HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6035 12/09/2002
.
.
.
...
ORDINANCE NO.
(REGULAR)
6035
AN ORDINANCE REZONING TAX LOT 500, ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-02-31, FROM LIGHT'-
MEDIUM AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (5.1 ACRES)
AND PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE (29.24 ACRES) CONSISTENT WITH THE
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS
PROPERTY.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
A. Article 12 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for zone change.
B. On March 11, 2002, the Springfield City Council initiated the following Metropolitan Plan
diagram amendment and zone change:
Redesignate 35 acres from Light-Medium and Heavy Industrial to Community
Commercial and Parks and Open Space, concurrent Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan
diagram amendment and concurrent zone changes to Community Commercial and
Public Land and Open Space, Jo. No. 2002-03-0063, Tax Lot 500, Assessor's Map 17-
02-31.
C. On November 19, 2002, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted public hearings to
accept testimony and hear comments on this proposal. After the close of this public hearing the
Planning Commission considered the".test,imQny provided, including the staff report and all
materials submitted in the application. The Planning Commission voted six infayor, none
opposed, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council.
D. On December 2,2002, the Springfield City Council held public hearings on this proposal.
E. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto that the proposal meets the
requirements of Article 12 of the Springfield Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above findings, and the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted.
Section 2: The zoning of the northern 5.1 acres of Tax Lot 500, Assessor's Map 17-02-
31, more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, is hereby changed from Light-Medium and Heavy Industrial to Community
Commercial district, and the southern 29.24 acres of Tax Lot 500, Assessor's Map 17-02-31,
more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is
hereby changed from Light-Medium and Heavy Industrial to Public Land and Open Space
district.
Section 3: 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.
~
.
.
.
, "'"
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of 5 for
and () against this 9th day of December, 2002.
2002.
9th day of December,
ATTEST:
REVIEWED & APPROVED
~:~~O~M,"",~,~
DATE: ---l\~..2A..J..?-_ou~
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
.
.
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
APPLICANT'S Sl'ATEMENT AND PROPOSED FlNDlNGS
FOR PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONlNG
OF ARLIE PROPERTY .
SW~, SECTION 32, T. 17 S., R. 2.2, W.M.
Assessor's Map 17-02-31, Tax Lot 500
L PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant:
'CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Mike Kelly, City Manager
225 Fifth Street
, 'Springfield, Oregon 97477
Ph. 541-726-3700
John Tamulonis
Cqmmunity/Economic Development Manager
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 91477
Ph. 541-726-3656
Fax 541-741-2763
, Attorneys:
JOHNSON & SHERTON, P.C.
Allen 1. J ohilson
2303 S.E. Grant Street
Portland, OR 97214
Ph. 541-687-1004 or 503-233-1533
Fax 503-236-:-8216
e-mail aljohnson@orlanduse.com '
Technical Support
DKS ASSOCIATES
Carl D. Springer, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97201-5502 '
Ph. 503-243-3500
Fax 503-243-1934
Page 1 - Applicant's Statement - Sports C~gIex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
. '
.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
'City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Ph. 541-744-3373
Fax 541-736-1021
Owner:
ARLIE & CO.
Lany Reed, Director of Development
722 Country Club Road,
Eugene, OR 97401
Ph. 541-344-5500
FaX 541-485-2550
Nature of Request:
This is a consolidated application for amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area '
, General Plan Diagram; the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Diagram, and the Springfield Zoning
Code Map for the approximately 34.2-acre site owned by Arlie & Co. (Arlie Property) at 320d and .
Main Streets (State Highway 126).
The redesignations will allow use of approxiffiately 29 acres of the vacant 34.2-acre property for
indoor and outdoor sports facilities and will allow a limited range of commercial uses on the ,
remaining 5.10 acres fronting on Main Street.
Arlie & Company will retain ownership of the commercial site, where it plans to put up to 30,000
square feet ofrriixed-use retail. Arlie will donate 9.75 acres to Broadbase Corporation for a
156,200 square foot indoor sports complex. The remaining 19 A acres will be sold to the City of
Springfield for outdoor recreational facilities including five soccer fields, a.l,200-square foot
picnlc shelter, a 10,000-square-foot KidSports office building, playground, skate park and
outdoor basketball court. '
Legal descriptions of the entire site and the subareas to be redesignated are set'forthin the
attach~d Exhibit A
An aerial photograph qfthe site is attached as Exhibit B.
A Vicinity map is attached, as Exhibit C.
A site map showing existing and proposed plan map designations is attached as Exhibit D.
A site map showing existing and proposed zoning map designations is attached as Exhibit E.
.
Page 2 _ Applicant's Statement ~ Sports Complex Plan and Zone Change ~ October, 2002
1-6, '
.
.
.
A conceptual plan for the Broadbase site is attached as Exhibit F.
A conceptual plan for the City site is attached as Exhibit G.
A conceptual plan for, the Community Commercial site is attached as Exhibit H.
'A site assessment sheet from the 1993 Industrial Lands Inventory is attached as Exhibit I
The May 15, 2002 Notice of Decision fof the Partition Tentative Plan is attached as Exhibit J
The June 12,2002 Notice of Amended Decision for the Partition Tentative Plan is attached as
Exhibit K '
Plan and ZoniI!-g Map Changes:
The specific map changes requested are:
1. Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram
A.. Metro Area General Plan map amendment from HeavyIndustrial and Light
Medium: Industrial' to Community Commercial (CC) for the 5. 14-acre frontage
, area more particularly described in Exhibit A.,
B. Metro Area General Plan map ,amendment from Heavy Industrial and Light
Medium Industrial to Public Land and Open Space for the remainllg
approximate~y 29 acres of the Arlie property, consisting of the 9. 84-acre
Broadbase site and the 19.4-acre City site.
2. Mi~-Springfield Refinement Plan ~ap ,
,3.
A.. Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Map amendment from Heavy Industnal (HI) and
'Light Medium Industrial (LMI) to Community Commercial (CC) for the 5. 14-acre
frontage ,area more particularly described in Exhibit' A
B. Mid-Springfield RefinementPlan Map amendment from Heavy Industrial (HI) and '
Light Medium Industrial (LMI) to Public Land ~d Open Space (PLOS) for the
rest of the Arlie property, consisting of the 9. 84-acre Broadbase site and the 19.4-
acre City site. '
, Springfield Zoning ~ap
A. Springfield Zoning Map amendment from Heavy Industrial (HI) and Light-Medium
, , ,
Page 3 - Applicant's Statement - Sports COIllWe:x Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
Industrial (LMI) to Community Commercial (CC) for the 5. 14-acre frontage area
more particularly described in Exhibit A.
B. Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Map amendment from Heavy Industrial (HI) and'
Light Medium Industrial (LMJ) to Public Land and Open Space (PLOS) for the
rest of the Arlie property, consisting of the 9.84-acre Broadbase site and the 19.4-
acre City site.
Services:
The site is centnilly-Iocated with all city services and facilities available to the site, as follows:
.
Fire:
Police:
Schools:
Phones:
Power:
,Water:
Sewer:
SWDF:
Access:
Springfield Fire Department
Springfield Police Department
Springfield School District
Pacific Northwest Bell
SUB
SUB
At site
Glenwood Receiving Station
Main Street and 32nd Street
ll. TYPE OF PLAN M'lENDMENTS:
This application involves site specific amendment~ to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area Plan
Diagram and the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan.
The Metro Plan Amendment is a ','Type IT' amendment as defined in the Springfield Development
Code at SDC 7.030, because it
a)
b)
c)
d)
,. e)
involves a specific piece of property;
does not change the Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary;
does not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;
. does not require a goal exception;
does not include a non-site-specific amendment of the Metro Plan text.
Springfield is the "Home City" for the proposed amendment, as provided in SDC 7.030 because
Page 4 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Com"QIex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
, 1-Cl
.
the subject site is east ofI-5.
The proposed Metro Plan Amendment'does not have a regional impact, as defined in SDC 7.030
because the amendment
a) does not require the amendm€mtof a functional plan, such as the Public Facilities
Plan, a Natural Resources Function Plan, or TransPlan.
b) does not have a demonstrable impact on the water, stonu drainage, sanitary sewer;
or transportationfaCilities of the City of Eugene.
The subject amendments are site specific Type IT map amendments with no regional
impact as those tenus are defined at Section 7.030 ofihe Springfield Development Code. '
, '
A Type 1 Metro Plari Amendment is
"Any change to the Metro Plan which (1) changes the urban growth boundary or
the jurisdictional boundary .of the Plan; (2) requires a goal exception not related to
a UGB expansion to be taken under statewide planning goal 2; or (3) is a non-site '
specific amendment of the plan text." '
.
A Type IT Metro Plan Amendment is
, '~An amendment to the Metro Plan which is not otherwise a Type,I plan
amendment and which (1) changes the Plan diagram; or (2) is a site-specific Plan
text amendment."
The proposed Metro plan amendments do not change the Metro urban groWth boundary or plan
boundary. They do not require an exception. They are site specific changes to the plan diagram.
SDC 7'.030 provides that Lane County shall participate in "all Metro Plan Amendments outside of
city limits," and that the "non-home City may choose to participate in the site specific amendment
process, excluding amendments within city limits, if the non-home City adopts aresolution
determining that the proposed amendment has Regional Impact." Here, no determination
concerning regional impact is necessary because the site is located well within the city limits of
, Springfj.eld.
SDC 7.070 provides that, "To become effective, a Metro Plan Type II amendment inside the city
limits must be approved by the Home City." The subject amendment is a site-specific Type IT
amendment involving land that is entirely within the city limits of the City of Springfield.
Accordingly, it requires only approval by the governing body of the City of Springfield to become .
effective.
Page 5 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports C~rrwlex Plan and Zone Change - October, 20.02
.,
'.
..
SDC 7.110 provides that
"When a Metro Plan amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a
refinement plan or functional plan diagram map or amendment for consistency, the
Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement plan or
functional plan diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan or
functional plan text is involved. When a Metro Plan diagram amendment requires
a refinement plan or functional plan diagram or map and text amendment for
consistency, the Metro Plan, refinement plan and functional plan amendments shall
be processed concurrently." , '
, In this case, the proposed Metro Plan map amendments will automatically amend the Mid-
Springfield Refinement Plan Map to the same designations. '
ill. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS:
Section 7.010 of the Springfield Development Code provides that Metro Plan amendments shall '
be made in accordance with the standards contained in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and the
provisions of this code." In addition, because this application involves the amendment of
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations, it must comply with applicable
statewide land use goals. ORS 197.175(2)(a);:OpusDevelopmentv. City of Eugene, 28 Or
LUBA 670, 673 (1995).
REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS:
Section 8.030 of the Springfield Development Code requires that, in reaching a decision on
proposed refinement plan amendments, the planning commission and city council "shall adopt
findings which demonstrate conformance with the following:
"(1) The Metro Plan;
"(2) Applicable State Statutes:
"(3) Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules."
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS:
Section'12.030 of the Springfield Dev~lopment Code requires, that, in reaching a decision on
proposed zoning district changes, "the Planning-Commission shall adopt findings which
Page 6 - Applicant's Statement - Sports ComB1ex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
,1-1 '
. .
.
demonstrate that all of the following criteria have been addressed:
"(I) Consistency with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram;
,"(2) Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, special Mea studies, and functional
plans; and ' '
, "(3) That the property can be served by the orderly and efficient extension of key urban
facilities and services as prescribed in the Metro Plan prior to, orin conjunction
with development." ,
IV. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA
STATEWIDE GOAL CONSISTENCY:
The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable goals and interpretive rules as follows: '
GOAL 1- CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT.
