HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, Planning Commission PLANNER 4/21/2009
SP.R. ..'..NGFI'~
~;
; .!Ji.
; "OREGON
: . . ',_ _ <_>"L'::"_->'-':i<.>~,';'_:c_-;">;li-,-i:;;:;-;.,:;"";'~,t""_"'~~';;~";:./"..;~'_-.
. . · . ' . t
Andy Limbird
DSD - Planner II
I
{Full Packet}
SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL' JESSE MAINE ROOM' 225 FIFI1I STREET' 541 726-3710
Tuesday, APRIL 21, 2009
7:00 P.M.
REGULAR SESSION
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
2. APPROVAL OF MINlITES-
3. BlJ~m"'SS FROM THE AUDIENCE-
4. OUASI~JUDIClAL PUBLIC HEARING-
APPLICATION:
Request to adopt a post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) for the
Gateway Refmement Plan area.
City- of Springfield
LRP2009-0000 I
Gateway Refinement Plan area; Riverbend
The Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing or
deliberations on the implementation of a Nodal Development Overlay District
affecting approximately 180 acres of northwest Springfield. The subject area
is identified in adopted plans as the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site".
Andy Limbird
APPLlCANT(s) NAME:
CASE NUMBER:
PROJECT SITE:
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
PLANNER:
Cu, Iv JCT OF QUASI~IClAL PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PIA, h I., ,G COMMISSION
. Staff will explain procedural requirements mandated by State Law
. Commencement of the hearing
. Declaration of conflict of interest or "ex-parte" contact
. Staff report
. Testimony from the applicant
. Testimony of those in support
. Testimony of those in opposition\Questions from the Commission
. Summation by the Staff
. Rebuttal from the applicant
. Close of the public hearing / or extend the written record
· Planning Commission discussion (possible questions to staff or public)
· Motion to recommend approval or approval with conditions or denial of the request based on staff report and/or
oraVwritten testimony
· Recommendation signed by Chair inc_. t'-.~:ng findings and reasoning to support decision
Date Received:
Planner: AL
0:;./:;01/7
/
The meeting location is whee/chair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be pravided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. For
meetings in the Council Meeting Room, a "Personal P A Receiver" for the hearing-impaired is available: To arrange for these services, phone 726-2700.
PC Agenda - Brenda Jones
Page 1
4/2112009
5. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVEfl~PMENT SERVICES Dm.l<;f.:1:'OR
6. REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
7. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
8. ADJOURN REGULAR
PLA,,,..,.G COMMISSIONERS,
Frank Cross, Chair
Johnny Kirschenmann, Vice Chair
Lee Beyer
Eric Smith
Sheri Moore
Steve Moe
Sean VanGordon
Date Received:
Planner: AL
~
~/.li~9
The meeh"ng location is whee/chair-accessible. For lhe hearing-impaired. an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. For
meetings in the Council Meeting Room, a "Personal PA Receiver" for the hearing-impaired is available. To arrange for these services. phone 726-2700.
PC Agenda - Brenda Jones
Page 2
4/2 InOO9
.'
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: April 21, 2009
PLANNING COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Springfield Planning Commission
FROM:
Andy Limbird, Planner II
RE:
Case No. LRP2009-00001
SUBJECT: Request to adopt a post-acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) for the Gateway
Refinement Plan area. The plan amendment would implement a Nodal Development Overlay District
(NDO) for the 180-acre "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site", now commonly identified as the PeaceHealth
hospital and campus.
ISSUE
The Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing for deliberations on the implementation of a
Nodal Development Overlay District affecting approximately 180 acres of northwest Springfield. The
subject area is identified in adopted plans as the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site". The Commission must
decide whether to advise the City Council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request.
DISCUSSION
The subject area is located on the east side of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and west of the McKenzie
River. It is bounded on the north by Deadmond Ferry Road and on the south by residential p, u..'::'. ;:es on
Wayside Loop. Approximately 180 acres are identified for nodal implementation in adopted plans.
However, staff advises that the requested plan amendment is limited to land currently inside the City limits
(approximately 168 acres). The affected area includes the existing Sacred Heart Medical Center at
RiverBend and future commercial, residential and mixed use development areas comprising the RiverBend
Master Plan area. As unincorporated areas within the planned nodal implementation area request
annexation, the City Council may consider whether to implement the NDO district on a case-by-case basis.
The post-acknowledgement plan amendment is consistent with a Conceptual Development Plan adopted
for the area in 1994; amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) arid Gateway
Refinement Plan adopted in 2005 (Commercial Policy and Implementation Action 5.0); TransPlan; and
provisions of the approved RiverBend Master Plan. Springfield City Council directed staff to implement the
nodal development overlay plan designation through adoption of the RiverBend Master Plan in 2005
(Attachment 6).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request as described in the attached Staff Report.
ACTION REQUESTED
Advise the City Council, by motion and signature of the attached order and recommendation by the
Planning Commission Chairperson, to approve the request at the public hearing on May 18, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 : Staff Report and Findings
Attachment 2: Vicinity, Neighborhood and Site Maps
Attachment 3: McKenzie-Gateway MDR Area Map
Attachment 4: Ordinance No. 6109 Amending the Gateway Refinement Plan
Attachment 5: TransPlan Potential Nodal Development Areas Map
Attachment 6: Email correspondence from DLCD and Bonnie Ullmann
Attachment 7: Planning Commission Order . <I/. Ij~"I
Date Recelved:-'7 17' -
Planner: AL
"
Type IV Metro Plan Amendment
Staff Report and Findings
"
.,
Hearinf,) Date:
April 21st, 2009
Planning Commission
Case Number:
LRP 2009-00001
May 18th, 2009
City Council
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
See Appendix 'A'
Aoolicant's
Representative
N/A II
AODlicant
PrODertv Owners
Date Submitted: January 29, 2009
, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ,
The subject area is contemplated for nodal development in senior planning doguments adopted by the
City, including the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Gateway Refinement Plan, and the RiverBend Master
Plan. The Springfield City Council adopted the amended RiverBend Master Plan on June 19, 2006.
Condition #12 of the Master Plan approval reads: "The City Council hereby initiates the application of
the Nodal Overlay Plan Designation at the entirety of the McKenzie Gateway MDR Site as identified in
the Gateway Refinement Plan." The McKenzie Gateway MDR Site (now more commonly known as
Riverbend) was identified in a Conceptual Development Plan prepared by the City in 1994. Council
adopted Ordinance 6109 (amending the Metro Plan and Gateway Refinemeijt Plan) on January 10,
2005 with the intent of preserving the potential for nodal development in the Riverbend neighborhood,
These adopted plan amendments set the stage for development of this area, with the Sacred Heart
Medical Center and campus.
, ,
Consistent with the adopted plan amendments and City Council's direction, staff are presenting the
nodal development implementation action for consideration by the Planning Commission and City
Council. .
REQUEST: "
Staff are requesting approval to implement the, Nodal Development 0verlay District (NDO)
designation for approximately 170 acres of the PeaceHealth campus. The NDO District would
supplement the zoning designations in the area, which include Community C,ommercial (CC), Mixed
Use Commercial (MUG) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Current zoning for the affected
properties is Medical Services (MS), CC and MDR. A Metro Plan Amendment at this time (not during
Periodic Review) is known as a Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA),
'> II
SITE DESCRIPTION: .
The affected properties comprise approximately 170 acres and are identified; as Assessor's Map 17-
03-14-00, Tax Lot 1900; and Map 17-03-22-00, Tax Lots 100, 200, 903, 904', 3401-3403 and 3600-
4300. The subject properties include the developed Sacred Heart Medical Genter site and ancillary
buildings; the Women's Care Center; and vacant future development areas surrounding the hospital.
Date Re'ceived:~-3~9
Planner:: AL
"
ATTACHMENT 1 - 1
"
i:
The affected properties have no jurisdictional wetlands or inventoried Goal 5 natural or historic
resources. Although not an inventoried historic resource, a pioneer graveyard discovered during
excavation work at the south end of the subject area was surveyed and relocate.. d in 2008.
. ,
The site 'is within the Springfield Urban Growth ,Boundary, and all the subject properties were
previously annexed into the City of Springfield. The subject properties are within the Gateway
Refinement Plan area.
"
The affected properties are bordered on the east by the McKenzie River, The abutting properties to
the north and south are outside the City limits and zoned Low Density ResidE\htial (LOR). The areas
immediately west of the site are outside the City limits and zoned LDR and MD:R.
,
This proposed plan amendment only affects properties currently inside the City limits. However, the
ultimate boundaries of the Riverbend nodal development overtay area could logically include
properties on Deadmond Ferry Road, Game Farm Road and Baldy View La,ne that are outside the
current City limits. As these property owners request annexation, the CitY Council will have the
opportunity to incorporate the property into the Riverbend nodal development bvertay area on a case-
by-case basis. ~, '
REVIEW PROCESS:
The proposed Metro Plan Amendment is a Type II Amendment because it is located inside the City
limits and is site specific. In accordance with SDC 5.14-135.B and 5.14-140, a Type II Metro Plan
amendment inside the city limits shall be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration and
to the City Council for final action. i'
The City Council initiated the Nodal' Development Overlay designation for the' subject area by
adopting the amended RiverBend Master Plan in 2006. Staff initiated this Post-Acknowledgement
Plan Amendment on January 29, 2009. A notice and supplementary information was mailed to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCO) on February 12,2009. Representatives
of the affected property owners (PeaceHealth and the Women's Care Center):lwere contacted directly
in mid-March prior to issuance of the hearing notice. The public hearing notice was mailed out on
April 1, 2009 to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed Nodal Development Overlay District
implementation area per Section 5.2-115.A.1-14 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC).
Advertised notice of the pUblic hearing was published in the local newspaper (Register Guard) on
April 11th, 2009, as required in Section 5.2-115,B of the SDC.
Since this application was initiated by the City Council, staff have responded :to three telephone calls
requesting clarification on the proposed amendments and possible impacts t9 properties adjacent to
the subject area. No substantive concerns were raised. Staff provided follow up written clarification
to one caller who asked whether a conference center and hotel could' be built in the nodal
development area. One written comment in support. of the proposal was, received from Bonnie
Ullmann on behalf of the Game Farm Neighbors (Attachment 6). I:
METRO PLAN DESIGNATION:
, The subject property is designated Commercial and Medium Density Resi~ential as shown in the
Metro Plan diagram. Specific Findings related to the Metro Plan are discussed in this report.
Date ~eceived: L/h)/,,,,,,q
Planner: AL -r=t=I--
ATTACHMENT 1 - 2
.'
METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL-SDC 5.14-135.C.1 and 2
. I
"The following criteria shall be applied by the City Council in approving 0~1'; denying a Metro Plan
amendment application: I
, '
I'
1. The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission; and I: .
2. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan intemallYinhonsistent.
