HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance CMO 1/29/2009
Page I of I
'/
"'
.
ORDINANCE NO. 6108
(EMERGENCY)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES OF LAND FROM
. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE AND COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AT THE GA TEW A Y MDR SITE AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The City Council of the City ofSpnngfield finds that:
A. Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for Metro Plan
Diagram amendments. "..
B. On April 21, 2003 The Springfield City COWicil approved a Metro. Plan Diagram
amendment by adopting ordinance 6050. "
C. The April 21, 2003 Metro Plan amendment was appealed to the Land Use Board of
Appeals and to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
.
. .
D. On Angus! 19,2004 the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded the Metro
Plan amendment to the city for additional findings in ""l'~~' to Statewide Planning
Goal 9 (Economic Development), Goal 12 (TnlIISportation) and, as instructed by the
Court of Appeals, consistency with Metro Plan policies regarding auxiliary uses in
the residential designations.
E. Subsequent to the LUBA remand, the Springfield City COWicil "_"~,,ed the record
on the Metro Plan diagram amendment., Journal Number 2002-08-243 and Gateway
Refmemenl Plan amendment., Journal Number 2002..Q8-244 and initiated
amendments to the Springfield Development Code, Journal Number LRP2004-0020
and Springfield Commercial Lands Study, JoumalNumber LRP2004-0021.
. .
F. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of the
Springfield Development Code was provided. . "
G. On November 16, 2004 a public hearing on the remand applications was convened
and concluded. The record of the proceedings Was left open for seven days
followed by a seven day period of all participants to submit rebuttal. The applicant
was given two additional days for rebuttal. The Development Services staff notes,
including criteria of approval, findings, and recommendations, together with the
testimony and submittals o[ those persons testifying at the hearing or in writing,
have been considered and are part of the record of the p' w...-jing.
.
. H. On December 9, 2004 the Springfield Plarming Commission voted five in favor,
one opposed and one abstaining to forward a recommendation of approval, with
conditions to the City Council.
0611'0'" 1 ...~c '
. Date Re~eived' )2 ~/,700?
. Planner: AL
~
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/weblink7/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLI...l /29/2009
Page I of I
-
1. On January.lO, 2005, the Springfield City Council reopened the pubic hearing to
accept oral argument and deliberate. The City Council votw 5 in Javor,
1 opposed and 0 abstaining to approve the ordinance and
declaring an emergency. .
J. . Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto that the p' v yu.al
meets the requirements of Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section I: The Metropolitan Area General Plan is hereby amended to redesignate
approximately 99 acres of annexed Medium Density Residential designatw property at
the Gatcway MDR to Community Commercial (43.9 acres) and Mixed Use (49.5 acres)
as depicted in Exhibit B. . .
Section 2: The above findings (A through 1), and the findings set forth in Exhibit
C attached hereto and inCorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted in support of
. the Metro Plan amendment.
Section 3: This Metropolitan Area General Area Plan Diagram amendment is subject
" to the conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit A.
Section 4: This Ordinance replaces Ordinance 6050, adopted by the City Council
on APril 2 I, 2003.
. Section 5: It is hereby found and determined that this Metropolitan Area Gcncral
Area Plan Diagram amendment is a matter affecting the public health, safety and welfare
and that an emergency therefore exists and that this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. .
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be dct:med a separate, distinct and independent provision
and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
. . ADOPTED by the Common Co~cil oflhe Cilv of Springfield by a v C<l\'
For and ~ ~"?t on this 10th day of ~005. \
Attest:. -- ~ Q ~
Mayor C .
Cit),~:t'o}~
D",...""," .....-f'~
Date Received: (J~/jptJ'i
Planner: AL
REVIEWED & APPROVED . .
~.~..
DATE: {) {[$.;
.OFFlCE o~cri(if DRNEY
.
~ http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/weblink7/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLI...1I29/2009 .
Page I of I
EXHIBIT A
.
Conditions of Metro Plan Approval
(Jo.No.'s 2002-08-243)
COJ\'DmON 1:
Master Plans for property attbe MeKenzie-Gateway MDR site that p!"Opose to
employ tbe Mixed Use Commercial District (MUq and/or the Medical Services
. District (MS) shall include a vehicle trip monitoring plan as a component of a
complete application submittaL The approval 'of tbe plan sbaD be a requirement of
Master Plan appro\'8I. .
. '
Trip generation estimates used to create the trip monitoring plan shaD be performed
using assumptions and methods which are consistent with those employ~ in the
traffic impact aoalysis snbmitted to the City of Springfield 00 October 29, 2004 in
support of Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan amendment applications (City
Journal Numbers 2002-08-243 & 2002..Q8-244) ,
.
TraffIC generated by land uses within Muter Plan boundaries where the MS and
MVC zoning districts are proposed in Phase 1 of the developmcut sball, prior to
2010, be limited to a maximum of 1,457 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips. Beginning in
2010 for'phase 2 of tbe development, sucb traffic sball be limited to t,840 PM Peak
Hour vehicle trips. PM Peak Hour vebiele trips are deflDed as tbe tota) of entering
phis cxiting trips measnred for tbe PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic.
Subsequent Site Plan Review applications for sites within the Master Plan
boundaries shall be in compliance witb the approved trip monitoring plan.
Any proposal that would increase the number of aDowable PM Peak-Hour \'chicle
trips for the MS and MUC area beyond the above specified limits sbaD be processed
as a refinement plan amendment or a zoning map amendment or Master Plan
approval pursuant to SUC 37.040 or Master Plan modification pursuant to sue
37.040 and 37.060(3) and regardless of ..'hieh type of process is sought, each shall
demonstrate compliance with applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning
Rule for such propOsal ... ".