"
Springfield has an acknowledged citiz~n involvement program and an acknowledged process for
securing citizen input on all proposed plan and zone changes. Those procedures will be followed
with this application. Opportunities for citizen influence will be availab'le at all stages of the '
subject plan amendment. Concerns raised by the general public will be addressed with findings,
reasons and conclusions: '
.
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING.
Goal 2 requires that I09al comprehensive plans be consistent with statewide 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. '
TheMetro Plan and the Springfield Code, as well as the statewide goal,s and applic~.ble statutes,
provide policies and criteria for the evaluation of plan amendments and zone changes.
Compliance with these measures will assure an adequate factual basis for approval of the subject
amel1dment.
State law requires the city to forward notice of proposed plan and land use regulation
amendments to DLCD at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. ORS
197.610. In addition, LID, LaneCounty, the City ofEugene,LRAPA, and ODOT have been or ".
, will be provided with timely opportunities to comment on the proposed amendments. See
additional discussion in connection with the transportation planning rule, below. The Metro Plan
, Page 7 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports C~I11Illex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
. arid the Springfield Code, as well as the statewide goals and applicable statutes, provide policies'
and criteria for the evaluation,ofplan amendments and zone changes. Compliance with these
measures will provide the requisite coordination and will assure an adequate factual basis for
approval of the subject amendment. The final decision will be based upon substantial evidence in
the record and supported with findings addressing applic3:ble criteria and any issues relevant and
material to those criteria which are raised during the proceedings. '
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LAND.s.
This goal is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural land's and the subject
property is within an acknowledged urban growth boundary. OAR 660-15-000(3). '
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS.
Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries. OAR 660-06-0020. The subject property
is inside an acknowledged urban growth boundary. ,Goal 4 is therefore inapplicable.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND mSTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES
. , Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic, historic, and
natural resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR Ch. 660, Division 16, require
planning jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to
(1) identify such resources:
(2) determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) identify conflicting uses:
(4) examine the' economlc, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) conque~ces that'
Could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the coirllicting uses, and
(5) develop programs to resolve the conflicts.
'No part of the subject site is on any acknowledged Metro Plan Goal 5 inventory. See Map 3,
Metropolitan Area General Plan Background Report and related materials. No threatened or
, endangered species have been found or inventoried on the site. No archeological or historical
inventoried resources are located on the site. An L-COG survey of the site for the 1992
Metropolitan Industrial Lands Study showed that none of the site is constrained by location in a
floodway or flood plain, by severe slopes, by wetlands, by severe soils, by wetland mitigation
sites, by hydric soils, by areas identified as potentially significant riparian or upland resources, or
by location in a greenway. See worksheet for Site 7-19, Main Street and S.,32nd St, in record.
.
The subject property has been planned and zoned for intensive urbandevelopmerit and use since
the Metro Plan and implementing ordinances were acknowledged in 1982. Under the Metro Plan,
inventoried Goal 5 resources on sites designated for urban residential, industrial, and commercial
are protected by a program to, achieve the goal that limits such development by the application of
Page 8 - Applicant's Statement - Sports 'Cf~~Iex Plan and Zone Change - Octoher, 2002
.
protective standards at the time of review of specific development applications where Goal 5
resources have been identified. The current amendment does not alter this acknowledged program
to achieve the goal. ' '
The Environmental Resources Element of the Metro Plan implements Goals 5, 6, and 7 and is
'implemented in turn by Springfield's land use regulations. Objective 2 (po in-C-6) requires the
integration of open space and natural features into the design of urban development. Policies 1, 2,
and 4 (p: III-C-7) require consideration of downstream impacts of development, prohibit
development in the floodway,and require site specific soils and geological studies where potential
problems exist. Policies 18 and 19 restrict development in wetlands areas. Policy 20 encourages
local governments to regulate development in such a manner as to better control drainage, '
erosion, storm runoff and to reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems. ,
These policies are fully implemented by the City of Springfield's adopted and acknowledged
standards and procedures for the subdivision and development orland within the City. '
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
Any development must comply with applicable state and federal air and water quality standards.
Development of the site for com.mercial and recreational use will provide an additional transition
and buffer zone between existing industrial and resid~ntial development near the site. . '
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss of life notbe
planned or located in known areas of natural hazards and disasters without appropriate
safeguards. The goal also requires that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural
disaster and hazards. No part of the subject property is within a 100-year floodplain or floodway, '
on steep slopes or otherwise within an area that has been identified or inventoried as a known area
of natural hazards and disasters. '
GOAL 8 ':' RECREATIONAL NEEDS. '
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." Responsible
governmental agencies must plan to meet these needs (1) in coordination with private enterprise;
(2) in appropriate proportions; and (3) in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with
the availability of the resources to meet such requirements." OAR 660-015-000(8).
Advisory guidelines for meeting Goal 8 encourage planners to give priority in meeting such needs
"to areas facilities and uses that
, "
"(a) meet recreational needs requirements for high density population centers,
"(b) meet recreational needs of persons of limited mobility and finances,
.
Page 9 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports CqmpJex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
"( c) meet recreational needs requirements while providing the maximum conservation
of energy both in the transportation of persons tot he facility or area and in the
recreational use itself,
"(d) minimize envirorunental degradation,
"(e) are available to the public at nominal cost, and
, "(f) meet needs of visitors to the state."
The proposed sports .complex site is located on a key urban arterial close to Downtown
Springfield in one of Oregon's major urban areas. It has ready access to a principal state and local
urban arterial, Main StreetlHighway 126 and from there to the rest of the state via Highway 126,
1-105, and 1-5. Its location just south of East Main Street at 32nd puts it on the main east-west
Lane Transit District bus routes. "
.
The need for additional sports and recreational facilities is identified in the July 24, 1995
SportsPlan" prepared and adopted by the Metropolitan Sports Commission. The Plan was
adopted by the cities of Eugene and Springfield in 1995. The Commission, composed of local
government officials and citiizen members, advises Lane County, Springfield, and, Eugene on ways '
, to improve existing facilities and to create new facilities using public-private partnerships and
other means, and on ways to unify and coordinate activities of the metro area's sports
organizations, venue owners and operators, and event org~ers. The SportsPlan was developed
as "a regional plan for furthering the development of amateur athletics" and includes "a vision for
the preferred future for amateur atWetics as well as strategies for its re?lization."
The Plari found that participation in KidSports,a private, non-profit organization providing a wide
range of competitive sports activities for K-8 age groups, increased rapidly through the mid-
, 1990's, but has had difficulty in continuing to meet growing demand of its expansion in part
because of lack of adequate facilities. '
One of the desired outcomes of the SportsPlan is to enhance the quality oflife in the region by
improving existing facilities and developing new ones. The avaihibility of recreational activities is
identified as being important for a healthy population and for promoting important values and'
qualities in the community's youth, such as life-long learning, teamwork, problem-solving, skill-
building, a positive self-image, and greater self-esteem. Recreational activities also keep youth
busy, providing less time for inappropriate behavior, such as gang involvement. The Plan finds
that a specific weakness of the region is the increasing number of young people who are at-risk
and in need of activity to keep them occupied. The SportsPlan lists Broad Base Program's effort
to establish a sports facility in Springfield as a high priority.to meet the demand for new facilities
to meet these existing and future needs.
.
The need for non-school facilities has become more acute as school districts have cut recreation
and atWetic programs in response to declining revenues and increasing costs. In response to
property tax measures 5 and 47, the Springfield School District has cut numerous recreation and
athletic programs and has instituted or raised participation fees for students. The proposed
Page 10 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Complex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
1-14 ,
.
, ' sports compl~x will help to fill the gap by providing facilities for both' school and non-school
sports activities.
The new facilities will, as required by law, comply with the 1990 Americans for Disabilities Act
for both participants and spectators. Many of the region's older facilities are not fully compliant
For example, Eugene/Springfield has a wheelchair, rugby team and wheelchair basketball teams
that need wheelchair-accessible facilities such as are proposed for the Sports Complex.
The Sports~lan identifies recreational facilities needs based-on a projected 2010 metro
population of275,305. Among other needs, it identifies a need for:
.
.
'15 additional gymnasiums for basketball, volleyball, and other indoor team sports.
15 additional Class I sports fields for soccer and other.sports that use large
outdoor playing surfaces. Of these, eight fields should form a regional cpmplex to
host special- events and tournaments.
15 additional Class II sports fields for softball, youthbaseball, soccer and-other :
~~.
An indoor facility for soccer and other iD.door field sports such as indoor track.
A two~field softball complex in Springfield to accommodate adult and higher-
skilled youth softball
.
.
.
.
In 1992, the ,City of Springfield and theWillamalane Park and Recreation District entered into an
intergovernmental agreement for the planning, development, construction, operation arid
maintenance of a community sports center and park and recreation facility. The agreement
specifies thatthe City will acquire the property for the complex with assistance, cooperation, and '
participation from the District in studies and planning for the complex. Future agreements may
'provide for operation and maintenance of the facility. Willamalane has since expressed its support
, for the concept of contracting with a nonprofit organization to develop and operate the complex.
The proposed plan and zone changes as well as the current cooperative agreements among
Willamalane,the City, Broad Base, and the property owner are consistent with LCDC's
Recreation Goal and Guidelines as well as with the cooperative strategy outlined in the
SportsPlan
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE
LCDC;s Economy Goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
projected commercial and industrial use as follows:
"Goal: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety
of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's
citizens."
.
Page 11 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports <i=J>ffipIex Plan and Zone ehange - October, 2002
.
.
.
In providing opportunities for vital recreational activities, the proposed sports complex will,
provide an opportunity for a key economic activity vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
the region. The Metro Plan's economic development objectives implement LCDC's Goal 9. One
of those objectives is to
"Increase the potential for convention- and tourist-related economic activities." ED
Objective 9.
A related Metro Plan economic development policy is to
"Continue to encourage the development of convention- and tourist-related
facilities. "
One of the goals of Sports Plan is to establish Eugene-Springfield as a widely-recognized location
for a select group of amateur sporting events. Amateur sports tournaments are a significant
magnet for overnight visitors and provide substantial indirect as well as direct economic benefits
to the surrounding area. A study commissioned by the City in 1992 found that a sports facility
hosting tournaments could generate at least $2 million per year in 1992 dollars in direct spending
for lodging, restaUrants and other needs. More recent studies, including one by Broad Base, have
estimated the economic benefits to be much higher, in the range of $30 million per year. Not
surprisingly, the 1995 marketing plan of the Lane County Convention and Visitors Associations
identifies attracting sporting events as a high priority for conventions and visitors to the region.
More generally, LCDC's Economic Develoment Goal requires that
"Comprehensive plans for urban areas shall: . . .
"3. Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and ,service levels for a variety of industri~l and commercial
uses consistent with plan policies; . . ."
"4. Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses
to those which are ~ompatible with proposed uses."
The proposed amendments remove lands from the City's acknowledged inventories ofLMI and
H1v:1I lands. Specifically they redesignate for nonindustrial uses approximately 13 acres ofLMI
'and approximately 15 acres ofHtv.ll These changes are offset by the concurrent redesignation of
22 acres ofPLO lands at the fonner sports complex site at Gateway from PLO and CC to CI..
The proposed amendment also helps to redress an imbalance between commercial and industrial
land. The proposed amendment will move 5.41 acres from the industrial to the commercial lands
inventory. In so doing, it will add to the Metro Plan area's Goal 9 inventory of commercial lands,
which is in short supply compared to the industrial lands inventory. The oversupply of industrial
Page 12 - Applicant's Statement - Sports r~mplex Plan and Zone Change -October, 2002
.
isanecctotally reflected in the fact that the Arlie property has been heavy and light-medium
industrial use since 1983, but has remained vacant not only through the 198'O's but'also through
the 1990's-a period of very strong regional and local economic growth.