. i
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL - SDC 5.14-135.C.1 I,
Ii
1. The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide plannihg goals adopted by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission. I:.
,
,
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 1: :'
Goa! 1 - Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning prpcess.
I,
i'
Finding 1: Goal 1 addresses the need to develop a citizen involvement prClgram to ensure citizen
involvement in all phases of the land I,Ise planning process. The Planning C9mmission and the City
Council will hold public hearings and accept testimony on the proposal. lIhrough the procedures
established by the City, citizens have received notice of hearings in a generally published local paper
(Register Guard) and have the opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed plan amendment.
Notice of the public hearings was also given to property owners within 300 fe'~t of the proposed Plan
Amendment area in accordance with SDC 5,2~115.A.1-14 requirements. In ad,dition, the provisions of
ORS 197.610 regarding local government notice of proposed amendment provided to the Department
of Land Conservation and Development has been observed. Since the:! proposed amendment
complies with the City's citizen involvement program and citizens have opport,unities to be involved in
the procedure, the proposed amendment is consistent with Goal 1. I
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 2:
Goal 2: Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process. and policy
framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an
adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. ':
Finding 2: Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive pla'ns be consistent with the Goals, that local
comprehensive plans be internally consistent, and that implementing ordinances be consistent with
acknowledged comprehensive plans. Goal 2 also requires that land use decisions be coordinated
with affected jurisdictions and that they be supported by an adequate factual base,
Because the proposed plan amendment does not affect properties outside the current city limits, the
City sent referral notice of the proposed amendment to the City of Eugene and Lane County on April
8, 2009 extending "interested party" status to each government. The City sellt the statutorily required
notice of the initial public hearing more than 45 days in advance to the state Department of Land
Conservation and Development, ensuring that they are given opportunity for ~omment and review on
conformity to applicable statewide planning goals. The DLCD reviewed the submitted materials and
advised they do not have concerns or objections with the proposed plan amendment (see Attachment
~ I
Date ~~'ceived:--iF/d<9OL.
Planner; AL
I
ATTACHMENT 1 - 3 I
I
The Metro Plan and the SDC, as well as the Statewide Planning Goals and applicable statutes,
provide policies and criteria for the evaluation of comprehensive plan amendments. Compliance with
these measures assures an adequate factual base for approval of the Ii proposed Metro Plan
amendment. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the proposed plan amendment is consistent
with the Metro Plan and the Goals.
Amendments to the Metro Plan and the Gateway Refinement Plan adopted in ,2005 and 2006 provide
for nodal development in the subject area, and are consistent with the proposed plan amendment.
The subject area is also identified as Site 7B on the adopted "Potential Nodal Development Areas"
map in TransPlan. Therefore, by demonstrating such compliance, the amendments satisfy the
consistency element of Goal 2.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 3:
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agriculturallan&.
Finding 3: This goal is inapplicable because as provided in OAR 660-15-000(3), Goal 3 applies only
to rural agricultural lands. The subject properties are located within an acknowledged urban growth
boundary, are inside Springfield's corporate limits, and are not in agricultural u~e.
,
The subject properties are not on Springfield's acknowledged Metro Plan :Goal 5 inventory. No
threatened or endangered species have been inventoried on the site, and no archaeological or
significant historical inventoried resources are located on the site. A pioneer graveyard discovered
during site excavation work at the south edge of the RiverBend Master Plan area was surveyed and
relocated in 2008.
The National Wetland Inventory and Springfield Local Wetland Inventory maps have been consulted
and there are no jurisdictional wetlands warranting protection located on the site. A cluster of small,
ATTACHMENT 1 - 4
DaleR$ceived: i./6.i~1
Planner AL to r -
"
non-significant wetlands (depicted on the Springfield Local Wetland Invento~', and identified as ~ite
. M07 on the Springfield Natural Resources Study) are located near the northe,ast edge of the subject
area. These non-significant wetlands are not identified or contemplated for protection in the
RiverBend Master Plan. '
The McKenzie River is an identified riparian resource that abuts the east boundary of the subject
area. A. riparian setback and conselVation zone has been established within' the RiverBend Master
Plan area. . The proposed plan amendment is only applicable to existing and future urban
development areas within the RiverBend Master Plan Area, and wi!! not have an adverse effect on
protection or preselVation of this resource. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not alter the
City's compliance with Goal 5. :,
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 6:
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality:. To maintain and improve the quality of
the air, water and land resources of the state. '
Finding 6: The purpose of Goal 6 is to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land
resources of the state. Generally, Goal 6 requires that development comply with applicable state and
federal air and water quality standards. In the context of the proposed MetrolPlan amendment, Goal
6 requires that the applicant demonstrate that it is reasonable to expect that applicable state and
federal environmental quality standards can be met. I
The proposed plan amendment does not modify any of the Goal 6 related policies of the Metro Plan,
nor does it amend the Regional Transportation Plan (TransPlan), the Springfield Development Code,
other applicable Goal 6 policies, or any regulations implementing those policies.
Most of the subject area lies within the 1-20 Year Time of Travel Zones and ?one of Contribution for
the Sports Way wellhead. The northeast edge of the subject area lies outsicie the mapped Zone of
Contribution for Springfield drinking water wells. Because most of the area is regulated by the
. Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, existing and future development must demonstrate
compliance with the City's Drinking Water Protection standards. The propose~ amendment does not
alter the City's compliance with Goal 6. ~:
STAFF FIN.DINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 7:
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards:
natural disasters and hazards.
,.
To protectilife and property from
Finding 7: Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage from natura,1 hazards and disasters
be planned and/or constructed with appropriate safeguards and mitigation. ,The goal also requires
. that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural disaster and razards, such as areas
prone to landslides, flooding, etc.
Staff has reviewed the natural constraints map and the FEMA Floodplain I'Map in relation to the
subject area. The subject area is relatively flat and is not subject to landslide hazards. The eastem
half of the subject area is within the mapped FEMA 100 year floodplain. A McKenzie River floodplain
analysis prepared by David Evans & Associates in November, 2003 has updated the flood level
information for the subject area. Existing and future development in the !Irea must demonstrate
compliance with the Floodplain Overlay District provisions of the City's Development Code, including
establishing building floor elevations at least one foot above the calculated ,flood level. Therefore,
approval of the proposed Plan Amendment will not alter the City's acknowledged compliance with
Goal 7 through its adopted plans, codes and procedures. '
;
Date Received:
Planner': AL
if~M
/
ATTACHMENT 1 - 5
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 8:
Goal 8 - Recreation Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state
and visitors. and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of n,ecessary recreational
facilities including destination resorts.
Finding 8: Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary
recreational facilities to "satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors" and,
where appropriate, provide for the siting of recreational facilities including destination resorts. Staff
has consulted the Willamalane 20-year Parks and Recreation Comprehensive::Plan in relation to .Goal
8 c9mpliance. The Willamalane 20-year Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was adopted by
the City of Springfield as part of the Metro Plan's compliance with Goal 8. According to Map 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan, two future park and recreation facilities are contemplated within the eastern half
of the subject area, which is identified for future residential development: The proposed plan
amendment does not preclude the acquisition of public land for provision 6f recreational facilities,
including neighborhood and special use parks as noted in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the
proposed plan amendment does not alter the City's compliance with Goal 8. "
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 9:
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state
for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's
citizens.
Finding 9: Goal 9 requires the city to provide adequate opportunities for";a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the citizens. Because 'the nodal development
overlay does not supplant the underlying commercial and mixed use zoning of)he affected properties,
and nodal designation supports and encourages more intensive development of these lands, the
proposed amendment will not affect the city's capacity for economic development. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not alter the City's compliance with Goal 9.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO GOAL 10:
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
,
Finding 10: LCDC's Housing goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
needed housing, based on an acknowledged inventory of buildable lands. "
The 1999 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land andHousirig Study is Springfield's
most current adopted housing study related to Goal 10. The City of Springfield is also currently
undergoing a new Residential Lands Study that will analyze the housing inventory and projected
needs for the next 20 years. Preliminary findings of the Residential Lands Study suggest that there is
. a need for additional housing within the planning period. Some of the anticipated need could be met
through increasing density of existing residential zones.. The proposed ame,ndmerit would increase
allowable density levels within the subject area, thus providing more housing options for Springfield
residents. The residential component of the subject area is zoned MDR, and is currently vacant. The
nodal overlay would allow for housing densities to be increased up to 20% ab9ve the base standards
of the MDR District.
, Dat~Received:jb~
Planner: AL ~~ )
ATTACHMENT 1 - 6
,.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 11: i
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services as a framework for urban and rural
. development.
OAR 66D-011-0005(7)(a)-(d) Definition of Public Facilities:
(a) Water
(b) Sanitary Sewer
(c) Storm sewer
(d) Transportation
'\
,
Finding 11: This goal requires the provision of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services. The subject area is located within the Springfield UGB and city limits, and
already contains a regional hospital facility and ancillary medical service buildings. The subject area
is accessed via recently-completed local and regional transportation improvements, including the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway extension, Cardinal Way extension, widening of Beltline Road, and
construction of Riverbend Drive. The proposed nodal development overlay will not affect the ability to
provide needed services to the subject area. All the required urban services are existing or available
to support future residential, commercial and mixed used development on the ~ubject properties, The
.. Metro Plan and associated facilitY plans have been acknowledged to conform to Goal 11, thereby
"
. ensuring that public facilities and services are currently available to the subject site. Therefore, the
proposed amendment does not affect the Metro Plan's compliance with Goal 1 :1.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 12:
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Finding 12: Goal 12 requires local govemments to provide and encourage a safe, convenient and
economical transportation system. The proposed amendment involves about 170 acres of property,
of which approximately 50 acres is already developed with the hospital faciliti:and ancillary buildings.
The transportation analysis prepared for the RiverBend Master Plan contemplates build-out of the
subject area with a combination of commercial, residential and mixed-use development. Nodal
designation of the subject area was contemplated in the regional transportation plan adopted for
Eugene-Springfield (TransPlan) and long-range plans adopted by the City. ii Implementation of the
nodal designation for the subject properties is a logical progression of t~e recent and planned
transportation projects that directly or indirectly benefit the. subject area, including: Pioneer Parkway
roundabout and MLK Jr. Parkway Extension; eastbound Beltline Road off-ramp from 1-5; future
Gateway/Beltline intersection improvements; Riverbend Drive construction; and installation of
signalized intersections on MLK Jr. Parkway at the intersections with Riverb~hd Drive, Cardinal Way
and Game Farm Road East. .
In addition to street and intersection improvements, the subject properties will derive a direct benefit
from the new Bus Rapid Transit (EmX) line currently being constructed to serite the Gateway area of
north Springfield. Provision of a highly efficient public transportation system ,is a key element of the
nodal development concept. Two EmX line transit stops are slated for construction within the subject
area - one near the intersection of MLK Jr. Parkway and Riverbend Drive, aod another to serve the
Sacred Heart Medical Center.