CONDmON 2:
Prior to occupancy of the first phase of any bospilalloeated at tbe Gatew'ay MDR
site as "approved by a future Master Plan, a portion of TransPIan project 727 .
(chapter 3, page31, Dee 2001 adopted version and as adopted by City ofSp';'ingfield
Ordinance No. 5990, dated September 17, 200t) shaD be eonstructed by the
applicant. The portion of the project to be construeted by the applicant is
conceptuaUy described as roadway and traffic signal improvements at tbe Pioneer
Parkway/OR-l26 Eastbound Ramps to: .
.
n__., _I'~.
Date ~eceived:-j/J~/,?<>177:
Planner: AL .
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/weblink7/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLI...1/29/2009
Page I ofl
.
I. Maintain two southbound through lancs on Pioneer Parkway at the OR 126
eastbound ramp terminal intersection;
2. . Provide two southbound.left turn lancs on Pioneer Parkwa)' at the OR 126
eastbound ramp tenninal intersection;
3. Widen the east hound on ramp to provide two lanes to accept tbe two
easthound turn lancs described above in Number 2. Thcse two on ramp
lancs will merge to o'ne lane prior to merging w'ith OR 126 traffic eastbound.
4. Widen tbe eastbouod OR 126 ofT ramp to thl'ft' lanes for a minimum disl1uJee
0000 feet west of Pioneer Parkway; and
5. Any necessary signal modifications to accommodate Numbers 1-4 above.
. The funding for these improvements sball eome from PeaeeHealth's financial
responsibility for ofT-site transportation improvemcnts as described in the
annexation agreement dated June 4, 2002, Lane County Recorder's number 2002- "
043161, between the applicant and the City of Springfield. To tbe e:ltent tbat tbese
funds are determined to be insufficient to perform tbe above deseribed
improvements, tbe applicanfsball be responsible for the additional funding needed.
Any subsequent Master Plan applieation for property at the Gateway MDR sile tbat
proposes to apply the 1\IS and/or MUC zoning district shall include specific design
drawings for the above described improvements, wbich shall be submitted to ODOr
fl!r approvaL ODOT approval of the proposed design shall be a condition of Master
Plan approval.
.
CONDITION 3
The master plan required by Residential Element Poliey 13.0, by tbe Annuation
Agreement dated May 29", 2002, Recorder's Reception No. 2002-043161, Lane
Count)' Deeds and Recnrds and by the Anneution Agreement dated June 7, 2001,
Recordcr's Reception No. 2001-034714, Lane County Deeds and Reeords for
property owned by PeaeeHealth, a Washington non-profit corporation, on tbe date
of Council approval of pla'n amendments 2002-08-243 and 2002-08-244 sball include
a hospital as a component of tbe master plan.
Furtber, the hospital and other master plan development on the property referen<<d
in tbis condition shall be pbased as follows:
No uscs will (}ceur before 2008. Pbase 1 will ocenr between 2008 and 2010 and Is
limited to uses generating no more tban 1,457 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips. Pbase 2
will open no earlier than 2010 and/or following eO'1struetion of tbe Gateway
StreetfBeltline Road intersection imprm'emcnts and will be limited to uses
generating no more than 1,840 PM Peak Hour vebicle trips for all d~'elopment on
properties redesignated by this ordinanee. Thcse phases may occur earlier if n<<ded
transportation facilities are in place or if required mobility standards are lowered,
provided mobility standards are maintained.
.
Dan~ A ^f'.c::
Date H6ceived:/~/u",'L-
Planner: AL .
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/weblink7/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLI...1 /29/2009
Page I of I
,
CONDITION 4
.
In the event tbal a master plan ,,'ith a hospital rails 10 gain approval by the Ci1)'
Council by May 29, 2007 the City Council will initiale amendments to the Metro
Plan and tbe Gateway Refinement Plan to revise Ihe documents 10 adequately plan
for development ofthe Gateway MDR site without abospital
CONDITION 5
Prior to occupancy of tbe first phase of any bospital located at the Gateway MDR
site as appro"~ by a future Master Plan, tbe applicant shall construct a portion of
the BeltlineRoadlGateway Street Intersection project, which ill a component of
TransPlan Projeet 606 (cbapter 3, page 16, July 2002 adopted version), 'Tbe portion
of the project to be construeted by the applicant is a traffic signal at the Beltline
Road /Hutton Road intersection.
CO~'DITION 6
Development on property at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site wbere the MS.and/or
MUC zoning district are applied sball be subject to tbe following condition:
.
Any Subdh'ision or Site Plan Re\'iew application approval that relics upon
transportation facility impro\'ements to support tbe subject development shall be in
compliance with an approved Master Plan.lfthe subject transportation
improvements are not open to travel by tbe motoring public.at the time they are
needed to support the Subdivision or Site Plan Review development, the approval
shall be subjeet to tbe enforcement and revocation proceedings of Springfield
De1o'cJoPDJent Code 1.050(1) and (2).
.
Page 5 of;';
Date Received:
Planner: AL
'j;.f/:J4tJ'I
/ I
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/weblink7/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLI...1/2912009
Page I ofl
i;~I.1 "'" II" . '"
sa: ~II ~i
" I I !.I ~ ; ~b
>5 ~c
. i ! . I iil" jlllU
. .
~~s ~
ili! ;
I ~
p..
~~ II
~~~i
~~In
l3i~~15
s
> I
Ii
~ .
d
I!
I
Ii
~
~
.
7
.")
~;::;. ._---'.,
,
.
n
Date Received: ;/,u/.Jpo,
Planner: AL ! - 1
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/weblink7/ImageDisplay.aspx?cache=yes&sessionkey=WLI...1 129/2009