The imbalance between commercial and industrial lands is more systematically confirmed b~
comparing recent inventory updates. The three Metro Area planning jurisdictions adopted an
updated industrial lands inventory and related plan text amendments in 1992, with data current
through 1989. Eugene Ordinance 19866, adopted July 17, 1992; Springfield Ordinance 5652,
September 21; 1992; and Lane County Ordinance PA 1022, October 21, 1992. The adopted
inventory was .pub~shed in July, 1993 as the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report
, (1993 industrial lands inventory).
, The 1993 industrial lands inventory identifies 3,,604 acres of "buildable industrial land in the
Eugene-Springfield UGB, out of a total of 4,039 vacant industrial acres." p. 46: The majority of
the buildable acres were plan-designated Light-Medium-Industrial (LMI) (1,430 acres, or 40%) or
Special-Light-Industrial (990 acres, or 28%). p. 46. The zoning allocations roughly corresponded
with the plan allocations.p. 46. Of the buildable acreage, the 1993 industrial lands inventory
, , found that "The largest number of constraint-free acres are designated Light-Nledium (598) and '
Special Light(423)." p. 50 Constraint-free sites were defined as those in private ownership (other
than Eugene's Riverfront Research Park) with adequate street access and no physical' .
constraints.;' p. 50. Of a total of 48 constraint-free sites, half, or 24, were in Springfield.p. 50:
The 1993 industrial lands inventory concludes that "There is a choice of constraint-free sites in all '
regions. These sites are dispersed throughout the Metro area." p. 62. The West Springfield area,
. which includes the Arlie property, was found to have 40 constraint-free sites, 21 percent of the
total Metro area inventory, and to have "the fewest potential constraints and the most constraint-
free sites (20) of all regions." p. 69. See also attached Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special
Study map entitled "Sites in Subregion # 7, West Springfield," showing the Arlie property as Site
7-19. '
Each vacant industrial site in the 1993 inventory was evaluated for constraints and other
characteristics, and the results were reported on site assessment sheets (SAS). The SAS data was
entered into a computer file and aggregated for the metropolitan area, by city, and by region. The
SAS for site 7-19 is attached as Exhibit I hereto. The SAS shows no constraints other than a
possible filled log pond, but also shows that highway access is "poor." The Region 7 analysis in
the 1993 Industrial Lands Study observes that
"All West Springfield [Region 7] sites that are served by Main Street are
considered to have a highway access constraint, due to its distance from limited
access highways. No limited access highways are currently planned or funded for
the region." p. 70
.
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
Page 13 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports '~..Qf1plex Plan and Zone f:hange - October, 2002
.
.
.
LCDC's Housing Goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for needed
housing as follows:
"Goal: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
"Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage
'the availability of adequate numbers of housing ~nits at price ranges and rent levels
which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and
allow for the flexibility of housing location, type, and density."
Th~ proposed redesignations will not add or remove lands from the city's acknowledged Goal 10
inventories, so the Goal is generally inapplicable. On the other hand, the proposed change brings
key recreational resources to the center of the community in close proximity to areas of the City's
most affordable housing. In so ,doing, it helps to enhance and preserve existing neighborhoods
located in close proximity to transit and other community services and facilities. '
,GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
This goal requires the provision ofa timely, 'orderly and efficientarrangeffient of public facilities
and services. '
All urban services needed for the proposed developme~t are available in this fully-
developed and well-served central urban area, including fire and police protection,
parks, sanitary and storm sewers, mass transit, schools, and urban arterial streets.
Water: The proposed development will receive water service from the Springfield Utility
Board. .
Sanitary Sewer: The site is served by a system of gravity pipes ranging in size from 811 to
4211 in diameter., There iS,an existing 42-inch sanitary sewer trunk line located in South
32nd Street which has adequate capacity to serve the development. (See Exhibit J,
attached, Notice of Decision for Partition Tentative Plan, dated May 15,2002, page 10.)
Storm Sewer: There is a storm sewer trunk line in 32nd Street ranging in size from 2711
near Jasper Road to 3611 at Main Street. In the City's Amended Decision for the Partition
Tentative Plan (dated June 10,2002, attached as Exhibit K), the Public Works
Department finds that: "The Public Works Engineering Division has determined that
assigning the excess capacity in the South 32nd Street stormwater drainage system to serve "
the subject site will not materially affect the City's ability to serve the remainder of the
land within the Q Street Drainage Area."
Page 14 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Complex Plan and Zone €hange - October, 2002
1-18 '
.
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION
LCDC's Transportation Goal requires the city to plan and provide for <<a safe, convenient, and
economic transportation system." Goal 12 also sets out numerous requirements for the content of
local transportation plans. As applied to site-specific plan and zoning map amendments, Goal 12
'is satisfied by establishing that development under the proposed plan ,and zoning designations Will
either (1) be served by a safe and adequate transportation system currently in place or planned to
be in place in time to handle' expected impacts, or (2) will not create substantially greater or
different transportation demands and impacts than development under the existing acknowledged
designations. Oregon Dept. of Transportation v. Clackamas County, 27 Or LUBA 141 (1994).
LCDC's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), .set forth at Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter
660, Division 12, implements Goal 12. Most of the TPR deals with the adoption oflocal
government Transportation System Plans (TSPs) and regulations implementing TSPs and,
therefore, does not apply directly to a decision amending comprehensive pfan and zoning map
land use d~signations. However, OAR 660-012-0060 C<Plan and Land Use Regulation
Amendments") specifically applies to the adoption of such comprehensive plan and land use
regulatio,n designation amendments.
Under the TPR mitigation measures are necessary for plan and zoning amendments that .
significantly impact a transportation facility. If a proposed amendment is found to have a
significant impact on one or more transportation facilities, then the TPR requires that the impact
be mitigated by one or more of four methods'. .OAR 660-012-0060(1) provides:
"(1) Amendments to, functional plans,acknowledged comprehensive plans, and-
land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall
assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
. capacity, and performance standards, (e.g., level of service, volume to
capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either:
, <'(a),' Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned
function, capacity, and perfonnance standards of the transportation
facility; .
"(b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to
, support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of
this division;
<<(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to
reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through
other modes; or
<'(d) Amending the TSP to modify the .planned furiction, capacity and
performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle
.
Page 15 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports ~IYpIex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
.
.
~ongestion to promote ffiixed use"pedestrian friendly development
where multimodal travel choices are provided. '
There are also four significance tests. OAR 660-12-060(2) provides that a land use regulation
"significantly impacts a transportation facility" if it: '
'(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or pI armed transportation
facility.
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional, classification system.
(c) Allows types or levels ofIand uses which would result in levels of travel or acceSs
which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility;
or '
( d) Would reduce, the leyel of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable level
identified in the TSP."
The four significance tests will be referred to as 2-a to 2-d and the four mitigation measures will
be referred to as I-a to I-d.
The rule requires that the determination of significant impact be coordinated with affected state,
and local governments. Because the site is near the city center, no county or City of Eugene ,
, transportation facilities are affected. It is served by a state highway and the Lane Transit District,
however, and the Lane Council of Goverrunents is the designated Metropolitan Planning ,
Organization under the TPR. Thus the principal coordinating bodies are ODOT, LTD, L...;COG,
the City of Springfield, and DLCD. Coordination will be achieved by informal consultation,
tin).ely notice and opportunities to comment, and relevant 'background materials such as
Transportation Impact Studies and proposed findings.
Significant Impact Analysis:
The key significant impact criterion for purposes of this proceeding is 2-d. The other triggers can
be disposed of briefly as follows:
Trigger 2-a is inapplicable to this proceeding because the proposed changes simply change'map
designations and related classes of uses on the subject property. They do not change functional
classifications of transportation facilities as would be the case with an amendment to a'state or
local street plan.
Trigger 2-b is inapplicable because the proposed redesignations do not change standards
impiementing a functional classification system for transportation facilities, as would be the case if
.' Page 16 - Applicant's Statement - Sportsl~28lex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
the city :were, for example, changing its threshold acceptable level of service for collectors from D
to E..
Trigger' 2-c is applicable but is not pulled, because all access will be via arterial streets whose
function is to carry traffic to and from major destinations within and without the urban area. The
site is bordered on the north by East Main Street (State Highway 126) and on the east by 32nd
Street. 'Access to and from the 5.2-acre commercial site will be via an access to and from 32nd
Street and, potentially, a right-in-right-out access on Highway 126, subject to approval by ODOT..
Access to and from the Broadbase and City of Springfield sports facilities will be via 32nd Street
north to Main and, to a much lesser degree, south and east to Jasper Highway. As cla'ssified by the
Metropolitan Policy Committee on October 22, 1992, based on federal criteria and definitions for
urban roads, Main Street is a "principal arterial" and 32n~ Street, Jasper Highway, and 42nd Street'
are "minor arterials." See June, 2001 LCOG map entitled "Federally Designated Roadway
Functional Classification Eugene-Springfield Metro Area," in Appendix A to September, 2001
TransPlan.
Trigger 2-d is applicable with respect to state and local transportation facilities. The September;
2001 TransPlan has been adopted and acknowledged as the Eugene-Springfield Transportation
Systems Plan. ODOr has adopted the 1999 Oregon State Highway Plan as the Transportation
Systems Plan for state transportation facilities, including Main Street (Highway 126) and its .
intersections.
ODor uses Volume-to-Capacity{v/c) ratios instead of Levels of Service. The nature and
application of those standards are detailed in the impact studies and are summarized below.
TransPlan's TSI Roadway Policy # 2: Motor Vehicle Level of Service, adopts LOS standards for
local facilities and recognizes Oregon Highway Plan Standards for state facilities as follows:
"1. Use motor vehicle level of service standards to' maintain acceptable and reliable'
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used for:
(a) Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
(b) Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportatiol1 plans,
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, pursuant to
the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060).
(c) Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use
regulations of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
"2.
Acceptable and reliable service is defined by the following levels of service under
peak hour traffic conditions: Level of Service E within Eugene's Central Area
Transportation Area, and Level of Service D elsewhere.
.
Page 17 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports <}DlIlpIex Plan and Zone ehange - October, 2002
.
, "3. Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan shall be applied on state
facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
"In some cases, the level of seivice on a facility may be sub~andard. The local government
jurisdiction may find that transportation system improvements to bring performance up to
standard within the planning horizon may not be feasible, and safety will not be
compromised, and broader community goals would be better served by allowing a
substandard level of service. The limitation on the feasibility of a transportation system
improvement may arise from severe constraints including but not limited to,environmental "
'conditions, lack of public agency financial resources, or land use constraint factors. It is
not the intent ofTSI Roadway Policy,#2: Motor Vehicle Level QfService to require
deferral of development in such cases. The intent is to defer motor vehicle capacity
increasing transportation system improvements until existing constraints can be overcome
or develop an alternative mix of strategies (such as: land use measures, TDM,short-term
safetY improvements) to address the problem." September 2001 TransPlanCh. 2, Page 11.
.
Preliminary analysis suggests that the proposed plan/zone change will be neutral or beneficial in its
net effect on state and local transportation facilities. The reason for this is that the existing plan '
and zone designations allow uses with equivalent or greater potent~al for traffic generation.
The proposed zoning will convert the 34.38 acres ofill and LMI (1.7.19 acres each) to 5.14 acres
of Community Commercial (CC) and 28.88 acres of Public Land (PLO). The PLO area will front
32nd to the east. The CC will front on Main and 32nd at the north end of the site.