Any significant intensification of development (beyond that contemplated.. in adopted plans and
studies) will be subject to development review to assure existing transportation capacity is not
ATTACHMENT 1 - 7
Date Received:
Planner: AL
'1fJ-~
I
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed plan amendment is consistent with Goal 12 and applicable local
implementing policies. ..
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 13:
Goal 13 -,Energy Conservation: To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the
land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of
energy, based upon sound .economic principles.
Finding 13: The Energy goal is a general planning goal and provides limited guidance for
,
site-specific plan amendments. The proposed amendment has no direct impact on energy
conservation, though it would arguably promote greater energy efficiency by enabling future
development at increased density levels and with more transportation options .within the subject area.
Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with, and does not alter, the City's continued
90mpliance with Goal 13.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 14:
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use.
Finding 14: Goal 14 requires local jurisdictions to provide for an "orderly and efficient transition from
rural to urban land use". The subject area is within the UGB and the city limits of Springfield, and
within an existing urbanized area of the community. A portion of the subject a~ea has been intensively
developed with a major hospital facility and medical campus. Therefore, Goal 14 is not applicable to
this application.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOAL 15:
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along
the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
Finding 15: Goal 15 does not apply to the proposed plan amendment because the subject area is not
located within the Willamette River Greenway. However, similar protection measures for the
McKenzie River have been implemented through the development plans adopted for the subject area.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH GOALS 16-19:
Goal 16 through 19: (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shore/ands, Beaches and Dunes, and
Ocean Resources).
Finding 16: The subject site is not located within any coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune
resources related area. Therefore, Goals 16-19 do not apply to this Plan Map Amendment
application.
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL - SDC 5.14-135.C.2
2. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
STAFF FINDINGS RELATED TO 5.14-135.C.2:
Finding 17: The application requests amendment of the Metro Plan diagram to implement a nodal
development overlay for approximately 170 acres. This section of the application narrative addresses
the consistency of the amendment with the applicable policies of the Metro Plan, and to demonstrate
ATTACHMENT 1 - 8
Date Received:_~~~c?07
Planner: AL
that adoption of the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent as required by the
approval criteria in SDC 5.14-135. C.2.
This narrative only addresses those pOlicies that apply to the proposal, and does not discuss those
portions of the Metro Plan that: (1) apply only to rural or other lands outside of the urban growth
boundary; (2) apply to land uses other than the current or proposed designations for the site and will
not be affected by the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment; or (3) clearly apply only to specific
development applications such as site plan review submittals or subdivisions.' In many instances the
goals, policies, and implementation measures apply to specific development proposals that will be
addressed through compliance with applicable City regulations during site plan review.
The Metro Plan Introduction, Section 0 provides the following definitions:
A aoal as a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of the people of .the
community for the future of the community. A aoal may never be completely attainable, but is
used as a point to strive for.
An 'obiective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving .to meet a
goal. An obiective may also be considered as .an intermediate point that will help fulfill the
overall goal.
A policv is a statement adopted as part of the Plan to provide a consistent course of action
moving the community towards attainment of its goals.
Except for the Growth Management Goals, which are addressed below, each of the Metro Plan
policies are addressed in the order in which they appear. in the Plan Element section of the Plan.
Finding 18:
Metro Plan Element: Growth Management
Policv 1: The urban growth boundary and sequential development shall continue to be implemented
as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. Provision of all urban services shall be
concentrated inside the urban growth boundary. ' .
The proposed amendment satisfies this policy because the subject property is,inside the UGB and city
limits and, as such, .encourages compact urban growth. Urban services a~e available. at sufficient
levels to accommodate existing and future development. Implementation ofthe nodal development
overlay will encourage more compact and efficient. land development, which is consistent with this
policy. Future development withih the affected properties will be subject to development review, and
any need for increased capacity will be addressed through this process. The City's development
review processes ensure that the appropriate level of services is available to serve existing and future
. ,
development. . .
Finding 19:
Metro Plan Element: A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element
Policv A.11: Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial
services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation,efficient nodes.
The subject area contains an existing major employment center (regional hospital facility and medical
service buildings). Vacant commercial and mixed use properties within the subject area are expected
ATTACHMENT 1 - 9
Dcite Fieceived: LJ/'ojJdIl'/
Planner: AL ~I
to generate employment opportunities as these sites develop. Additionally, the subject properties are
adjacent to the Gateway area, which is a focal point for employment and commercial activities in north
Springfield. The Gateway area, including the subject site, is served by major transportation
connections that include 1-5, Beltline Road, MLK Jr. Parkway, Riverbend Drive,.and Gateway Street.
The residential component of the RiverBend Master Plan area is planned to be medium density
housing, with additional opportunities for residential dwelling units in mixed use zones. Higher
dwelling unit densities are planned adjacent to the hospital campus, which is consistent with the
principles of nodal development and pOlicies listed in the Residential Land Use and Housing Element.
As stated previously, the Gateway EmX bus rapid transit line is currently under construction and is
designed to serve the subject site and greater Gateway area of Springfield. There are two transit
stops planned to serve the subject area. Provision of a highly efficient transit system that allows users
to quickly access nearby commercial and employment centers, downtown Springfield and Eugene,
and local educational institutions is consistent with nodal development principles and Metro Plan
Policy A.11.
Policv A.22: Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations.
The proposed amendment will not change the underlying commercial, mixed use, and medium
density residential zoning of the subject area. Implementation of nodal development designation
discourages .Iow-intensity automobile-oriented uses and, instead, encourages mixed use development
and more compact, efficient land development. The proposed amendment is consistent with Policy
A.22 of the Metro Plan.
Finding 20:
Metro Plan Element: D. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element
Policv 0.5: New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall be limited to
uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those water features.
The proposed amendment should not have an adverse effect on the existing and planned riparian
setbacks and conservation areas along the stretch of the McKenzie River that is adjacent to the
subject area. Adoption of the RiverBend Master Plan and subsequent development of the subject
area with the Sacred Heart Medical Center identified provisions for protecting and enhancing the
riparian zone within the subject area. Increased building setbacks, controlled' public access (paved
pathways), and riparian restoration zones have been used in the subject area to ensure existing and
future development is compatible with the river corridor. As new development is proposed along the
river corridor, it will be reviewed for conformity with the adopted Master Plan and riparian protection
policies and subject to approval by the City. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with
Policy 0.5 of the Metro Plan.
Finding 21:
Metro Plan. Element: F. Transportation Element
Land Use Policv F.1: Apply the nodai development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that
have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattem. .
Land Use Policy F.2.: Support application of the .nodal development strategy in designated areas
through information, technical assistance, or incentives.
Date Received: ~/:Z~/Joo9
Planner: AL
ATTACHMENT 1 - 10
" "
Land Use Policv F.3: . Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including
higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations;
medium- and high-density residential development within one-quarter mile of transit stations, major
transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development and redevelopment in
designated areas that are or could be well seNed by existing or planned transit:
Land Use Policv F.4: Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit residential development. "
Land Use Policv F.S: Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the NO, Nodal Development,
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect designated
nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal plans and
implementing ordinances.
Land Use Policv F.19: Establish a BRT system composed of frequent, fasUransit seNice along major
corridors and neighborhood feeder seNice that connects with the corridor seNice and with activity
centers, if the system is shown to increase transit mode split along BRT corridors, if local
governments demonstrate support, and if financing for the system is feasible.
The subject area is identified as Site 7B on the "Potential Nodal Development Areas for the Eugene-
Springfield Metro Area" map of TransPlan. By design, nodal development areas encourage
. pedestrian, bicycle and transit-oriented transportation uses - something that has already occurred on
the Sacred Heart Medical Center site with construction of walking paths, bicycle lanes and bike
parking areas, and existing and planned transit service. Future mixed use, commercial,. and medium
density residential development in the subject area will be required to addre~,s these standards. As
stated previously, the planned EmX bus rapid transit line will serve the Gateway area including the
subject site (the EmX Gateway line is projected to start service in 2010). Finally, the City previously
adopted amendments to the Metro Plan and the Gateway Refinement Plan in anticipation of nodal
development in the subject area. Implementation of the nodal developm~nt designation for the
subject area is consistent with provisions of the adopted TransPlan and, therefore, is consistent with
Metro Plan Policies F.1 through F.S and F.19.
Finding 22:
Metro Plan Element: G. Public Facilities and SeNices Element
Policv G.1: Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly
and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter If-B, relevant policies
in this chapter and other Metro Plan policies.
The subject area is located inside the Springfield city limits and the UGB. All necessary infrastructure
and key urban facilities/services are present to serve existing development or are available to serve
future development in the subject area in conjunction with site plan review. . Therefore, the proposal is
consistent with the above policy.
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff finds that the proposed amendment meets the criteria of SDC S.14-13S.C.1 & 2. After review of
the adopted City land use plans and studies, evidence provided by staff research, existing uses in the
subject area, and the applicable criteria of approval, staff finds that thei, proposed Metro Plan
Amendment is appropriate for the subject area.
DatEI Received: ~h~~
Planner: AL
ATTACHMENT 1 -11
'U 0
-1l3
.~..~ ~ '; J. .~
~11~ ~T\fl)
....-k / lieSlhBIBCCO;B;;yu"spmduct.
&' SIiiPRINGFlEl~D ~:;~S a;;:S:,:":t~:;SPOnS!bil:tY fO; :~il%~S:;:C~:':y
-.. ~A. ..-.......... . arising from any error, orn/S5 on 0
:c \~ of this product.
~ OR~GOt.l
.<S
...,
>
-t
-t
>
C)
::I:
;;:
m
Z
-t
N
.....
. FOR MCKENZIE-GATEWAY SITE
NODAL IMPLEMENTANTGIOCNASE LRP2009-00001 .
PLANNI .
Springfield, OR
~
/'
~
[--' L~ ita. - -, UGB
.....Jcny m __
....
/I0RfH
.
'l,l;I..
"
NODAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR MCKENZIE-GATEWAY SITE
PLANNING CASE LRP2009-00001
Subject Neighborhood
1 J \ I
II \\ /
II
81-.:;-
~I
II' '
II
, I
I:
I'
I
I
I:
t--:
I'
I
Springfield, OR
,j.',
\\~j/\
\:"f'
,
I
I
. ....I
;'[ 1
, ',-1 I
., I I
I I
,~
o
"TEIl0l"'T10~Lvu.y_
...----
----
,--.,
I I
L_.J
,',
~'.Li\,
'iiEir(..i:itlJ
0;'
'.
"
ii'
.U llllllll-d
,;iCuU LU~
;,-..t - I..,
, ,
~:,-,. ;;,..!} :.(::.--;:,,;':
, ..,_..,.,:....
- "".,-".
"
. . . .
