIalty retaIl shoppmg opportUnitIes, eatmg and dmmg establIshments, and medIcal and professIonal offICes desIgned to address the dally needs of nearby reSIdents as well as the greater North Sprmgfleld neIghborhood The VIllages WIll be centered around a PaCIfIC Northwest theme, generous m the use of contemporary, yet tImeless natural matena/s and hIgh qualIty sIte furnlshmgs and pedestnan amenitIes The VIllages, whIle each umque, WIll be held together wIth meandermg waterways, natIve plant communitIes and contmuous open space The VIllages at Marcola Meadows WIll be lIke no other place to lIve, work or shop m the Sprmgfleld Commumty " Staff believes that, as conditioned, Issues regafdlng the reqUired PhaSing Plan and Issues fegardlng the City's needs for the installation of foundabouts can be accomplished Before making thelf decIsion, the Planning Commission must be confident that these two Issues and other Issues raised In thiS staff report can be resolved Before making their decIsion, the Planning Commission must be able to answer the question staff raised dUring the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment process Will Springfield's Citizens, espeCially the neighbors, be assured that a "quality" development, as proposed, can be constructed over time? I XII APPEALS SDC Seclion 5 3-120 governs the appeals process Only those persons who participated either Of ally or In writing have standing to appeal the decIsion of the Planning Commission Grounds for appeal are limited to those Issues raised either orally Of In writing before the close of the public record An appeal application shall be filed With the Director Within 15 calendar days of the Planning Commission's deCISion The Dlrectof shall proVide notice of the public hearing to all parties who participated elthef orally or In writing befofe the close of the public record leading to the Planning CommiSSion's decIsion The review shall be as determined by the City CounCil The parties may be permitted to present their oral or written arguments as to all mattefs Within that recofd The City CounCil shall consldef the Dlfectof's report and all other eVidence presented, including oral and written testimony In making their deCISion The City CounCil may affirm, modify or reverse the Director's deCISion and shall adopt findings In support of their deCISion The City CounCil may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary In order to allow the appeal to be gfanted The City CounCil's deCISion IS the final local deCISion A deCISion of the City CounCil may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals as speCified In ORS Chapter 197 59 TO REVIEWERS FM GARY M KARP, SENIOR PLANNER RE MASTER PLAN CONDITION #27 STATUS Master Plan Condition of Approval #27 5) states "ProvIde fmanclal securtty acceptable to the CIty Engmeer m an amount equal to the cost of sIgnalIzed traffIC control to provIde for future traffIC control at the artertal/slte drtveway mtersectlon locatIon The form and tlmmg offuture traffIC control WIll be based on traffIC operattonal and safety needs as determmed by the CIty Engmeer, and shall not mclude a roundabout form of control" DUring the Iterative review process regarding the expedited land use agreement document for Phases 1 and 2, the property owner negotiated the follOWing provIsion addfesslng this Item In Subsection (v) of that document" "5 As fmanclal securtty for the provIsIon of a future traffIC control at the artenal/slte drtveway mtersectlon locatIon more particularfy descrtbed and set forth m Master Plan CondItIon 27 (5) the applIcant shall, not later than SIX weeks after executIon of thIS document or Fmal SIte Plan Approval, whIChever first occurs, provIde a Performance Bond or other fmanclal securtty acceptable to the CIty Engmeer m an amount equal to the cost of the sIgnalIzed traffIC control to prOVIde for future traffIC control at the artertal/slte dnveway mtersectlon locatIon In the event that the applIcant falls to provIde such secunty by thIS deadlme, all applIcatIons provIded m thIS agreement shall be ImmedIately converted by CIty from expedIted to non. expedited, normal processmg In the event of such converSion, the City WIll reVIew the $500,000 already paId for expedIted processmg and apply It to all CIty costs, mcludmg but not lImIted to Development ServIce DIVISIon processmg, programmmg and Personnel and PublIC Works processmg, programmmg and Personnel costs mcurred m antIcIpatIon and/or executIon of the expedIted processmg In the event of any funds remammg after such appltcatlons by the CIty, CIty m Its dIscretIon may apply the remamder to normal processmg fees of the applIcatIons Further, the conversIon by the CIty from expedIted to non-expedIted, normal processmg shall not relIeve the applIcant from the condItIon of Master Plan CondItIon 27 (5) to prOVIde fmanClal securtty acceptable to the CIty Engmeer m an amount equal to the cost of the SIgnalIzed traffIC control to prOVIde for future traffIC control at the artertal sIte dnveway mtersectlon locatIOn, and Fmal SIte Plan Approval and Issuance of the SIte Plan Development Agreement Approval shall be WIthheld untIl prOVISIon of such financIal securtty " However, to date, that document has not been Signed by the City or the property owner ThiS means that unless there's a Signed agreement fOf expedited reView, the tefms of Master Plan Condition of Approval #27 5) stili apply and must be complied With before the City Will gfant Final Master Plan approval " For those of you who may have a deslfe to see the enllfe agreement to date, please let me know '~ -3 'l'he Final Master Plan review packet contained all of the final submittal materials that were scanned in as originals and was distributed 6-12-08. , f , IllustratlOn THE VILLAGES AT MARCOLA MEADOWS ~1NALMASIERPLAN Lane County Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00, Lot 1800 and Map 17-03-25-11, Lot 2300 ~!r. _/"- -, I' ~-~- ~- I'" rtp . J-,- fJ" -.f"''-'' 'M'l~~'-- 'I(~ t-b;:l~ijTe:.; T ~' ~c__ '--- ' .. Ih- j ~ l. '! ......_1..- PublIc TranSIt 1_- __I_ . .................... . Master Plan Open Space J Marcola Meadows Site and MalO Street Retatl VIllage VlclOlty SC Springfield, LLC r 7510 Longley Lane, Suite 102 l5ate Reeelved' Reno, Nevada 89511 JW~ 1 2 2008 April 30, 2008 Final SUlJiiI.ttal