Standard traffic manual assumptions about the traffic-generating potential of land zoned medium-'
industrial land are misleadingly high as applied to the CC area, where uses will be limited by deed
restrictions and, potentially, special zoning limitations which implement a recently-executed
agreement by the City of Springfield, the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, and the
current owner of the property. The agreement and conditions will impose' substantial constraints
on the timing, type, and scale of uses that will be able to go into this particular CC zone. AID.ong
other things, agreement excludes one of the highest trip generators-.:.fast-food outlets with drive-up
windows.
On the other hand, standard traffic manual assumptions about the traffic-generating potential of
land zoned light-medium and heavy-medium industrial are misleadingly low as applied to
Springfield's Light-Medium Industrial and (Llvll) and Heavy Industrial (ill) lands-especially those
on or near arterials such as East Main. Two high-trip-generating categories of uses not generally
associated with L11I zones are allowed in Springfield: home improvement 'superstores and high- .
intensity recreational uses. The nature and potential impact of these uses is significant:
.
Home improvement s~ores: These facilities are an allowed use on lands inventoried,
planned, and zoned ill andL.:MI. A home improvement store such as a Jerry's or Horne
Depot is considere~ a light-medium industrial use use under Eugene's acknowledged land
Page 18 - Applicant's Statement - Sports y~~pIex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
use code. The main Jerry's site at 99th and Beltline in northwest Eugene is designated for
medium industrial use in the Metro Plan and is zoned Medium Industrial under Eugene
zoning code. Similarly, the City of Springfield, has determined that home improvement
stores are an outright permitted use on LMI and ill lands in Springfield just as they are in
, Eugene under the same plan designation, noting that the Springfield Development Cocle's
list of LMl and ill "pe~tted outright" uses includes "Warehouse Commercial." SDC
,20.020(6). _
,High-intensity recreational uses: ,The Springfield Development Code's LMI/HIuse list,
at SDC 20.020(7), also incorporates by reference and allows as outright permitted uses the
full range of "Recreational Facilities" allowed in commercial zones under Section
18.020(6). These uses include,am~ng others:
. ' Amusement parks
. Bowling Alleys
. Exercise Studios
. Movie theaters
. Recreation Centers
. Skating Rinks'
. Athletic Clubs ..
. Stadiums'
The potential impact of such uses far exceeds that of a generic LMI zone. Supporting data is
available in city files .on the 2001 Home Depot proposal for a store on an II-acre site near 19th
and Marcola in Springfield. See Springfield Development Services Land Use Application File
No. 00-12-254. Included in the file is a Transportation Impact Statement, with supplements,
provided by Kittleson & Associates; a transportation planning and engineering firm. The
following impact projections are set forth in a February 19,2001 memorandum from Kittleson to
Springfield and ODOT officials:
5. Using the lTE Home Improvement Superstore figures, the proposed Home Depot would
have generated 390 weekday p.m. peak hour trips, 4,740 weekday trips, and 730 Saturday
mid-day peak trips.
6. Using figures derived from a survey of studies conducted at ~ight Home Depots in
Oregon, California, and Washington, the projection would be similar, with 380 weekday
p.m. peak hour trips, 5,455 weekday.trips, and 730 Saturday mid-day trips.
Both sets of figures assume a 20% pass-by rate. The Kittleson memo reports that Home Depots
usually get from 20-35% pass-by trips "depending on the location and adjacent street type and
volume."
.
Pa~e 19 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports GQ.~Iex Plan and Zone change - October, 2002
.
With no zone change at all, one could fit both a Horile Depot or Lowe's home improvement store
and some major high-intensity recreational facilities on the 31-acre HI/LMI site at 32nd and Main.
Because of the narrowed'range of uses permitted on the proposed 5. 5-acre commercial site and
the wider-than-normal range ofuses permitted on the existing 28.5-acre LMIfH1vll area, the
forthcoming Transportation Impact Analysis is expected to show that the proposed plan and zone .
changes will have ei~her a null effect or a net beneficial effect on transportation facilities serving
the site.
GOAL 13 -ENERGY CONSERVATION.
The Energy Goal is a general planning goal and provides little guidance for site-specific map
changes. However, the availability ofa centrally-located urban center for community sports
activities promotes general plan objectives favoring redevelopment (in this case, of a former mill
site) and revitalization of centrally-located neighborhoods and sites. Any future development will
be subject to applicable energy efficiency requirements establiShed by building cOQes. '
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION.
'. The subject site is within the Metro Area UGB, within the city limits of Springfield, and within the
fully -developed and served urbanized area of the community. The proposed redesignation is
intended to facilitate efficient reuse of the site for urban uses, thereby facilitating the compact
urban growth form which is the subject of the LCDC's Urbanization Goal.
.'
GOAL 15 - Wll..LAl\'IETTE RIVER GREENWAY
This goal is inapplicable because the subject site is not within the boundaries of the greenway.
GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS
These goals are inapplicable.
METRO PLAN CONSISTENCY
In generiu, the proposed project is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and objectives
for the 'same reasons that it is consistent with the corresponding goals that those policies and
objectives are designed toirnplement. It does not render the Metro Plan internally inconsistent
because it, doesn't result in net reductions in acknowledged inventories when paired with
concurrent approval of redesignation of the Gateway site for industrial uses of the kind for which
the City has the most pressing need. '
Page 20 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Com,pIex Plan and Zone ehange - October, 2002
1-24"
.
Consistency with the Mid-Springfield refinement plan will be maintained by the automatic
concurrency provision of the SDC.
REFINElvIENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed map amendments will be consistentwith the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan maps
, as a result of the operation of SDC 7.110, set forth in full above. The proposed text amendments
, to the Mid-Springfield Plan' will, if adopted, be consistent with that plan's text. The proposed
amenc].ments will not create any internal inconsistency in the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan,
which urges. development of additiomi.l recreational facilities and favors additional buffering
between residential areas and heavy industrial uses. The red,esignation ofthe front five acres for
commercial use is consistent with the, refinement plan's injunction to "Minimize industrial
development along Main Street." MSRP at p.9.
CONSISTENCY WITH CRiTERIA FOR ZONE CHANGES
The proposed zoning map changes directly implement the corresponding changes to the Metro
Plan Diagram and the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Map. As a result, and for,the same
reasons, they are consistent with the first two standards prescribed by SDC 12.030, which are
'.
"(1) Consistency with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram;
"(2) Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, special area studies, and functional
plans.
F or the reasons set out in conjunction with Goals 8, 11, and 12 above, the redesignations ai-e
consistent with the third standard, which is
"(3) That the property can be served by the orderly and efficient ,extension of key urban
facilities and services as prescribed in the Metro Plan prior to or in conjunction
with development."
v. CONCLUSION
This consolidated application for Type II amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan Piagram, the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Diagram, and the Springfield
Zoning Code Map will allow use of the 34.2 acre Arlie property for indoor and outdoor sports,
facilities and a limited range of commercial uses. '
.
Page 21 _ Applicant's Statement - Sports ~plex Phm and Zone Change - October, 2002
.
.
.
The proposed amendments reposition the Arlie property for development of much needed
recreational facilities that will provide opportunities for amateur athletics, including a wide range
of competitive sports activities for school-aged children in the metropolitan area. In so doing, the
amendments will also help meet key economic development objectives vital to the prosperity of the
, regIOn.
. '
, The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Springfield
Development Code, including those required for Metro Plan amendments, refinement plan
amendments and zoning map amendments. The amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan
Text and Diagram and with llPplicable Refmement Plans, special area studies and functional plans.
Allen L. Johnso
Johnson & Sherton,P.C.
, Special Counsel for Applicant
Page 22 - Applicant's Statement'" Sports Complex Plan and Zone ehange - October, 2002
, 1-26
Lot Report 07/22/2002 16:40
CRD File> C:\survey\PROJECTS\S3865\DRAWINGS\s3865sc.crd .
LOT PARCEL 1 OF BLOCK 1
PNT# BEARING DISTANCE NORTHING EASTING . STATION:
1123 12024.758 9169.469 0.000
S 89043'58" E 801. 900
1124 12021.019 ' 9971. 361 801.900
S 00009'46" W 331.930
1119 11689.090 9970.418 1133.830
N 89049'47" W 270.942
1120 11689.895 9699.477 1404.772
N 00010'13" E 84.000
1121 11173.895 9699.726 ' 1488.772
N 89049'47" W 531.000
1122 11775.473 9168.729 2019.772
N 00010 !.13" E 249.286
1123 12024.758 9169.469 2269.058
Closure Error Distance> 0.000
Total Distance> 2269.058
LOT AREA: 222121.2 SQ FT OR 5.10 ACRES
.
'.
EXHIBIT A
1-27
. LOT PARCEL 2 OF BLOCK 1
PNT# BEARING DISTANCE NORTHING EASTING STATION
1122 11775.473 9168.729 0.000
S 89049'47" E 531. 000
1121 11 773.895 9699 . 72 6 531.000
S 00010'13" W 84.000
1120 11689.895 9699.477 615.000
S 89049'47" E 270.942
1119 ' 11689.090 9970.418 885.942
S 00009'46" W 446.000
1118 11243.092 9969.150 1331. 942
N 89049'47" W 271.001
1117 11243.897 9698.151 1602.943
S 00010'13" W 42.000
1116 11201.898 9698.026 1644.943
N 89049'47" W 531. 000
1115 11203.476 ,9167.029 2175.943
N 00010'13" E 572.000
1122 11775.473 9168.729 2747.943
Closure Error Distance> 0.000
Total Distance> 2747.943
LOT AREA: 424585.3 SQ FT OR 9.75 ACRES
.
.
1-28
LOT PARCEL 3 OF BLOCK 1 .
PNT# BEARING DISTANCE NORTHING EASTING STATION
1115 11203.476 9167.029 0.000
S 89049'47" E 531. 000
1116 11201.898 9698.026 531. 000
N 00010'13" E 42.000
1117 11243.897 9698.151 573.000
S 89049'47" E 271. 001
n18 11243.092 9969.150 844.001
S 00009'46" W 1109.069
1113 10134.028 9966.000 1953.070
N 84020'30" W 805.840
1112 10213.480 9164.086, 2758.909
N 00010'13" E 990.000
1115 11203.476 9167.029 3748.909
Closure Error Distance> 0.000
Total Distance> 3748.909
LOT AREA: 836342.2 SQ FT OR 19.20 ACRES
.
.
:.
1-29
. LOT PARENT OF BLOCK 1 '
PNT~ BEARING Dr STANCE NORTHING EASTING STATION
1123 12024.758 9169.469 0.000
S 89043'58" E 801. 900
1124 12021.019 9971. 361 801. 900
,5 00009'46" W 1886.999
1113 10134.028 9966.000 2688.899
N 84020'3011 W 805.840
1112 10213.480 9164.086 3494.738
N 00010'1311 E 1811.286
1123 12024.758 9169.469 5306.025
Closure Error Distance> 0.000
'Total Distance> 5306.025
LOT AREA: .1483048.7 SQ FT OR 34.05 ACRES
BLOCK 1 TOTAL AREA: 2966097.4 SQ FT -OR 68.09 ACRES
, ,
.
.
1-30
.
. .~.."
~" "
.
.
',""
'~-.__.
'. }\,
)l
. ') .
'~
.
31 2 4
"t
"j
~
....
H
(f)
..;.,
o
Z
N
rt?
o
a:
10
10
~~;,.... .
S e' Map 17 02 31 :3 I
to
t<}
l:;-'~~:',;.~:
500
35.86 AC.
SITE
U"
R N
I
L
..r
.....
.. .
~
r--:
SEE L-. MAP
Q
.
Q
"i ~
o
N
. 346-i
I
I
~
~I
~
17 -02 - 31-3-4,
.c:
-'
~l 'It
.._ __'_' , t1')
,., r'-'~ '}, .
---- -- ~--'--/--
5- =--~p-;~~L '~- - Si.J'J$'~-
r"~ Fe. -R .. .