." _..'OM.._..:'
"" ".' ;,. ~~ :~'.:,'~~~;:.'.~
.- '-, '.' ~-_. ..' ". ," -, ," ,..~.. " i_..,
", r-"-:'-""T,:~~U''Er~'i
"I:
'r~.:Jt~'t...._..-t. !.
,',
',{.."
,..'-,_:.,:.~"ct:
,"'0,."_,..-.,,..-
;:--:.~:!H~-,.
"'('>'(:-.h"
..'" .
. .Jf\t~fi
ATTACHMENT 2 - 2
C UGB C::'J Outside of Cily Limijs
~ Sile Bound~ry C::'J 'Mlhin Cily Limijs
D Tax Lots
a 1.000 2.000
I ,-__J
Date Receivep: L/h-"i/;U;01
Planner: ,AL --r!~
S~N~E~. There are no warranties that accompany this product
_ _ Users assume an iBsponsibility for any loss or damage
JIi:. 1It6. arising from any error, omission or positional inaccuracy
, . ~_. of this product.
OREGON
,.
NODAL IMPLEMENTATION FOR MCKENZIE-GATEWAY SITE
PLANNING CASE LRP2009-00001
Subject Area
I' --
Ii,
~,
-.....---.
JNTEfll'''AT!OIl!AI,:WAY-~:
I II
I,
! '....
. ,
. ,
,
. ,
"., .....
!"- '....,
Springfield, OR
'''-....<~- ~
-.~IZJ.
1-."1>
-.... -~... .---
l__
;m
',,--;-~ /(
" , //\
.1""---..; // '
I ___ //
I---.. -,
I ___//
1/<
, \
V.
\ (----r
\\ ,
\ I
\ I
\
\
I
..- BELTLINi:. RD\ '
UIJill~'
! II I' I lL
II! l_J I
',:-~ - ~--_:~-- :~\
'--- - I
'.. . I
^: '< .-L~)RhIULJ JAy'
""0" \ '-, II ! J r I 'I
::;~:<>~:;:-\~:~
, / .'. '(/, '.}j
~:;::~~~>,;?:,:)~:/
,~::~;{~;:~,;~:~~~\ "
Ii2;~j1) ~.,::
4-111<<~ gEJ\ :
'1'\1111 I \~, !
i I !] ) I ~:xt=~~ \-~.~_,~,)JJ../)_.
ill!lljttt=~ \~/i~~")
i I I I III [~y=~~-\ Y)~<IS?k:
11/1,1 :, ~(~r.~.. '. \\:.(;:'9(2
~rtt~.~~~ \ '\)Jj ?,g I' I ~"
.OIEADMONl>:J:ERR"RD' .
I '\ -'\j
SPA~N::E~ There are no wan-an<<es that accompany this product
_ Use~ assume an responsibiUty for any loss or damage
II&:~ arising from any err-Of, omission or positional inaccuracy
, ~w of~~product
. OREGO~
\
\
'~
\~
.~. '2
ttr;:'1 ~ I i II [n I r f I
(rT-(1111!ll-r--,...-- '0
C UGB C:-:J Outsid~ of City Limils
~ Sile Boundary [='J Wthin City Limits
D Tax Lois
a 500 1,000
"'~
ATTACHMENT 2 - 3
Date Received:
f!J~/dP1
01...._......_. A.I
.. "
I
I
:M~.........cATEWAY MEDIUM DENSITY R.....~......AL SITE
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I
I
:)
I ---r--- U G B
~
'. '---.-
.
--
i
CAMPUS
INDUSTRIAL
,
."-- )
o
II:
>-
II:
II:
w
to.
\
:0
/U
i:-
'.
.....\.
'.
~- ".
. \
~)-
., .
.
200 \.400- 600 ISOO 1000.
.
VICINTIY MAP
~ate Received:#.;b '01
Planner: "AL
ATTACHMENT 3 - 1
,
"
,
FOR COMPLETE. mINANCE, PLEASE CONTACT L. ..:NDA;AT 726-3610
CITY OF SPRINGFiELD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 610Q
(EMERGENCY)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GATEWAY REFINENEMENT PLAN BY
CHANGING APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
PLAN DESIGNATION TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE PLAN
DESIGNATION AT THE GATEWAY MDR SITE AND AMENDING THE GATEWAY
REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT TO ALLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF TIIE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND l'tllXCu USE DESIGNATIONS WITH Muu:\U USE
COMMERCIAL AND MEDICAL SERVICES ZONING DISTRICTS; TO ~LOW FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A l;lOSPITAL, ASSOCIATED MEDICAL, OFFICE, RETAIL
AND RESIDENTIAL USES; TO PRESERVE THE POTENTIAL FOR NODAL
DEVELOPMENT; TO REQUIRE A MASTER PLAN TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
The City Council ,of the City of Springfield finds that:
A. Article 8 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for refinement plan
diagram and text amendments.
B. On April 21, 2003 The Springfield City Council approved Gateway Refinement Plan
amendments by adopting ordinance 605 L '
C. The April 21, 2003 Gateway Refinement Plan amendments were appealed to the Land
Use Board of Appeals and to the Oregon Court of Appeals.'
D. On August 19, 2004 the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remanded the Gateway
Refinement Plan amendments to the city for additional findings in re~t to Statewide
Planning Goal 9 (Economic Development), Goal 12 (Transportation) arid, 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 Council reopened the record on
Metro Plan diagram amendment, Journal Number 2002-08-243 and Ga,teWay
Refmement Plan amendment, Journal Number 2002-08-244 and initiated amendments
to the Springfield Development Code, Journal Number LRP2004-0020'and Springfield
, Commercial Lands Study, Journal Number LRP2004-0021.
F. Timely and sufficiept notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section i4.030 of the
Springfield Development Code was provided.
G. On November 16, 2004 a public hearing on the Gateway Refinement Plan amendment
was convened and concluded. The record of the proceedings was lift open for seven
days followed by a seven day period of all participants to submit rebut:tal. 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 of those persons testifYing at the hearing or in. writing, have
been considered and are part of the record of the proceeding.
Page I of 13
1/10/05
Date ReC~ived:-.i),' /~OL
Planner: AL Fr
ATTACHMENT 4 - 1
, -
"
,
H. On December 9, 2004 the Springfield Planning Commission voted five1in favor, one
opposed and one abstaining to forward a recommendation that the City:Cciuncil .
approve the Gateway Refinement Plan amendments with conditions. '
1. On Janwuy 10, 2005, the Springfield City Council reopened the pubic hearing to accept
oral argument and deliberate. The City Council voted 5 in favor, 1
opposed and 0 abstaining to approve the. Gateway Refinement Plan
ordinance and declaring an emergency.
1. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto as Exhibit B that the
-proposal meets the requirements of Article 8 of the Springfield Develo\?ment Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
- - Section I: The Gateway Refinement Plan is hereby amended to reflect the text
'changes depicted in Exhibit B; the Gateway Refinement Plan diagram is hereby'amended to
reflect the changes approved by the Council in the concurrent Metro Plan Di3gram
amendment. ,
Section 2: The above findings (A through 1), and the findings set forth in Exhibit C
attached hereto and IDev,pu,,,ted herein by .d",,,..ce are hereby adopted in support of the
Gateway Refinement Plan amendments. .
Section 3: This Ordinance replaces Ordinance 6051, adopted by the City Council
on Apri121, 2003.
. .
Section 4: 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 deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and
that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 5: This Gateway Refinement Plan amendment is subject to the conditions of
"pp,v' aI attached hereto in Exhibit A. .
Section 6: It is hereby found and determined that this Gateway Refinement Plan
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.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of 5
forand-L against and 0 abstaining on this 10th daYOfJan~
Attest: ill ~ ~
Mayor V
-
.efruJU.
Page 2 of 13
1/1 0/05
. City Recorde
Date Received:Jf~ /~dJ{j
Planner: AL ~
REVIEWED & APPROVED
~ii
DATE: ~
OFFI9E ~7(y A DRNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
ATTACHMENT 4 - 2
. .'
"--
E:luiwIT A
Conditions of Gateway Refinement Plan Approval
(Jo.No.'s 2002-08-244)
CONDmON 1:
Master Plans for property at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site that propose to
employ the 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 the plan shall be a requirement of
Master Pian approvaL .
Trip generation estimates used to create the trip monitoring pIan shaD be performed
using assumptions and methods which are consistent with those employed in the
traffic impact analysis submitted to the City of Springfield on Octobe~ 29, 2004 in
support of Metro Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan amendment applications (City
Journal Numbers 2002-08-243 & 2002-08-244)
Traffic generated by land uses within Master Plan boundaries where the MS and
MUC zoning districts are proposed in Phase 1 of the developmentshaD, prior to.
2010, be limited to a maximum of 1,457 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips, Beginning in
2010 for Phase 2 of the development, such traffic shall be limited to 1,840 PM Peak
Hour vehicle trips, PM Peak Hour vehicle trips are defined as the total of entering
plus exiting trips measured for the PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic.
Subsequent Site Plan Review applications for sites within the Master PIan
boundaries shall be in compliance with the a ~ ~ .'. 'ed trip monitoring plan,
Any proposal that would increase the number of allowable PM Peak-Hour vehicle
trips for the ~ and MUC area beyond the above speeified limits shall be processed
as a refinement plan amendment or a zoning map amendment. or Master PIan
approval pursuant to SDC 37,040 or Master Plan modification pursu.,..t to SDC
37,040 and 37.060(3) and regardless of which type of process is sought, each shall
demonstrate compliance with applicable provisions of the TransportationPI,;nning
Rule for such proposal.
CONDITION 2:
Prior to occupancy of the first phase of any hospita,llocated at the Gateway MDR
site as a". .', ,ed by a future Master Plan, a portion of TransPlan project 727
(chapter 3, page 31, Dec 2001 adopted version and as.adopted by City of Springfield
Ordinance No, 5990, dated September 17, 2001) shaD be constructed by the
applicant. The portiou of the project to be constructed by the applicant is
conceptually described as roadway and traffic signal imp.. , I" ..ents atthe Pioneer .
Parkway/OR-126 Eastbound Ramps to:
Page 3 of 13
1/10/05
Date Received:
Planner: AL
~~;;-/~
/
ORDINANCE NO, 6109
ATTACHMENT 4 - 3
.'
r
1, Maintain two southbound through lanes on Pioneer Parkway ~t the OR 126
eastbound ramp terminal intersection;
2, Provide two southbound left turn lanes on Pioneer Parkway at the OR 126
eastbound ramp terminal intersection;
3, Widen the eastbound on ramp to provide two lanes to accept the two
eastbound turn lanes described above in Number 2. These two on ramp
lanes will merge to one lane prior to merging with OR 126 traffic eastbound.
4. Widen the eastbound OR 126 off ramp to three lanes for a minimum distance
of 300 feet west of Pioneer Parkway; and
5, Any necessary signal modifications to accommodate Numbers 1-4 above.
The funding for these improvements shan come fromJ'eaceHealth's financial
responsibility for off-site transportation improvements as described in the
annexation a.. """ ,ent dated June 4, 2002, Lane County Recorder's tiumber 2002-
043161, between the applicant and the City ot Springfield. To the extent that these
funds are determined to be insufficientto perform the above described
improvements, the applicant shan be responsible for the additional funding needed.
Any subsequent Master Plan application for proper!:y at the Gateway MDR site that
proposes to apply the MS and/or MUC zoning district shaD include specific design
drawings for the above described improvements, which shaD be submitted to ODOT
. for approval. ODOT approval of the proposed design shaD be a condition of Master
Plan approvaL
CONDmON3
The master plan required by Residential Element Policy 13.0, by the Annexation
A... ....~,ent dated May 29tb, 2002, Recorder's R_._..::on No. 2002-043161, LaDe
County Deeds and Records and by the Annexation A... ...._ent dated June 7,2001,
Recorder's R..~_..L:on No, 2001-034714, Lane County Deeds and Records for
property owned bY"PeaceHeaJth, a Washington oon"profit corporation, on the date
of Council approval of plan amendments 2002-O~243 and200;Z-OS:-24i1 shall inc:lude .
a hospital as a component of the master plan,
Further, the hospital and other master plan development on the property"referenced
in this condition shall be phased as' CoDows:
No uses will occur beCore 2008. Phase 1 will occur between 2008 and 2010 and is
limited to uses generating no more than 1,457 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips. Phase 2
will open no earlier than 2010 and/or CoDowing construction oC the Gateway
, StreetlBeltJine Road intersection improvements and will be limited to uses
generating no more than 1,840 PM Peak Hour vehic:le tpps for aD development on
properties redesignated by this ordinance. These phases may occur earlier if needed
transportation Cacilities are in place or if required mobility standards are lowered,
provided mobility standards are maintained,
Page 4 of 13
1/10/05
Date~eceived: if;';.. ~(Jf
Planner: AL ~~ ,
ORDINANCE ,NO. 6109
. ,
ATTACHMENT 4 - 4
CONDmON4
.In the event that a master pIan with a hospital fails to gain approval Jy the City
Council by May 29, 2007 the City Council will initiate amendments t~' the Metro
Plan and the Gateway Refinement Plan to revise the documents to ad~uately pIan
for development of the Gateway MDR site without a hospital, f
,
Ii
CONDITION 5 II
!I
II
Prior to occupancy of the firSt phase of any hospital located at the Gateway MDR .
site as approved by a future Master Plan, the applicant shall constru~ a portion of
the Beltline Road/Gateway Street Intersection projeet, which is a component of
. TransPlan Project 606 (chapter 3, page 16, July 2002 adopted versiOli). The portion
of the project to be constructed by the applicant is a traffic signal at the Beltline
. . I.
Road /Hutton Road intersection. I!
CONDmON 6
Develupment on property at the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site where:,the MS and/or
MUC zoning district are applied shall be subject to the following condition:
"
Any Subdivision or Site Plan Review application approval that relies hpon
transportation facility improvements to support the subject developni'ent shall be in
. I
compliance with an approved Master Plan. If the subject transportation
improvements are not open to travel by the motoring public at tbe ~e they are
needed to support the Subdivision or Site Plan Review development, ~e approval
shall be subject to the enforcement and revocation proceedings of Springfield
"
Development Code 1.050(1) and (2). il
"
.,.
I
, .
~:
l!
,
Page 5 of 13
1/10/05
,.
I'
Datel.,.:Received: tlh;;./;l-oo?
Planner: AL -f!j
~...
ATTACHMENT 4 - 5
II
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
II
Ii
II
II
"
.ii
Ii
II
II
"
11
ii
II
Gateway Refinement Plan Text Amendments
(Jo.No.'s 2002-08-244)
EXl:uJiIT B
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 2:
Ii
I
Ensure availability of adequate supplies of land appro~riate
for low~, medium-, and high-density residential develop,/Dent,
MaiBtsiB appFO:Dmately the.o"':..[,,-... -saL" " .e.,,, :BDg LDR ,
J\mR aDd IIDR J ...,,'.., ..IIted leds, eODsist.,,-!. /J~th MetJu PItm
alloesOoDs while allowin!! for an a . .,.'. . riate mix of .
commercial, emolovment and residential uses.
Amend Residential Element Policy and ,Implementation Action 12.0:
Allow limited rezoning ofland within the "McKenzie-Gateway
MDR site" to Medical Services ("MS") on land desilmated
Communitv Commercial or Mixed Use on the Metro Plan
dial!Fllm. and rezoninv to Mixed Use Commercial ("MUC") on
iand desimated Mixed Use on the Metro Plan dialmlm lis
imolemeoted durin!! a Master Plan and or durin!! the Citv'~
nodal imolementation oroied. Deighbomood .. ""'" ...!iaI,m
oFdeF to pFomote I'eteDtioD ed FekabilitstioD of IHstori~
. II h' sr' I!
pF8periiest atlBB}Tot envBe e,..: l: ..:;,..lB eOB .,:.-;:l,:;l,.,I.,~
".-:" ,., e limited pulli.. ., .Iemi plllllie aeeess te aDd viriv of the
MeKeMie Ri\'eF, aDd to allow fOF pFOvi9ioo of seR'iees II
speeilieally iBtcoded to meet Deeds offutuFe resideots HI this
I'
- II
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 12.1:
.[;.=;~~.. (.0 NC will be allowed feF lip to 3 aeFes (Tota~1 ohlleaot
laud withiB the McKeMie Cateway MDR SiL .,,,,. ~u tll~ followiBg
prll'\isioos: II
a) The pF-r .'-~J" .'elJuested fo.' ,....,"-~.. maD fAlot ~o a eolleetor
... . I t'- t' 't'- ........ . ,...". '''''''"0
OF 8. ..ena ..8 IS el II....:..:. ....:..n.:..l-......6 ::: r~:;l";,..:I :Jt-_l.::_~ .:.:... :iC'-s..~
fOF the MeK-eMie Cateway MDR Site, OF that earreutIy
hoFtlen the site, . Ii
II) PFOposed ii:ODe c:.._"-.... ",lIalllte rfliC1'l'ed lfBder A T)'pe ill
pFOeeu""", ;.. .aee" .~.:._,..., ,,:111 ,"..mele 3 DUke SDC ed shall be
. I
eoosisteBt with all r' I'.:""'" ..1 of SDC !.ftiele 12 ZooiBg Distriet
aod Overlay District Chaogcs. I:
"
JI'
"
Date ~eceived:_%6.?j.;>-odq
Planner: AL '/"' / '
,;
Page 6 of 13
l/10/05
ATTACHMENT 4 - 6
"
. ii
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
II
II
. ,
I
j,
e} This tnJe ofrezonillg shall not 1. "rr,-,.,.!d until lit lelllit 2S
peReat of tit, ." ,.~. ':'r d. J ,",'elliBg lInits lIr. ., c.~:o.c ~eteti
-,,"'-' .",
(blllied on an a':eFBge of IS __" '..,' ,:" per aeR),
Redesilmation of a total of?? a.r,res land with",. ';he citv"imits
at the McKenzielGatewav )"DR site to Community II
Commercial and/or Mixed Use throul"h the Metro Plan')
amendment nrocess shall b~ ~llowed :md shall. J:le im!.'lemented
bv annlication of Mixed Use Commercial (nMUcn) or Medical
Services (nMsn) zonin!!' district throue-h Master Plan al?nroval
and/or durin!!" the City's nodal imnlementation nroiectJ
. I
"
II
~!
NC uses loeated ...ithiB the McKeMie Cateway l\mR Sjte shall meet
the fellowillg pFII';jsioilS ill addition to the provisioll5 ofSDC l.mele
M7 II .
\:.) Th.e- "..""',,, ,." -ft",- ~.,-.~-iIf-.,." ,'. .:"...)e NC lIse siall not eIeeed
. I .
i,OOO SlJlIBFe feet; ,
iI) ParkiB" ...,-~..... .hall not he nsiIJle fiom the MeK~e R.:vcr
corridor aDd shall he screened fFII "i "Iie-stF.....;,. :.. ... ~..........,. '".fu.elt
1, ,. "" Jt OIlSCllR visillility of the lIse; aDd, il
a) Puhlie aeeess to the MeKenzie River shall he i ,. .:. Jed hy NC
" ..- ...L_... J.. I j!
USo...!l L.... ;'.."";::,::_e,'"tIIC"'_,-:,-.:,:,:,j,8B set.....!: E... i'
In addition to all anolicable standards and orovisions ~Iatin~
develooment in Sorinl.'field. anv deve)ooment adiacent to the
McKenzie River or McKenzie River rioarian setback shall orovide
public access to the McKenzie River or McKenzie River rioarian
setback. Surface oarkiDl' areas shall not be visible from the
McKenzie River corridor and shall be screened from oublic streets.
II
I.
. Add new Residential Element PoIicyaild Implementation Actionl2.5: .j
. I
MU districts within the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR Site ~hall
meet the orovisions of SDC Article 40. 11
,I
'I
!i
I
I.
Within the city limits at the McKenzie-Gate'Wav MDR il
Subarea. the Medical Services ("MS") zonine district shall
imnlement the Community Commercial desilmation if ~art of
an annroved MlIliter Plan for develonment of a maior medical
facility. The adonted Master Plan shall demonstrate that the
subiect orooertv will be able to accommodate the number of
housin!!" units within the rane-e for the MDR laud use ]1
desilmation in the Metro Plan and Gatewav Refinement Plan.
Date Re!eived:
Planner: 'iAL
II
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
"
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 12.4:
Add new ~esidential Element Policy and Implementation Action 12.6:
Page 7 of 13
III Of 05
'f PJ. /J-01J'l
/ I
ATTACHMENT 4 - 7
. ,
II
I.
il
In addition to mr.etim. the standard.. of the SDC. at the time of
Master Plan ann~v~i. the Citv Co~ciI mav attach snecmc.
. conditions on all develonment within the MS or MUC zOnes
includinl!" but uot limited to buildin... heil!ht and'setbaclU,
- II
. Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.0: il
'I
I
A CDP UF Master Plan shaD be approvcd-..nnder a TypeJI-IV
review process, for the areas lai-!!"er than 5 acres within the citv
limits at ".,C'r r"l-M the "McKenzie-Gateway MDR Site" on
the Refinement Plan diagram. subseouent to annexatioJ'and
prior to ., .,,'" ""atiUB aBd urban development of any portion of
the-site Master Plan area. .
Delete 13.1 Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.1: .
Ii
"
The C~- shaD lJ.":"" :.:..-...~"JltiUB ufa CD' lJy JI .",.,.;~, n92, IIBd
shaD appruve .II CDP DU IateF thllB July 1, 1993. In the i,-o'" C'".. , a CUP
may lJe ".1,...Ated hy the initial L.,.J....._ ah puriiUB ~fthe site. f.