;L ......~.~,
~ eW1ru't. l '
..:::-'.. ...u ~ nitS 02 0
1/4
j.~ii1=::O
~~: 7
i I 111111 ll,
I IIIII11 I II I
II t I I I I I II I I I II III
II 111111111" I.
=;:: =[ =rr
f-I- - -1-1-
~I= =r= =1:: H
-t-- --'- -t-
-'-t-- -,.- - t-
-'-- I'- - f---
-- r-- f--
. - '---,-
-- f-- '---
-- 1'-- '--
t-- -- '-_,
1-- ~- t--
t-~, -."..... f-_
'..'.,.. :::--
~"
'\.\,
,
..',,'
~" ;, ,"
"" ~ _I',
I
r'-
\
. --- ..
'~
---~
-..~...~~
400 800 Feet
400 0
." ',"
.....;>::~. M.
:t~{\~i
" 'il ,.-:x;'?
-> ~
-- .-'
== ~ ~ r=1Y IJ=
f- I'- -,H '"T'I I I ...(:-~ 1-1-:- f- ' '\... -l- t-.,-
-'-~ -I'- I---'- ==r ,.- ~ l-:::J;;;;; r--..
= - t- ~ - ~ ~~ r::
-- -- - f-~ - ~ -f -:--~
- -,. --EL - ~~ I'- I-~ - I--f-
- I- - _ ~ I'- I-_~
- - - ....; ,:,:r
:' -I- -..c. T I I I- = - !-t- f-I- -f--:::: 1--1=
- r- = I- I-- - I- I---'~
- I I I I - -', t-- f-!- I--'
I- '-- " F= -,l- _ _ I-- :- _ I--
- f--, _ _ r--:-
f.=-Ir "~ ~~ _= '- __ ..
~"-J~.." ' '- ~ __ =!- f-I-
I- I-e= =,- ~
II/- f-'-- _- r-'f-
'- f-- t-- 1=1-
- ~- I-t::
b-
t-' :~~i_!
I-
h'1 I rTh "1T tjff
Z .f~,~S~ .....~~~~i,;c
nUll ill=r rF ,9"1,- 'IF ,,:; I'll: 'hi '.' ..' "', ::T,711{:\/',:
~;::~,,_~._iol:.~;;.~
ii'::'.' r---,.,.. h--. -...----- ~ ~
~_~PTn:rFin~.., II
~ ~ f-I-I'U,"
B ."....- m;::= ~~ Ltl "fJd.;f:
-.,... ~ -'- ,-!:JUTI're,!'
.. - .,- f- -~: ..
, .,-- '1'- DTDTDIT
.-___________ =0~ l ~ lIt!:
. ~- tL - ~')....:: t:n: I' -r::, :!::JZ~
",I;,:,:,:',.','. ~ - no f.;..;. ~R--rU~
\~ ~ = Utr ~rK1NV~ ,~, .
Existing Metropolitan Area General Plan
Diagram
File NQ, 2002-03-0063
,;,......,.J. I
''..lu
"
EXHt~!T D
CJJ
N
O:l
, -
:T
CJJ
-
PLO
PLO
.
~
1
!
I
.
400 0 400 800 Fecl
- _J
Proposed Plan Designations
File No. 2002-03-0063 '
II>~~
I
1-35
J,l~lli 1 1 J.L }
J. J...Li.uJ..u.J. ..l..Lll i
,DJ.l~ '
,ill.llJ..LWJ.J..w."
~RTl ~ U-J.' -I-
. '-b t:::t;I u f2L tl J--h
L:L- -.J t::_
- 'c~ I - 1L.....
_C= CC-- I _
=F c:::= ~=
-- E,--- I _
cc E-' rc
EE LL '-1::
L-C
~1.s: ;,
\.
,
':''-
--
1 \
-~"-"""'>,i':';~_"
' "':;"~'-';~~,"-"'" ..-
I
D
\
/
I j
I
I
I
800 Feet
400 . ~=~_~ 1
,~
-:-J
, '
"
...j I ''':
~hr+/'
IBJ'~~
fbR B ~ ~ I ,J;:L.G~~
::J, I-j , e+rhYiS
- - -. -= cc_ " , :::::: ~ ,- B
' F" ~-~~ co,- " n tt L..::~'
" , 0:: .w r= L. _ ,'E'L.", F,.,.,,= E
F, ""= , r re-- LL r L- _'" ',',
~ - ,.. ,- L., ~ ____~ "'_~
,-, - it::, - -co Cr' i::: L -', ,''''
,-- I b ~ - =' L - - L ='<""
'-r I .L LL "cO L- Lr '= ,
-r I C11.L.LLL Ff-Li:: L-, _ C, "
~~' ,." ~~ "", Eo, '-I
',0.--... , " rc-- ,_;
" ).LLc, '- ' H 'l
q "J c
.~.<:
',,;
t~'-!.\:~
I,'
'" " ,2 B~~k1 !ip:.~
" 1 0J....l,.. Rrr::t1IIl-\
/'l-':'u.4. +, -C '::ill 1.lLJU ."
' j.,. at ,U -':::' U- D-UtF ; '", ;
'I I , ca",,' f-1. , -L .J... L .J.,.L .,-I..,.",...:tl, ',', '.,' " .J...:. '.',. .J, 'I' ',.. ',..' ','
i!:l J,.1,l 8= '+=:~, '-r'B','...: ,., ,'."
'", == -L ... -'F ='- "", '" I, , '
t::f::..,LL .. ~ L.l. >, W.t;t;:;:, ,'I
" , L- , C:==L_I.~" " , ,
Ll., l'f" ,', .,.. 1_ If- 0:.111 n:::: t:il L ,c.JU\HlilTTi"
'~it+',:~' ~~'~.' " ,,~,.BfE8],' "."'.,",.,',.LLLLCEill~:'.."..,"...,',..,'.,,',',:'..':
II',. ' 'f- C"L " ,,', '" ",'
"',.',,, I,',~",-l,,', '."', "'.'.,m'.,',. ,"'.< ..'..'. .
" " -, -"'-I ',' '"",, ," """ ,
-~"C~ ',"',' "J:~ ~-J;!____.___._~~
' ,,' ~ '.-.- -, I'"" ':"
1rt-:-:~-U l..L.U.u.L~ 'LLL"
I::: ~ 8HH111 \ IE .--RlIfH
~ ~m7illl lIB 8JJl1IiB :~~
~~ ~ mlllll~+
! R,- c'h ''1 '=="'-'" -L
" E -~ l~f'-I"I=B' --
" I-:=i}} :.. ~F kR'" I
' ~( :
------------. -------- - t -{ ~tf. -- r, .
1 ',.".. ~ I..J~ ------------_,Jj --':'1 L 1.J.. ,
.:.I 11~ l..L~~1 I ._________
' -- -- , ~ r-1, -L-tJ,
- I c..~-4 -L - ..w.;.lJ
. ~, ~
-,- ,- " ~ 1-j.J..li t:,H IJ['T'r'\
1. ~:~ rstl~ ~'-f(" ~
,- r IIII,~
-I~ '1 r-
..J.
l
..,'
"~
-
t
~
i.\ 1\
Existing Z~;~~6063
File No. 2002
~IIIT E
I
Main St.
! CC
'~
~ PLO
:T
(j)
.....
PLO
~'
=--~, ,.
!
f9
.
r
/
400 0 400 800 Feet
I -~=-.. ~
Proposed Zoning
File No. 2002-03-0063
1-37
.' 1.....
--,
I
I
I
I
I
~>
~:
p
Ii
...
-~
- --.
--
----..
I:wii~;t
~
I :
. I
i .
. i 1
D . t
,.~ J ,
U ~ ~
~I
1 r.
i ~ ~ ~
:i ~ ~~
~ ~~.7, .,.~.,
~, ~I! t,,:;1
: ~ .~: I;~'i:
t.::'"
<4...(
~ S ~ ~
j:: ... '" S
~ i! ~ .
it n H
o
l!;
..t .~
~ ~J!
a: ; n
x"
lIJ I-- .
it=>
::E 0
00>-
~. <(-
(I) ..J .
l-:' -
a:..J
o <(
& =>
Cl I--
..J Cl.
lIJ UJ
r;:-<J
'C!l Z
~.O
c::
c...U
(I)'
I
qhb.
:!:~ g
, u.. ..
.iC~~,9
a:: 3 (.
C\I
OX
_lIJ
oi
C'):::E
_0
l() 0
Z ~ 50
o a: ol?l
r- ~ jg8
g 9 hi ~~
0: wWw8
t) ~~~$
z a:;?;1E~
8fu~g;6
0:
o
LL
r-
o
zz
I~
>-..J
o:lL
~?:
-0:
:2w
..JlL
wO
0:0:
0..0..
o
~
o
i CO
~ ~.
:l *
= ~
"t
C?
~
Ii)
X
~
"t
....
01
....
N
"t
(')
~
Ii)
Qi
c
o
.I:
Q..
.,..
o
't
"-
.Ol
C
o
01
41
l..
o
oj
c
Q)
~.
W
.
oj
::l
C
al
>
<(
2
.3: ~
w~.
>-
.W III
a: al
w3:
1-(')
-~
CI)~
.
c:!.J \J il
~~ ~
~&i 9
H~~
o.D~
cj 1a
~ E
~..c
'11--1 ~
...;-1 CO
L--J C
. a.>
.:-1 Cti
<:)
.
.
~
<::>
E:;'
~
~
~
....
~
l"'S
....
;;=;:
e
,0I:t .
~" ~;._..~.~
IT~t
-'
. II,
. . I:
... I
.1 I".~"
:1 ':.
'f r' .
~! t~:
1. "0':
I:t..:"i ... J.~'~ .......
'. $f ..~
, {
.....'\,~.:..;
1!i\t.flill'l
j ! r J t J:.,. ~. ,_ . ',.. ,
:r"~"'='~"'''''''' ,
i.,;.."....~~~.~I....\..,.,...""""".........".;..,w.~~j;f1~,I.ol..~
..~
, .
I'
Site No. of No. of I Pla'n Zoning Plan{Zone Staff Notes
No. .Owners Acres , Designation Issue Recommendation
~ 2 .12.7 ,. LMI 12 No p'O
8 I 18.7 LMI 12 No S,P I SE
9 1 3,8 LMl I . 12 No PO,PI
12 1 12,8 , LMl 12 No SE.PI
Rct.lo.7
3 1 7.S HI HI No
4 1 21.6 HI LMI Yea LMI " .
S 1 130.4 SLl SLI,LMI,LOR Yca SLI,U SI!.
MOR,PLO '. ,
-
6 1 ~.5 HI HI No ,
9 1 2.7 HI HI No
10 I 2,8 HI HI No
11 1 19.7 HI HI No PD
12 1 4.7 HI HI No ,
14 2 5.3 HI: HI No, "
16 i 3.8 HI HI No
17 S2.9 LMI.ilI ,. LMI HI NO:
I
18 3 15.0 HI , LMI HI Yea LMI
19 1 33,S LMI,iU LMI,HI No ,
22 1 1.7 HI. HI No " . '
23 1 2,7 . Ht HI No
25 8 243.0 SLI,P&O SLI No PoP
26 3. 14.6 LMI LMI No , PD
27 2 10.7 LMI LMI No PO ,
30 1 1.1 LMl LMl No . '.