~ ;~;~..;Ild CDP shaD invul. . :":.:.oIt frum the affeeted!prul'erty
. .. Ill"' Ii
ww::aers, .:....... .i"l"lo.Vf':'~""''';.e pu Ie ":"6 ...:.c.,...:..'.....r.
. Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.2:
The CDP shalllJ.. ...-.......-.H",. ..~. .c..gineer, _d UDe uf ~e
t< II . h" I d" '" I,
U lIWmg: aD are lieet, aD ........ ....-.........teel ".- p_...,,-~g
t< . I .,
pFe e5518B8 . '
. A Master Plan for the McKenzi~G!'.t~av MDR site sb~1I be
urenared bv a desil!ll team that shaD include. as determined bv
the Director. the foDowin!! consultanls: architect. IandsCane
. architect. civil enl!ineer" l!eotechnical enl!ineer. acoustic'l
~m~ineer. certified arborist. transnortation emrineer and a
consultant to address rinarian issues. il
Amend GRP Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.3!
ii
. All development within the McKenzie Gateway MDR Site,
shall be consistent with an approved (;I)ILMaster Plan,i! AD
. . .
al'PF6ved CD' may lJe mudified IIy tho :":~:...HJev 1. 'i: ,....
,
sulJsel:jBent dcvti9Jlef', UF the Cit)., uDdeF 8 Type n FeView .
pFoe~s. ~
ATTACHMENT 4 - 8
. j.
Date, ReCeiV$d:_~~/J-a1
Planner: AL .ii
II
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
I!
~
Page 8 of 13
1/10/05
- ,
, ,
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.4:
The CDP In addition to the relluirements of SDC Article 37,
the Master Plan shall address, at a minimum, the foDo'lring
I'
development issues: Ii
a) Preservation and enhancement of natural assets identified in
this Refinement Plan; Ii
b) Access and circulation needs; ,
c) Access to arterial and coDector streets;
d) Provision of public facilities and services;
e) Development needs of future users; :i
~ L, ,,' ,~':; ",. af Breas l&Fger thBa aae Ber, 'i: ''i ,~>r..~
uses, iBeludiB.." ,:.,llIJar-llaod e "".", ", 9aI; Ii
fg) Provision of open space areas;. and '
g1t) Public access to the McKenzie River,
Amend Residential Element Policy and Impleme!ltation Action 13.5:
,.
. Ii.' r L. ..., I "DP 6' L + .., I ..:<:.. .
..'JIll ea.".....~ ..IlF t..e mh,a ~ OF .OF so..._a..B mo~~.~",,-~~.Il-lHI
approved COP In addition to the reouirements of SDO Article 37, the
initial Master Plan aonlication in the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR site
shaD include a conceotual street man and bicvcle and nedestrian
circulation system ulan for aU annexed nronertv in the McKenzie-
Gatewav MDR site and shall be exempt from the requirements of.
" .
Section 3.0S0(2)(b) ofthe SDC, "
Delete Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.6:
The CDP shaD t. ..,,-~~teat ~ith the gaals _d palieies!:afthe MetFe
Flaa aad of this Refiaemeat P.faa.. i
!i
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.6:
Page 9 of 13
1/1 0/05
,
. . ~
Master Plan annlications for nronertv within the McKenzie-Gatewav
MDR site submitted Drier to the City's comnletion ofnOclal
develonment assessment and imnlementation shaD identirv aD areas
within oue-ouarter mile oforooosed transit stations as bein!!: subiect
to the nrovisious of the Nodal Develoomeut Overlav DiStrict (INDO)'
Anv nronosed uses. density and desien in the ideutified:uodal
develooment area shall comoJv with the standards of Surinl!field
Develonment Code articles 40 and/or 41 with the followinl! excention:
Uses in the MS and MUC Districts may be exemoted from soecific
nrovisions of Articles 40 and Articles 41 and residential and !!FOD,\!
care facilities in the MDR district maY be exemnted from snecific
Drovisions of Article 41 if the resDec~e exemotions are consistent
'I
II
Date Re6eived:_~~/aO""7
Planner: II AL .
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
ATTACHMENT 4 - 9 I
.1
, ,
II
with the Pumose of the Nodal Develooment Overlav Diiltrict and the
exemntions are annroved bv the City Council as nart of a master nlan.
In the event that the City Council determines that nodal develonment
is annronriate for the identified nodal area. the nronerty shall be re-
desilmated to INDO and all subseouent land use aonlications shall
comolv with INDO standards contained within articles 40 and/or 41.
excent as exemoted above. In the ev'?~t that the City Council
determines that nodal develonment is inanoronriate for areas
identified as snch on the master olan. those areas shall he chanl!ed
throul!h a Tvue II orocess to reflect the underlvinl'! MSror MUC
zoninl'! and any use. density or desilm on the master nlan that does not
comnlv to underlvin!! zonin!! desilmation shall be cham!ed
accordinl'!lv. All subseouent land use aonlications shaIi1comolv with
the standards reouired in the und. :,', J! zoninl'! district.
'I
I
"
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.7:
Page 10 of 13
1/10/05
'I
II
Master Plans for orooertv at the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR site that
pronose to aonlv the MUC and/or MS zoninl'! district O:ursuant to
Residential Policies and Imnlementation Actions 12.1 and 12.6 shall
be subiect to the followin!! reouirements:
I . .
1. An anproved trip W,onitorin~ \)lan shall be a reouir~ment of
Master Plan aDDroval. II
2. The tri,,? m~!Iitori.J:I,~ I]'",n shall demonstrate comoli~ce with all
conditions .contained within aoolicable olan amenmnent adontion
ordinance{ s). and trio-I'!eneration estimates shall be 'nerfonned
usinl'! assumntions and methods which are consistent with those
emnloved in the olan amendment traffic imoact anaivsis.
if
3, Traffic ..enerated b~ land uses within the Master Pll. boundaries
where the MS and MUC zonin!!" districts that are orooosed in
Phase 1 ofthe Develonment shaD. nrior to 2010. he limited to a
maximum of 1.457 vehicle trios. Bel'!inninl'!'in 2010 for Phase 2 of
the Develooment.. traffic !!"enerated from site develo1?ment within
the subiect districts shall be limited to 1.840 PM Peak-Hour
vehicle trios. Vehicle trios are defined as the total of enterinl'! Dlus
exitin~ trill \ as estimated or m'?2sured for the PM pl\ak Hour of
Adiace~t Str~t Traffic:, This trio monitorin!!" Dlan limits allowed
land uses tll be ~onsisteqt with the olanned function!lcapacitv and
oerforma~~e ~fu~dards 'of affeded transDortation facilities. '
, 1
4. Subseouent Site Plan Review aoolications for sites Jithin the
Ma~t'?r Plan. ~oundaries shall be in comoliance withithe aooroved
trin monitorinl'! nlan.,
ATTACHMENT 4 -10
Date RecJived:-=Lbh.ooL
Planner: AL II
,
O~INANCE NO. 6109
I
!
. ,
. ,
".
"
i
Ii
. 1
5, Anv orooosal that would increase the number of allowable PM
Peak-Hour vehicle trio. for the MS and MIle area beYond the
limits soecified in secti~~'3above shall be o-~cessed'ias a
ref"mement olan amendment. a zoninl! mao amendnlent or Master
Plan aooroval oursuant to SDC 37.040 or modification oursuant
to SDC 37...040 and ~7.060(3) and r~anlless of which type of
process is soul!ht. each shall demonstrate compliance with
aoolicahle orovisions oCthe Tnmsoortation Plannin, Rule for
such oroDosaL I!
I!
Delete Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action'14.0 throu~ 14.8 (no
change since April 21, 2003 Council approval): ':
'I;
~ - .
l4,'I 1_ ~lWclopnieot Area PlaB (DA},) shall be a..",. ,:'J, UBdeF'~
"
TYJle n Fe\<iew ....".....lS, priOF to deveL . """.', .,... "."..tH'". '''''.,'
"'6~6~ 61 tile aF~, =~~r2d as the "MeK.eee Catewa~IMl)R S~e': OB
the Refi , ,.. ",.1 PlaB Dla... .UII, llBd sh&ll Bot beappr8\',:d lIoless It III
ellDsisteotwitk liD _'. .,..ed CDP, The iBteBt lIftlle DAf is tll provide
FesllllltillB lIf siguifieaut develllpmest is.:~,:,,:; iI:. iHie.f: ,,,;'..illevelllf
speeificity that ...... ;"~IlFlliediate to the CD}' aDd Site Plilu levels. .\II
OAP's shall ellufeFfll to the foDlIwiBg FeqlliFcmeots: Ii
11.1 Th:\P's sh&ll addFess tile felllmiBg development is~lIes, at a
"
i ,;.:;; ~ ~:;:;.::: f II
lI.) . l'.,.,.:"':,~ 1If.a;\"....."L. .:'eulatillu fllrthe DeveJ,, .." ,,.' Af"eajlDd
"'::l a; If
:... .... ." I d' ~ r . .. Ud." ..
nor.:.;..;. ::J:~::,.e; 'i: ;-'r ..::-~-:,..J, IRe u ma;; 1:I...~!-..:..a.8B 8a.ne-t 8~ "'ay &OF
futuR stFeeb aBd patkwll)'s J",.,,~ ,""-tbe-.,..."" ,.,] CDP;
II) P:-lY.<isillu lIfeooFtliBated enellsiou of pllblie facilities t J ~ ".J,a4IJe
site aod SUFr8uudiBg prepemes; lIBd ii,
to) :",,~.......u....1iou, tll the muimum eIteut praeticable,',ef],.."" .., I
asset.. :ilt....:-Jied iB tIIis RefiBemeDt Piau, 8Bd ou tile ". .~,,,,, d CDP.
I f"2 DAP's shaD iBeltlde the feDlA\'iB.;; :".C::c"."..;'.::".,-lIf, ,',,,',,:,,, IBH
. !
"
All sigflifiesut site fl..L......., iBeludiB.;; L~:".agewa.>'s, .",':'::"g
-:egetMioB, BBd etker Bstunll 8:S5ets as i": ..~~-:.:ied is tIlis'&ert., ..::: ...:::t
PItmt "
Prepllsed buildiBg fe, "~;.,,~ .
PF8J18sed apeD spaees aDd laBL.! ~c 'r ed-.l-:.-........~,. l~ .
EllgiBeeriBg studies of aay id "~.'":;; "J ulltu.ml kHBFds, e;g., fllF
tJ" ,. L." ,..t withiB the 199 yeaF fllllldplaiB; P-Foposed Jeeess aod .
eireulatiOB, iBeludiBg FlIads, dm...., P"Ic:Utig aRBs, Bud bieyele aDd
........J'"'~., ... ,l.., ,,~,,".' lIBd &II ,:.', .... ,. ..L . .' J land uses !!
P"~' --'_.-1".......... 'oJ , .~- ""'r" ~c."'''' .'1
Page 11 of13
1/10/05
11..3 Hthe IMP ellmplies with aU Site PIau Rel'iew s ".,h:".~J of the
SDC, subs,., ,,,; .....~""itted UGe5 that eoufoFfll tll the D..\:P shall U8t
. d" . I 't I '. ffk'" , ,.!! " .
FeqUH'CB ".",",' slepauRnclI, DlSlmp ',......>.... ,...,"~
,,,J.. ""J"'";;'"..,,...,,, ...""
. iBteDded t8 simplif}'. tile devel , ,; ::,. "," apprllnl preeess tror large,
Ii
ATTACHMEN~ 4 -11
Date F'{eC~ived:-$2/cfoo/
Planner: AL / .
II
ORDINANCE NO, 6109
,ii
"
ii
, ,
"
phased de\'elopmcIIL ~~' I':lIowiBg a stUlieieBtIy detailedl DAP to meet
, ,
,beth DAP ud Site PI",," .~;,,,:,.",,"..eBts,) il ,
1~.4 nAP's shaD be eOBsisteBt with the appl'8Ved CDP;'IIBd
with the policies of the Metro PIIIB aBd of this Refi" "", ;" .
. .1'
PISB. i
1~.s Site Plus fer pemoBs of a developmeBt area shall
ee&f",,,, .,itIHHt-",,,,,,,ed D.'\P, providctl, n""" 'n.~
the D.\}> may b , "',' j.]LJ-its-" "'" .,"lJetl- '", :", .'. ;. ,,: 91tstioB
~ ."
aeHOB 11.6. ' II
14.6 SuhstsBtiaL , Clff..,jeBs efD,\}>'s shaD be Fffie.Jed
""l., Tytte II pre,."IL..f, iB aee~.II....eewith !.rtiele3 ~fthe
8DG II
1 ~.7 1-1 ,,,,,',,,:,,,,, II. De-,e1epmeBt Area fer MDR de.:..-..I~,,~.j :::--....: .lhsll
" '
lJe S S€RS. '. ~.
1 VI The miBimum sUe fer DevelepmeBt Areas may be
reduced, if ,I 'r r ";' ,ed by the DevelopmeDt Seniecs DiFe~or,
L,", ::",: Juw iBstll"".,. ,,;here iDsufiieieBt """""l~ II
L' .. I t fi" 1 . " . ti
8WB...:':J,I1:':i- i-...........ems, 8 eaB .,:.:,-,:.:.:.,MJ-;-tl.-.L ';,-.:.;.Bg: e:BS mg-
L't., Ii-' E 1st hi S II
usespr<....-.-..Il0BSa .;'''',,,,00 paree olle evell lleFf
Bevel; r" ,,,.t ,."Fell. I!
!i
Amend Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 15.1 :!I
, I
. ,I
Development denSIty may be transferred from natural assets
and recreational pathways identified in the Natnrill AsS:~ts,
Open Space/Scenic Areas, and Recreation Element, or VOm
proposed shared open spaces, to buildable portions of t~e
development area, provided that the gross density ofth~
development area does not exceed 29 d&!ll, aud the Bet ~eIIsity
OB the huildahle pOmOD da.... ..,,~ .....,,,:d 2S duls the maxunum
'density oermitted in the underlvinl! zone. Ii
"
"
Add new Residential Element Policy and Implementation Action 19.0:
Page 12 of 13
1110/05
Densitv bonuses aUowed under Residential EIemeot
Jmnlementation ,A,ctioos !~_1 and 16.3 mav be aUowed
coosistent with an aonroved Master Plan nursuant to SDC
~cIe 37 within the McKenzie-Gatewav MDR Site. Ii
Ii
Amend Commercial Element Policy and Implementation Action 5.0 (re~ed since April
21, 2003 Council approval): ' II
"
I:
Provide for future a, _ c, .riatelv nlanoed 1\fiI:ed Use. C~mmunitr
Commercial and nodal develoument rlesil.'Dated areas BcigllhBFhaod
"..,.,;;., ","""Hl" ",I,r:';;~Bt iB the Medillm Density ResideBtial
~ .
tIe'I'eI~r"'"""~ ""._st of Game Farm Road, within the City Limits at
!I
II
. '!/ /
DatE> t{eceived: ~/:;')/;)do,r
Planner: AL !!
. !I ORDINANCE NO. 6109
II
i ~
ATTACHMENT 4 - 12 II
, ,
il
I!
,
II
Ii
"
Ii
"
I
!,
the McKenzie-Ga: _ JJ ". ~R. ~11~~ as identified in TransPlan as
potential nodal develooment sites. II
Amend Commercial Element Policy and Implementation Action 5.1:
No mori! than 3 aeres ofNC uses esn he zoned L r~d of the Medium
Density Residential area, TilL. ......,..:.... .I"".JI-ttet-t, ""..~":..'ed until at.
least 23 pefeeat ef the Ilnueipated tetal dWI'IIhg uails ift the aRB are
.....""...~........:ed, The Deigkhemeed .,""." ,-,illl area shaD he sited iB a
leeatL, /,~:..,.:: presented the les~t tmflie, Daise, aDd Ii~'/,,;; ~onf1iets
with iulja......... .-..~:AeDUalllses, (Pl.... ..aLj iw/entoried iB tile Histerie
. ,
Rcsourees Elemeat..... ~:.,...:.aesDt.reseul...w .......2Y he re5lieoed to NC aDd
lH.. .." """'r: fl'omthis pI'O'li5iOD.) Rezonin!!: of land within the city
limits at tbe McKenzie-Gatewav MDR site to Mixed Use Commercial
("MUC") and Medical Services ("MS,,) shall be allowed to imolement
. the Mixed Use and/or C~1!!!!!lli'.itv Commercial ulan dciimations. .
Zone chan!!:es sball demonstrate tbe. abi6tv to meet the demand for
commercial lands identified in the Sorimmeld CommerCial Lands
Study (SCLS) oolicv I-B, 'Commercial uses allowed in ionin!!: districts
Dursuant to GRP Policv 5.0 above shall be subiect to Master Plan
llDDroval and sball be nlanned in a manner to minimize:iraffic. noise,
and Ii!!:htin!!: conflicts with adiacent residential uses,
Amend Transportation Element Policy and Implementation Action 13.0:
Future transportation system development in the McKenzie-Gateway
Campus Industrial and the 180 acre MDR sites should Jccur as
needed in conjUnction with CI and MDR, MUC and MS development.
II
Amend Public Facilities Element Policy and Implementation Action 2.2: :r
I'
,
Require the consideration of the use of storm drainage facilities that
store and retain runoff in the McKenzie-Gateway Campus Industrial
site, and within tbe citv limits in the i: ,C'" ,jed MDR al'~ east "~:-,,,,,,, ~
FaFfB Road SOHth McKenzie-Ga:..."." MDR Site. Req~ire the
consideration of tbe use and enhancement of Datural sto~ water
drainage features as part oftbe overall storm water syst~ms in those
,
areas. !i
ATTACHMENT 4 -13
Ii
Date ReJeived: r~~or
Planner: !iAL
II
~
ORDINANCE NO. 6109
II
"
I!
Page 13 of 13
1/10/05
.~ i ,- "\-1
tP $ ~~~ :
C ij '~:~
,?4~.. . '~"
"11:t '1'~
jp\: J,__, \
Im61~M<U! U I ..... '~'>.
~----~, 9
S" I
. ~ \r.!~1L.lJ-:
~ -I ,:
. fJ ') --"I'
\ j
\<
\"
\" .,""""""'..
\l _
-'10 <
:E~ TransPlan
Legend
Potential
Nodal Development Areas
for the
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
o Nodal Development Areas
". Urban Growth Boundary
,'(
ArenldentlfledunodaldsveloprnllnlllreUartlCOn5idllrM
tONwllpolllntlll!forlhlll type or land ulle pat\ern, Olher
are.. not dlldgnatotd for nod.1 dlllYlllcpmenl msy ..10;" be
found to h8V1l potllnllal lor nodlll d""lIloprn.mt.
~
t-'J
t-'J
~
n
~
::s:
t<:l
Z
t-'J
U1
I
f-1
"tIO
-Ill
Ill_
~
.+.
Scale
,
o
lmll8
I
2 mlles
Note: Thismllp is ilIuslr/ltiVll IIndshould be used for
relerenceonly. The map depict5 apprOl(imllteloclltlons of
existingllndproposedpl.lblicflllciliticsllndlllnduses.
;(/i .
,t'",'
,~"I "Ioi....
December 2001
MdPI""dll,,,,jby l,,,,,,C,,,,,,wllll("""""',,,.,,I'
" ,
att6a email from OlCO.txt
~!
I:
"
. ,l
From:. MaTT Gregory
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:48 AM
TO: ,LIMBIRO Andrew
subject: FW: springfield.PAPA 001-09:
'"
Amending Gateway Refinement plan
I'
II
Andy, II
Go ahead and place the email train from Ed into the record. wherever your staff
report menti ons II
correspondence or comments from the public and interested parties be sure and
identify that OlCO
reviewed this proposal and had no comments.
gmott
From: Ed Moore [mailto:ed:w.moore@state.or.us]
sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 9:40 AM
To: MaTT Gregory; MOORE Edw' (OR)
Cc: lIMBIRO Andrew
subject: RE: springfield PAPA 001-09: Amending
. "
Gateway Ref1nement plan
Greg, .
your correct, Gloria's comments are directed at Exhibit B.
we have
no comments on the proposed PAPA.
Ed
Given,l your cl ari fi cation,
]1
,I
'I
I
.,1
I
Cheers,
Ed Moore AICP
So willamette valley
Regional Representative
OlCO springfield office
644 A street
Springfield, OR 97478
971.239.9453
ed.w.moore@state.or.us I www.oregon.gov/lCO
>>> On 2009.03.23 at 15:47, in message
<C1E102BFOOE40040BA644474C38411A605AOB78801@spifs030.springfield1.net>,
MaTT Gregory <gmott@ci. spri ngfi e 1 d. or. us> wrote: II
Edh. k f h . . 1" "I. h
T an s or t e opportun1ty to reV1ew G or1a s 'comments. I m assum1ng er comments
adre d h. b' ' . . f d d hili h. b' .
1 recte at EX 1 1t B 1n our not1ce 0 propose amen ment. T at ex 1 1t 1S an
ordi nance, II .
adopted by council in 2005 as part of a remand ordered by lUBA on a proposal to
amend ]1
the Gateway Refi nement pl an to allow the development of the Ri ve"rBend campus. we're
,I'
"
not proposi ng to change any of that ordi nance; we provi ded it as', context to the one
policy in I:
that document that requires this site to be redesignated for nodal development. we
I'
are not. J
proposing to change the distribution of the underlying zoning nor are we proposing
mi.
change the permitted uses except to prohibit some commercial act~vities that are
currently Ii
permitted but will be. prohibited upon redesignation as nodal overlay. Thanks
again. f
Greg Mott Ii
page 1
ATTACHMENT 6 - 1
i,
Date R~teived:J'4'~/dOqz
Plal1llAd AI 1--'- .---..