31 1 1.2 'LMI LMI No
33 1 2.S LMI LMI No
Rerlo. 8 . "
3 3 3.~ LMi HI Yea LMI
4 1 1.6 MU CC No
6 I 2.7 MU CC No D
7 1 S.I LMI ,LMI No. 0
8 I 1.0 LMI LMI No
i^'ii.r.:R'Ox'iU*mi'f!f6tXttS}tO'itm;!f:E'in~NsltEs'fji.:o1u:NEm:jND:Us.rittngj:rslmES~;:i~61'o)t!X0R'E'S.:;)!m:HWmm:;:m\!%t;:!;;j:;::;;!;W:::;:f:W::r;;::m\:;@\:l~W:;!:;:mi;tm!;;jMm;;:;:!ill':;lH~t:@;;!;;ijHjM;:;:
METROpoLiTAN INDUSTRIAL LANDS
SITE BV ALVA~ON,~1JUX, JANUARY '1991
.SHORT TERM 'SITESFOR NEW INDUSTRY (CONTINUED) .
;
IU
-
-II
-
Plan DeslQnatlon
Zonlna
Notes and Staff Recommendations
A: ACCdl probleml P: Only porilon avail. rn Ihorllerm
COM: Commercial P&:O: parl::a &: Opell Spaee '
C4: Commerch..l - bdUJlrlal PD: Partially developed '
D: Developed PI: PubllolmproveDlCJIllleeded (walcr or unllaryaewer)
P: Portion InlloodwlY , PL: Only porllo,lI avall.lIllon~ lerm .
H: Hydric 10111 PO: Publl~, OWMrshlp ,
HI: Heavy Indullrlal PZ: Plan':'ZonC"lllue acedl (urlheuludy
LMI: L1ghl-Medlum IndUJlrlal PZC: Pin/Zone ConCllcl
M: MIllgallonneeded Cor portion R: AdJacenl resldelltlal
MO: Mulllp\e ownenhlp limits ahort term un' RED: Redevelop'mCIIl required
MS: PropOlcd mlllglllon IUO . RES: Re.ldelllla\
NR: Hatural Reaource RP: Su Refinement Plu .'
,S: More lhan ODe IUe
SA: Solll anal)sls needed
SC: Soil conltulnl
SO: S.l'ecbl Dcve\opm enl
SEt Site cxpanded
SLI: Spechl Light lndullrbl
SS: Severe lIope. '
ST: Slreellmprovemenll needed
U: Uniform aellgDlllon and
. lOllIng recolUmended
WET: Wellandl recom.d
for protection
U/P. 'v.... Pu_ ...... P.r"
SLI: Specl.\ Light Industrial 11: Sfccbl t.I~bl Indullrlll
LMl: Lighl Medium Indu.lrlal I'l: L ghl Mcdlum Indu.trlal
HI: Heavy Indullrial 13: Heavy Indultrhl
SHl: Specbl Bu\')' Indullrlal 14: S!,echl Huvy Indullrbl
COM:Commercbl' , Cl,23:Commerclal .
HDR: 111gb Deulty Residential C4: Commerclal-Indu.lrlal
Un.: University Research LDR,MDR,HOR:
NR: Naluul Resourcc Relldential
\'&.0: Parb &. Open Spsce SD: Specbl Developmcnt,
MU: Mixed uI.a' PLO: Public Land
Gov: Oovernm &. Opcn Spice
.
.
'-,
.
Notice of Decision - Limited land Use - Partition-Tentative Plan
Date of letter: May 15,2002
Journal Number: 2002-02-0044
Owner! Applicants:
Arlie & Company
722 Country Club Road
Eugene, Oregon 9740 I
Design Consultants:
Jim Colton
Ford-Ness-Fassbender
PoO. Box 22735
Eugene, OR 97402
.Explanation of the Nature ofthe Application
"
The applicant is proposing to partition Map Number 17:'02-31, Tax Lot 500, into three parcels. Tax Lot
500 is approximately 34.26 acres.
This Tentative Partition Plan is the first application in a series' of subsequent requests which will affect
. the subject property, which is ultimately proposed for the following useS:
o A commercial development fronting Main Street (McKenzie Highway) and South' 32nd Street (on
. proposed 5.1 O-acre Parcel I); . '
o A regional sports facility to be developed by Broad Base, Inc. fronting on South 32nd Street (on
proposed 9.75-acre Parcel 2); and
o A community park including KIDSPORTS facilities as well as 5 outdoor soccer fields (on proposed
19.20-acre Parcel 3). .
The Citywill be reviewing subsequent development applications as they are submitted, including a Mid-
, Springfield Refinement Plan Amendment, Zone Changes, Site Plan Review applications for each parcel,as
well as associated Tree Felling Permit:s, Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Applications, and
other relevant applications 'as deemed necessary under the requirements of the Springfield Development
Code (SDC).
This Notice of Decision concerns only the Tentative Partition application submitted by the applicant,
Arlie & CompanYI on February 15, 2002, and aeemed complete on February 28, 2002. The applicant has
submitted a conceptual plan which provides an example of how the site could ultimately be developed,
however, no approval for the conceptual plan is granted tlirough this Tentative Partition Plan approval.
The parties involved in the development of the subject property, including the City of Springfield, Arlie &
CompanYI Broad Base, Inc., Emerald" KIDSPORTS, Inc., and Willamalane Park and Recreation District,
have been negotiating an Agreement (Sports Center Agreement) outlining the responsibilities of each
party to deyelop the parcels, which is in fir:al draft form.
EXHIBIT J
1-41
1
Location of the Property
.
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 32nd and Main Streets, in
Springfield. Directly south of the site are the railroad tracks! Booth Kelly Road, and Agnes Stewart
Middle School. _ Directly west lies Willamette Industries' log processing facility. The site abuts South
32ndStreet to the east, which is developed with Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential
uses.
Decision
. Tentative Partition Plan approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. Please read
this letter carefully. Final plats must conform to the Tentative Partition Plan approval and incorporate
the Conditions of Approval. '
Other Uses that May be Authorized by the Decision
None.
Site Information
.
The site is currently vacant, relati~ely flat, with stands of trees in the southwest and northwest areas.
The site is within the 'boundaries of the Mid..'springfield Refinement Plan. The easterly 50 percent of the
site is zoned and designated Light Medium Industrial (LMI), and the westerly 50 percent of the site is .
zoned and designated HeaVy Industrial (HI)o The site is bounded by Main Street (McKenzie Highway) to
the north, South 32ridStreet to the east, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the south. Directly
to the west abutting proposed Parcels land 3 is Willamette Industries and abutting proposed Parcels I
and 2 is F and M Towing.
Written Comments
SDC 3.080(4) states that Limited Land Use' decisions require the notification of property owners!
occupants within 100 feet of the proposed development allowing for a 14-day comment period. The
neighboring property owners were mailed notice of the proposed partition on March 4, 2002. - The
City received wo letters regarding the proposed partition by the~March 18,2002,5 p.m. deadline:
The first letter came from Guy Vance Freeman, 509 South 32nd Street, Springfield, on
March 8, 200~:
Mr. Freeman states:
. "My concern aboUt this application is simple.' If Arlie & Co. wants to split the land on the west side of 32nd St,
between Main St 'and the railroad tracks, make sure that they fully improve the street at L!Q cost to the eml or
the property owners on the east side of 32nd St '
. We know the City doesn't have the money and we don't have the funds to improve the street, I know this
because I've talked to several people on the street
Arlie & Co. wants to keep approx. 6 acres on Main St That street is already improved. That's the prime parcel
of land.
.
1-42
2
.
.
.
Arlie will give title to broad base sports, write off the loss, broad base won't have the money to improve the
street, there probably non profit so who pays for that .
Then Arlie & Co" sales or gives the remainder to the City or Willamalane Park District who is tax exempt and no
money for the street again.
That land comes out of the tax base and the City loses again.
Arlie & Co. is big .business don't let them walk on you people, let them foot the bill for this. After all we all know
they just sold property to Peace Health td the tune of approx. 33 million dollars and I think they bought it for
approx. 15 million. That's almost double in my book. Arlie can afford the street improvements.
I spoke with both coundlors Fitch and Dave Ralston about my concern back in January and was assured that .
there would be no out of pocket expense to property owners on the street Please f!1ake sure that's the way it
comes out
At 115 feet of frontage, to approx. $200.00 per foot to improve that's 23.000 dollarso That's just for my part
. Can you afford that? When we don't need it, we have a good street & sidewalk for the kids:
Arlie &. Co. wanted to buy 22 acres in gateway from the City & said if the City sold it to them, the City would
have the money to improve 32nd St Well Arlie gets out of payin~ a~aino
I am in favor of progress but not at the expense of myself or others so big business can feather their own nest
They want it let them pay for it
. Thanks,
Guy V. Freeman"
Staff Response: . .
Mr. Freeman's concerns involve the cost of street improvements and the responsibility for parties to
share in the expense of paying for the street improvements.
A Condition of Approval of this Tentative Partition Plan is that Arlie & Company sign an Improvement.
AgreemeQt for the full frontage of the 34.26 acre site whiCh abuts South 32nd Street. Improvement
Agreements follow the property through transfer of ownership. If for any reason, the sale of the site is
not completed or developed for its intended use by the parties involved, an Improvement Agreement
" will ensure that South 32nd Street is improved to City standards, regardless of property ownership, at
the time of development. '. .
According to the City's Economic Development Manager, the east side of South 32nd Street will also be
improved; as the configuration of the existing sidewalk would not drain effectively with the new road
elevations. Further~ if this property develops according to the proposed Sports Center Agreement,
property owners on the east side of South 32nd Street south of Parcell to the railroad crossing will
not be assessed for the road improvements. .
In accordance with the Sports Center Agreement, Arlie & Company will remain the owner of the 5.10-
acre proposed Parcel I, which abuts Main and South 32nd Streets. The parcel has approximately 802
feet of frontage on Main Street, and approximately 330 feet. of frontage along South 32nd Street. Arlie &
1-43
3
Company will be responsible for improving South 32nd Street along the full frontage of proposed P~rcel .
I. South 32nd Street is designated a minor arterial street in the Springfield Development Code, and
there is sufficient right of way to construct a street, complete with curb, gutter. sidewalks, planter strips,
street lights, and street trees, to City standards.
Mr. Freeman's concerns regarding the City's financial constraints are well taken. The City intends to
earmark a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the City-owned property in the Gateway area (the
former site for the Sports Center) to improve South 32nd Street to a minor arterial street.
In summary, Mr. Freeman's concerns regarding the cost of the street and payment for the improvements
are addressed herein. An Improvement Agreement for South 32nd Street will be required for the
frontage owned by the applicant. Following the sale of the City-owned G~teway area property, the
street improvements south of Parcel I to the railroad crossing will be paid by the City as pare of a
negotiated agreement among owners and users of the site with proceeds from the sale of the City-
owned property in the Gateway area.
A second letter was received on March 15. 2002, from J. Edward Henricks of Willamette
. Industries, which is located directly to the west of the subject property.
Mr. Henricks states:
. "F01l0wing are my concerns:
3)
To prevent further traffic issues on McKenzie Highway the proposed parcels should be required to use
. 32 avenue and not given additional driveways onto the highway. . .
Our log decks are an attractive nuisanceo To reduce temptation to explore these decks a1l structures i.e.
restrooms, parking areas, concessions, indoor basketbal1 court, etc. should be built..as faraway from our
shared property line as possible. Since this tract is planned to be used for soccer and recreational fields
it would be only easy for children to want to climb' up on the log decks to get a grand stand view of the
field. These decks, as they dray, shift and become unstable. We do not allow employees on them and
are concerned for the safety of our youth.
A wood or cydone fence with slats should be installed along the entire common property line as a
physical barrier.
Noise complaints are a concern to us. Our log yard and mill equipment operate around the dock 7
days a week. I am concerned that additional noise (impulse) standards maybe imposed at a later date.
We support having places (or our children to play and participate in sports, programs, yet putting the
public adjacent to a heavy industrial manufacturing facility may generate complaints of excessive noise.
Planning and development considerations of this issue may help reduce any complaints, etc., i.e., locating
parking and gathering sites to the east near 32nd Aveo, leaving as much open space as possible along the
shared property line, creating an earthen berm along the shared property line to absorb noise and act as
a visual barrier, and plant coniferous tre~s behind the berm along the shared property line.
Our main concerns are keePing people out of harms way around o~r log decks and being restricted in our
operations due to additional noise constraints being mandated at a later date.
I)
2)
4)
'.
.
Many of our employees are active in sports and leadershiP roles throughout the commlinity. We have a strong
history in the community arid continue to look to be a strong and stable economic presence. 1 trust our issues
will be given full consideration for everyone's benefit" .
Staff Response:
1-44
4
.
.
..
Mr. Henricks concerns are addressed by number as follows according to his comments:
I) Access. The applicant has not indicated a location for a proposed access to Main Street (McKenzie
Highway) for Parcel I. However, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintains
jurisdiction over McKenzie Highway, and has indicated that in accordance' with ODOT access
management standards, where alternative, reasonable access exists to another street, the alternative
street shall be used. ODOT has indicated that Parcel J will not be granted access to Main Street,
and further,the City Transportation Division has found that the subject site has sufficient frontage
along South 32nd Street to accommodate a shared drivewayl?etween Parcels I and 2. Additionally,
the City has noted that future access to Main Street for Parcel I is at the sole discretion of ODOT, ,
and approval of this Tentative Plan has been conditioned to reflect this stipulation.
The applicant has not applied for an access per~it, but presumably will do so at the time of .Site Plan
: Review, when a complete site design is submitted for review. For now, no access to Main Street for
Pa.rcel I is granted as part of this Tentative Partition application, and none will be granted unless
ODOT approves access as part of another application.
2) And 3)
Setbacks! Separation from Log Decks, and Fencing along common property lines.
Setbacks and separation from Willamette, Industries' existing log decks is a concern that will be
reviewed at the time of Site Plan Reviewo The Springfield Development Code (SDC) contains
provisions for buffering and separation of uses where industrial abuts properties zoned for other
less intensive uses, and these standards will be applied at Site Plan Review. Willamette Industries
will receive notice of subsequent applications for development and will. have the opportunity to
provide written comment on them. .
It has been indicated verbally by Willamalane Parks and Recreation District that they are agreeable
to installation of fencing along the westerly boundary of Parcel 3, which is the location of the
proposed soccer fields. Again. the issues surrounding fencing will be addressed at the time of Site
Plan Review. .
4) Noise. SDC 31.060 contains the standards for screening and buffering for all new uses. ,The
parties involved in the development of the site intend to apply for a zone change for proposed
Parcels 2 and 3 to Public Land and Open Space (PLO). While curren1:lY the site in. zoned LMI and'
HI, and the Tentative Partition must be reviewed according to the standards for the industrial,
zoning districts. the parties intend to develop the parcels according to the standards of the PLO
zoning district. Within the PLO zoning district there are standards for fencing to protect the new
use from existing incompatible uses, such. as heavy industrial. The appropriate type of screening and
protection necessary for the applicant to employ will be determined upon Site Plan Review. and will
be reviewed according to the screening standards contained in SDC 3 1.160.
In summary, Willamette Industries' concerns regarding access are at the sole discretion of ODOT.
Concerns regarding fencing and buffering can be addressed at the Site Plan' Review level.
Criteria of Approval. Partition Tentative
SDC 34.050 states, "The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the request based
upon the following criteria:
1-45
5
(I) The request as conditioned fully conforms with the requirement of this cQde pertaining .
to: Lot size and dimensions, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, street
improvements and consideration of natural features."
Lot Size, Dimensions, and Driveway Standards:
Lot Size and Dimensions
The subject site is' approximately 34.26 acres, 1,487,574 square feet. The applicant proposes to
partition the site into 3 parcels. Parcel I is proposed to. be 222, 121.2 square feet, or 5.10 acres; Parcel
2 is proposed to be 424,585.3 square feet," or 9.75 acres, and Parcel 3 is proposed to be 836,342.2
square feet, or 19.20 acres. ._
Parcel I as proposed has approximately 333 feet along South 32nd Street and approximately 802 feet
along Main Street; Parcel 2 is proposed to have 446 feet along South 32nd Street, and Parcel 3 is
proposed to have approximately 1109 feet along South 32nd Street.
SDC 20.030( I) states, "In all industrial districts, the minimum 'lot size shall be 10,000 square feet with a '
minimum of 75 feet of street frontage." The resulting parcels, as proposed, conform to the standards of
the SDC for lot size and dimensions. '
Findings: .'
I. Parcel I is proposed to be 222, 121 square feet, 'or 5.10 acres; Parcel 2 is proposed to be 424,585 square
feet, or 9.75 acres; Parcel 3 is proposed to be 836,342 square feet, or 19.20 acres. .
2. The proposal complies with the requirements ofSDC 20.030 for minimum lotsize and dimensions for newly
created lots in the industrial zoning districts.
Solar Access Standards
SDC 34.0 I 0(3)(a) states: "Solar Access Standards (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall
apply to all land divisions in the LDR and MDR Districts. Lots complying with this standard. must be
identified as such on a separate recorded document."
Finding: '
3. The solar access standards do not apply to this proposal,' as the property is not within an LDR or MDR
Zoning District
Articles 31, 32, ~nd 34 provide the standards for partitions in the City
SDC34.070 states, "All proposed partitions shall meet the public and private improvement standards
of Article 32, Public and Private Improvements."
SDC 32.0 I O( I) states, "The intent of this Article is to ensure that public and private improvements are
installed and serve development in accordance with the Metro Plan."
SDC 34.070(3) states, "The construction of sidewalks, the paving of qriveways, connecting to utilities,
fences and landscaping shall be required when necessary to satisfy the standards of Articles 31, 32, and' .
the appropriate zoning district." .
Utilities- Partitions
1-46
1
6
.
.
.
SDC 32.120( 1 )(b) states, "The developer shall be responsible for the design, installation and cost of
utility lines and facilities to the sati~faction of the utility provider."
Water
SpC 32.120 states, "Each development area shall be provided with a water system having sufficiently
sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development. Fire hydrants and mains
. shall be installed by the developer as required by the Fire Marshall and the utility provider."
The Water Service Center of Springfield Utility Board provided the following comments regarding Water
service for the proposed partition area:
"I. The proposed development is within 'the Springfield city limits and will receive water
service from .the Springfield Utility Board (SUB).
2. All new waxer system facilities and modifications to water system facilities both inside
and adjacent to the proposed development shall be placed in street right-or-way at a
location and depth of bury that meets the standards of the SUB Water Division.
Development of this property may require the replacement of the existing waterline in
S 32nd Street in order to meet fire service requirements. In accordance with SUB
policy, the developer(s) of the subject property may be required to fund some portion
of the waterline replacement.
Replacement of this waterline will include extension of the Waterline west from S 32nd
Street to a new Main St. crossing at 30th Street. The Springfield Utility Board Water'
Division requests that a PUE be provided along the south side of Main Street for this
purpose.
3. All water facility materials shall be to a standard that must meet SUB Water Division
specifications. . ' '
4. All workmanship shall be performed to meet or exceed SUB Water Division
construction standards.
5. Size of waterline and other facilities, including water meters, must meet the needs of the
SUB Water Division and the long-range needs of the City. These needs include, but are
not limited to, meter location and access, sizes of water distribution and transmission
lines, pumping facilities, and communication lines.
6. Please ask the developer to contact SUB Water Division for detailed information on the .
materials and construction standards, detailed costs for installing SUB water facilities,
and a schedule of construction. Construction expenses may be reduced with good
planning of required water facilities, good timing of facilities installation, and joint trench
opportunities.
-, 7. All water meters will be placed in public right-of-way at a location identified by the
developer. Each I.ot or parcel must have its own water service.
1-47
...
7
8. Water' service facilities will be if'1stalled upon collection Of development charges.
Development policies and charges identified in this letter are subject to change. Actual
charges will be those in effect at the time water service is requested.
.
9. Springfield has several wellhead protection areas. One hun~red percent of Springfield's
drinking water comes from wells. In every instance, care shall be taken to prevent
groundwater contamination. Contractors/developers/owners shall be' responsible for
the. safe handling and storage of chemicals, petroleum products, fertilizers,' and the
prevention of groundwater and storm water runoff contamination. ..
. In addition, the SUB Water Division notes that special requirements may be necessary for groundwater
protectiori at this development. The applicant should contact Chuck Davis at Springfield Utility Board
Water Engineering Department for details, 746-2396.
The applicant should note that SUB development charges are paid directly to SUB Water Division and SUB
Electric Divisiono .
Findings: .
. 4. The development area is within the City of Springfield and will rec~ive water service from Springfield Utility .
Board (SUB)o
5. The subjed site is within the Springfield City Umits and will receive e/edrical service from SUB. According to
SUB, the location of the nearest electrical connection includes the overhead lines along a portion of the
. westerly property line; and along the easterly property line of the subjed site.
6. The Fire Marshall has indicated that depending on the size and intensity of use of the proposed .
development, it may be necessary, in accordance with SUB and City policies, for the developer to pay for a
proportionate share o( constructing a new water main from South 32nd Street along the south side of Main
Street, abutting the northerly property line of proposed Parcel I. All water facility materials shall be to a
standard that must meet SUB Water Division specifications. All workmanshiP shall be performed to meet or
exceed SUB Water Division construction standards.
7. Replacement of the waterline will include extension of the existing waterline west from South 32nd Street to a
new Main 'St crossing at 3{)rh Street The Springfield Utility Board Water Division is requesting that the .
applicant provide a IO-foot PUE along the south side of Main Street (or this purpose, in accordance with
SDC 32. I 20(5). ,
8. The City has agreed to provide fOl,lr fire hydrants to serve the proposed development area.
9. All new water system facilities and modifications to water system facilities both inside and adjacent to the
proposed development shall be placed in street right-or-way at a location and depth of b.ury that meets the
standards of the SUB Water Division.
10. Size of waterline and other facilities, including water meters, must meet the needs of the SUB Water
Division and the long-range needs of the City. These needs include, but are not limited to, meter location
and access, sizes of water distribution and transmission lines, pumping facilities, and communication lines.
Conditions:
I. The applicant shall contad SUB Water Division for detailed information on the materials and construaion
standards, detailed costs for installing SUB water facilities, and a schedule of construction.
2. All water meters shall be placed in public right-of-way at a location identified by the developer, and each lot
orparcel shall have its own water service. .
3. The applicant shall coordinate with SUB and the City Fire Marshall regarding funding of the design, and " .
construction of the waterline, if the development is determined to require it .
1-48
8
.
.
.
Public Utility Easements
SDC 32.120(5) states, "An applicant proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City
and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements. necessary to fully service the
development. The standard width for public utility easements adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7
feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 10 feet unless otherwise
specified by the utility provider or the City Engineer..."
As discussed under "Water" previously in this report, SUB is requesting a I O-foot PUE along the
northerly property line of Parcel I to accommodate an expansion of the water main in Main Street.
According to SUB, other existing and proposed PUEs shown on the Tentative Partition Plan. are'
sufficient at this time' for their service.
The applicant' has stated that there is an existing PUE located in the westerly side of the South 32nd
Street right of way. along the easterly property line of the subject site, which is dedicated to the City of
Springfield. The City's Public WorKs Department has found that this 10-foot PUE is solely for the.
existing 42-inch sanitary sewer trunk line. The Public Works Department is requiring that the applicant
execute an additional7-foot PUE along the full frontage of proposed Parcels I, 2,.and 3 along South 32nd
Street, in order to accommodate installation of other necessary utilities and infrastructure.