"II ..-
, ,
ii
, " ,
me know if you would like me to submit
Ii
I
:1
1/"
. I
Reflnement
"
,
:i
Ii
these
plan
att6a email from DLCD.txt
From: Ed Moore [mailto:ed.w.moore@state.or;us]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:31 AM
To: MOTT Gregory
subject: Fwd: springfield PAPA 001-09: Amending Gateway
Greg,
AS we discussed, let
part of .
the official record. don't see any of them as deal stoppers; but per our no
surprises
agreement and given the late date that I received them I don't feel the need to
submi t them if 'I
they would delay your adoption. I:
Ii
Ii
suggestions as
Ed
Ed Moore AICP
So willamette valley
Regional Representative
DLCD springfield Office
644 A Street
springfield, OR 97478
971. 239.9453
ed.w.moore@state.or.us<mailto:ed.w.moore@state.or.us>
www.oregon.gov/LCD<http://www.oregon.gov/LCD>
>>> On 2009.03.20 at 12:26, in
Gloria
Gardiner wrote:
Hi, Ed. sorry my comments are
message <49C38B8A. 6954. OOFC. 001 cd ". state .or. us>,
so .late.
Monday
3/23 is the fax aeadline.
II
[ ] is a sugge~ted deletion; a
My comments are on the
sug!Jested
addltion is in bold.
Residential Element policy and Implementation Actions II
Action?: I recommend revising as follows to ensure consistency:; with ~oal
10: HOUSl ng, " '.
OAR 660, division 8, and the needed housing statutes in ORS chapter 197:
"Ensure av~ilability of [adequate] needed supplies of land for lbw-. medium-, and
hi gh- ,;
density residential development while allowing for an appropriate mix of commercial,
amendments in Exhibit B.
employment and residential uses."
"Adequate" is too vague and undefined. This policy should be cl!,!arly consistent
~tl i
springfield's obligation to ensure a supply of land in the UGB to meet the housing
needs of "
all of its residents according to its housing land needs analysis.
I recommend revising ,the last sentence
Action 12.6:
the
Goal
10:Housing, OAR 660, division 8, and the needed housing
"
as follows for consistency with
i,
statutes in ORS chapter
II
197: .
"In addition to meeting
approval, the
city council may attach
II
the standards of the SDC, at the time 0~1 Master plan
specific conditions on all development within the MS
Page 2 '"
or MUC
ATTACHMENT 6 - 2
Date Receiv~d:
Planner: AL
'I/).)/~"9
I
~,' ','
att6a email from DLCD.txt
zones including but not limited to building, height and setbacks. The standards,
conditions, '
and procedure for needed housing shall be clear and objective and shall not have the
effect, ' II
either alone or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable
cost 0;' i!
delay. "
11
standards and conditions
Ii . .
area. As wrltten, lt
I
any standards and impose any conditions on!1 needed housing
II
This policy should
that city
council may impose
suggests
that the city may use
development.
make clear that there is a limit on the
on approval of needed housing in this plan
Acti on 15.1:
density on.
development sites that contain
that
housing units may be moved from unbuildable Goal 5 resource area~, . recreational
pathways, or shared open space, to buildable areas of the development, at the same
maximum density as the base zone. However, unless the city re-zones more land in
the Il
development area to residential, there is no place to put the transferred units; the
buildable "
part of the site can currently be developed up to the maximum density for the base
zone. il
The only way to truly transfer density from one part of a site to another is to take
the .,
calculated number of units for the unbuildable area and transfer them to the
buil dab 1 e area, "
which means allowing a higher density in the buildable portion df the site (i.e.,
clustering :
the allowed housing on the buildable portion of the site and preserving the
unbuildable !
portions from development), so that the site's overall density doesn't fall below
the base Ii
zone standard. This is what some cities' PUD regulations do. <;
AS drafted, this "density
I
transfer" provision decreases residential
.! '
natural resources or open space. The policy provides
Gloria Gardiner I urban planning specialist
planning services Division
oregon'Dept. of Land conservation and Development
635 capitol Street NE, Suite 150 I Salem, OR 97301-2540
office: (503) 373-0050 ext. 282 I Fax: (503) 378-5518
gloria.gardiner@state.or.us<mailto:gloria.gardiner@state.or.us> "
www.oregon.gov/LCD<http://www.oregon.gov/LCD> '
page 3
"
Date R~ceived:_lI~~U9
Planner: AL r-"<
!f
ATTACHMENT 6 - 3
.. .
att6bemai1 from bonnie u11mann.txt
From: Bonnie ullmann [u11mann@uoneuro.uoregon.edu]
sent: wednesday, April 08, 2009 11:48 AM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
subject: planning Case LRP 2009~00001
Dear Mr. L i mbi rd and members of the p1 anni ng Commi ssi on and ci ty:! counei 1 ,
I'
I would like to lend my support to implementing a Nodal Deve10pm~nt overlay
District for any portions of the Gateway Refinement plan area. In particular,
at this time, I support the overlay on the southern portion of the peaceHealtli
property. !'
My reasoning for support of this planning designation is that I believe it .
will lend a more viable commercial and residential area in the long run. It
will benefit the Game Farm Neighbors area by implementing design! standards for
commercial land. This will improve the overall liveability of the Game Farm
area by addressi ng traffi c issues and communi ty cohesiveness. ,:
An attractive and viable development plan will go a ways towar~ compensation
of the Game Farm neighborhood for the great increase in popu1atipn; traffic
and decreased attractiveness of our properties since the boom in' development
interests in our home area.
I have been educating myself by having participated in springfield eitizen
planning committees that addressed the idea of nodal development' in our
neighborhood. I believe nodal development to be a tremendous strate9Y for
long-term, far-reaching good planning that ultimately will be behefleia1 to
the Game Farm Neighbors area. I sincerely believe that the long' term
residents of the area should have the advantage of city planning' that
demonstrates foresight at this point in time. "
Springfield's commitment to nodal development is very encouraging and I am
fully behind the concept. please let me know if I can help in the process.
please add my support to the written record for the public heari'hg.
]!
sincerely,
Bonnie ullmann
Bonnie ullmann
u11mann@uoneuro.uoregon.edu
3350 oriole Street
springfield, OR 97477-7551
USA'
541-520-0921 Mobile
541-747-7580 Message/home
541-747-7580 FAX
541-346-4506 work
Page 1
. !I
Date R~ceived:_4'" b ~t19
Planner-: AL I 70'
ATTACHMENT 6 - 4
"'",.; .~,.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF NODAL DESIGNATION
(
(
(
(
(
RECOMMENDATION TO
THE'ICITY COUNCIL
"
Case Number: LRP2009-00001
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed Metro Plan amendment will implement a Nodal Development OJerlay District (NDOl
designation for approximately 170 acres of the Riverbend area of northwest Springfield, which
includes the existing Sacred Heart Medical Center and campus. The NDO designation will be
supplementary to the current commercial, mixed use, and medium density residential zoning for the
subject area. 1'1'
I.
j .
1. The above referenced plan amendment action was initiated by the City Council upon adoption of
the amended RiverBend Master Plan in June, 2006. Timely and sufficient ~otice of the public .
hearing, pursuant to Springfield Development Code Section 5.2-115, has ~en provided.
2. The plan amendment action is consistent with provisions of the adopted Mitro Plan, TransPlan
and Gateway Refinement Plan as described in the attached staff report. I, ^b A
, Tl :tEb. .,..
3. On April 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regardirig the proposed pla'rieeoI7N6,
amendment. The Development Services Department staff notes and recommendation together /
with the oral testimony and written submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been
considered and are part of the record of this proceeding.vpo_ I! V
4.~ l"C- . .__.~ -+U ~+ :ivM.~ k..- t~~"-'t,~ 0+
CONCLUSI~N ~~:':'J ti:'r~ ....:.- +L.. G~,,-\ -- 'hc-L ~ hM_ s~ te. ,
-tL...- ~ W\ I ( '''' -h {L'-Q..~ f~ ,\:0; a ,.j",.(..,{' ~.21't'''''':~-\- c.-s ;s-f~f """+1...
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendment is consistent with theCr1terfa ofSDC Section
5,14-135~C.1&2. This general finding is supported by the specific findings offact and conclusion in
the Staff Report and Findings.. .. ~~ &-....J tvz"" t.A. f{",--
RECOMMENDATION ,~'+"""':"'=#:n
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve;the plan amendment.
as recommended herein, Case Numbe~ LRP2009-00001, at their May 18, 200~ meeting,
Planning Commission Chairperso:h
"
ATTEST:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Date f\eceived:
Planner: AL
if IJJ./ Joo?
I '1/
I
ii
"
,
i;
II
,I
II
II
Page I of1
Planning Cammissian Order
LRP20()9-{)0001
April 21, 2009
ATTACHMENT 7 - ,
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIEl,D
,.
~ :
METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT
IMPLEMENTATION OF NODAL DESIGNATION
RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL
Case Number: LRP2009-00001
(
(
(
(
(
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed Metro Plan amendment will implement a Nodal Development Overlay' District (NDO) designation
for approximately 170 acres of the Riverbend area of northwest Springfield, which includes the existing Sacred
Heart Medical Center and campus. The NDO designation will be supplementary to the current commercial,
mixed use, and medium density residential zoning for the subject area." .
1. The above referenced plan amendment action was initiated by the City Council upon adoption of the
amended RiverBend Master Plan in June, 2006. Timely and sufficient notice of {he public hearing,
pursuant to Springfield Development Code Section 5.2-115, has been provided...
2. The plan amendment action is consistent with provisions of the adopted Metro Plan, TransPlan and
Gateway Refinement Plan as described in the attached staff report.
3. On April 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the~proposed plan
amendment. The Development Services Department staff notes and recommendation together with the
oral testimony and written submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing hal{e been considered and
are part of the record of this proceeding. .'
. "
4. On the basis of testimony submitted at the April 2.1, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing, the
Planning Commission recommends that upon subsequent requests for annexation of remaining property in
the McKenzie-Gateway MDR site, the City will initiate the amendment process for nodal development
consistent with RiverBend Master Plan Condition #12. .
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendment is consistent with the criteria of SDC Section 5.14-
135.C.1&2. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and cOI"]c1usion in the Staff Report
and Findings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve the plan amendment as
rerommood,d h,re;, 0... N"mu27~::,~;,g ,
/ .J'Sla"nning Cjjmmission Chairperson
ATTEST:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
!'i
~
:J...
n
Date Received:.~i/f"';~_
Planner: AL '/ " ..
"Page 1 of I
Planning Commission Order
LRP2009-00001
April 21, 2009 .
,
".