Findings: .
II. SDC 32.120(5) states, "An applicant proposing a development shall make arrangements' with the Oty and
each utilit( provider (or the dedication o( utility easements necessary to (ully service the development The
standard width (or Public Utility Easements adjacent to street rights of way shall be 7 feet The minimum
width for all other public utilit( easements shall be 10 (eet unless otherwise speciped by the utility provider or
the City Engineer." . .
12. SUB is requesting that a I O-foot PUE be provided where proposed Parcel I abuts Main Street along the
northerly property line of proposed Parcel I, to accommodate a future water main improvement project
13. SDC 34.030(8) requires that the location, widths, and purpose of all existing and proposed easements are
shown on the Tentative Partition PIano .
14. There is an existing sanitary sewer easement along South 32nd Street which abuts the easterly property fines
of Proposed Parcels I, 2, and 3. however, Public Works has determined that due to the depth and size of
the trunk line, this easement is solely for the 42-inchsewer trunk line.
15. Upon Site Plan Review, there will be an analysis of access, as well as necessary infrastructure induding but
not limited to utilities, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve the. ,development
Conditions:.
4. In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), which provides that the utilit( provider can require a IO-foot PUE where
necessary to serve the development, the applicant shall dedicate a I O-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcel. I which fronts on Main Street, to accommodate a future water main improvement project
5. In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), the applicant shall dedicate a 7-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcels 1,2, and 3, along South 32nd Street
6. In accordan~e with SDC 34.030(8), the applicant shall dearly show the .existing sewer easement, proposed
PUEs, and any necessary private utilities and private utilit( easements on the Final Plat; coordination through
the Cit( Public Works Department on the easement plan shall be completed prior to submittal of the Final.
Plat .
Sanitary Sewer
1-49
9
SDC 32.100(1) states, .....sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to .
connect developments to new mains. Installation of sanitary sewers shall comply with the provisions of
this code, the Standard Construction ~pecifications, Chapter 2 of the City Code, and Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations..."
The Public Works Department had the following comments regarding the provision of sanitary sewer:
"The Applicant has not shown how sanitary sewer will serve the parcels. SDC 34.030(7) requires: The
location and size of all existing andproposecl' utilities." The applicant has stated in the narrative
submitted as part of their application "All utilities needed to service this partition exist either along
McKenzie Highway (Main Street) or S. 32nd Street along the entire east side of this partition. Additional
proposed Public Utility Easements and a 30 foot wide shared access easement and maintenance
agreement are shown on the tentative partition plat."
The City Public Works Department has found that the applicant has not indicated how the proposed
, parcels will be served with sanitary sewer. There is an existing 42-inch sanitary sewer trunk line located
in South 32nd Street, which has adequate capacity to. serve the development. However, connections
must meet the specifications of the City of Springfield, and the applicant should contact
Pam Ownbey, City Civil Engineer, at 736.1028, for assistance on coordination of sanitary
sewer service. '
Findings:
/60 SDC 32100(2) states, 'The City Engineer shall approve alf sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior
to development approval". ' .
/7. The Public Works Department finds that the applicant has not illustrated how. the parcels will be served by
sanitary sewer and other necessary public services. .
18. The Public Works Deparunent finds that because'the existing sanitary sewer line in South 32nd Street is a
trunk line, selYice must be made through offset outside drop manholeso .
, /9. The Public Works Department has stipulated that multiple connections to sanitary sewer trunk lines are not
permitted.
.
Conditions: "
7. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval from the City Public Works Department for the. utility
plan prior to submittal of the Final Plat If other easemen~ are required upon review of the utility plan, the
applicant shall provide additional private and public easements in the location and width necessary to
accommodate the development proposal. .
8. The applicant shalf design the sewer system so that sanitary sewer service for Parcel 2 connects to the
existing service for Parcel 1 with a wye and deanout
9. In accordance with Springfield Public Works spedfications, all connections to the sewer trunk lines shall be
made by offset outside drop manholes.
Drainage Systems,
SDC 32.11 O( I) states, "The Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate
provisions for storm and floodwater run-off to the City storm water drainage system have been made as
determined by the City Engineer. The storm water drainage system shall be separated from any sanitary
sewer system. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown on every Site Plan or Final Plat".
..
SDC 34.030(3) requires that the location and direction of flow of drainage ways and the proposed plan
for drainage including handling storm water overflow for each individual parcel' and sheet flow from
1-50
10
.
.
.
adjacent properties be included on the Tentative Partition Plan. The Public Works Department has
noted that the applicant has not submitted a drainage plan with detailed calculations. However, because
the exact location, amount of impervious surface, and size of structures on the property is unknown at
this time, the on-site drainage plan can be submitted at the time of Site Plan Review.
The Public Works Department has noted that the applicant has not submitted an adequate drainage plan
which addresses how storm water over flow and sheet flow from adjacent properties will be managed
for each individual parcel. At the time of Site Plan Review, the applicant must submit an adequate
drainage plan with appropriate calculations. The City Public Works Department has indicated that there
. is adequate capacity in the storm sewer trunk line in South 32nd Street to serve the development.
Findings: ,
20. SDC 32.1 10(1) states, 'The appraval autharity shall grant develapment approval only when .adequate
pravisions for storm water run-off to. the City storm' water drainage system have been made as determined
by the City Engineer." " .
21. SDC 34.030(3) requires that the applicant submit a drainage plan as part of the Tentative Partitian Plan.
22. The act of partitianing land daes nat create any impervious surface, nar does it alter any drainage patterns
Dr create the need for additional infrastructure to' accDmmodate drainage.. .
23. The applicant has nDt submitted a detailed drainage plan far each individual parcel, hDwever, the Public
WDrks Department has noted that the on-site drainage system can be designed and reviewed for suffidency
at the time Df Site Plan Reviewo .
24. The Public WDrks Department finds there is suffident capacity in the existing stDrm sewer to' serve the.
future development
25. The Public WDrks Department finds' that because the existing storm, sewer line in SDUth 32nd Street is a
trunk line,' service must be made through Dffset Dutside drop manholes.
26. The PublicWarks Department has stipulated that multiple connectio.ns to sto.rm sewer trunk lines are nat
permitted.
Conditions:
10. Upan submittal ara Site Plan Review application, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage plan, which
demonstrates capacity in the City's sto.rm sewer system to. accommDdate the prDpDsed development, and
ho.W each parcel will be cDnnected to. the system, in accardance with 32.11 O( I). ,
II. Where joint use Df drainage fadlhies will be incorporated, the applicant shall execute joint use access and
maintenance agreements far each shared facility.
Storm Water Quality Measures
SDC 32.110 requires that an applicant of any development where new pavement area exceeds 5,000
square feet must provide storm water quality measures.
Findings:
27. The praposed Tentative' Partitian Plan does not invo.lve construction of new impervio.us surface.. At the time
of Site Plan Review, starm water quality measures will be required to. serve the development, where the new
impervious surface prapo.sed exceeds 5,000 square feet
1-51
11
'"
I .
.
Street Dedication! Improvements
SDC 34.070 "Tentative Plan Development Standa~ds and Conditions of Approval" stat~s, "All proposed
partitions shall meet the public and private improvement standards of Article 32, Public and Private
Improvements."
SDC 34.070 states:
( I) (b) Whenever a proposed partition will increase traffic on the City street syste~ and that partition
has unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved public screet., that street frontage shall be
fully improved to City standards. '
(c) EXcept as specified in Subsection (I)(b) of thi.s Section, whenever a proposed partition will'
increase traffic on the city street system, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a
condition of Development Approval in all cases where unimproved ~treet frontage exists.
(2) The dedication of land for public or private utility easemen~ and Joint Use/Maintenance Agreements
shall be required when necessary to satisfy the standards of Article 32, Public and Private
Improvements.
(3) The construction of sidewalks, the paving of driveways, connecting to utilities, fences, and
landscaping shan be required when necessary to satisfy the standards of Articles 31, 32, and the
appropriate zoning district." .
.
The subject site has frontage on both Main Street and South 32nd Street. South 32nd Street is designated
a minor arterial street in SDC 32;020(4)(b), and is unimproved except for sidewalk along the east side of
the street. Directly abutting the site, South .32ncl Street lacks sidewalks, curb, gutter, planter strips, and
. street trees.
. Proposed Parcel I has approximately 802 feet of frontage on Main Street (McKenzie Highway) which is a
State Highway, under the jurisdiction ofODOT. Where the site directly abuts Main Street., the roadway
is improved with sidewalks and intermittent street trees, but lackS planter strips.
The draft Agreement requires that the applicant., Arlie & Company. is responSible for the street
improvements to South 32nd Street for the full frontage of proposed Parcel' I. Once Parcels 2 and 3 are
partitioned and sold to the City, the City is responsible for the cost of improving South 32nd Street to
the full standards of the SDC for a minor arterial street., including sidewalks, street trees, planter strips,
bicycle lanes, paving" curb, and gutter. The right of way from centerline along South 32nd Street
abutting the site is 35 feet, which is sufficient for a minor arterial according to the standards in the SDC.
As of this writing, the draft Agr~ement has not been finalized and signed by all parties concerned. To
ensure that South 32nd Street is improved regardless of the ownership of the property, in accordance
with sot 34.070(1), the Transportation Division of the Springfield Public Works Department is
recommending the applicant be required to sign an Improvement Agreement for the full frontage of Tax
Lot 500 along South 32nd Street. Improvement Agreements are tied to property, and execution of an .
Improvement Agreement for the full frontage of the Tax Lot 500 will ensure that South 32nd Street will
be improved to City standards for a minor arterial street, regardless of the ownership of the property.
.
Findings: Street Dedication! Improvements
1-5'2
12
..
28. SDC 34.070(1 )(b) states, "Whenever a proposed. partition will increase traffic on the' City street system and
that partition has unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved public stre~t, that street frontage
shall be fully improved to City standards."
29. Main Street (McKenzie Highway) is a State Highway (Highway 126b) under the jurisdiction of the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT). Main Street is improved with sidewalks, curb, gutter, and street
trees.
30. South 32nd Street is improved with a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway, but lacks adequate paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and planter striPs, which are required for a minor arterial street
according to SDC 32.020(4)(b). .
31. In the draft Agreement, Arlie & Company is responsible for the improvements along the frontage of
, proposed Parcel 1 along South 32nd Street
32. The right of way for South 32nd Street abutting the site is 35 feet from centerline, and varies, from 30-35
feet abutting the east side of the centerline. According to the standards in SDC 32.320020((3), the
minimum right of way tor a minor arterial is 70 feet
Access to Proposed Parcels I. 2. and 3:
In accordance with SDC 32.080( I )(a), each parcel is entitled to an approved access to a public street.
However, as stipulated in SDC 320080( I )(b), "Joint use of driveways at a property line shall be required
whenever necessary to reduce the number of access points to streets.' Construction of joint use
driveways shall be. preceded by recording of joint use access and maintenance easements." The
Transportation Division is requiring that the applicant execute, a shared access between proposed
Parcels 1 and 2, centered on the common property line for both parcels. At this time, this' shared .
access will be the sole access to Parcel I, unless a private approach permit is granted from ODOT for
access to Main Street for Parcel I at a later dateo .The applicant can contact Gary McKenney,
Transportation Planning. Engineer, at 726-4585, if there are qu'estions regarding these
requirements.
. ' .'
Regarding access to Main Street (McKenzie Highway) for proposed Parcell, the Transportation Division
has deferred to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), which provided the following
comments on the Tentative Partition, as OOOT maintains jurisdiction over the roadway:
.
I. "Prior to partition, the parcel 17-02-31-00 TL 500 has frontage on both OREHwy 1268
(Main St.) and South 32nd Street. OAR 734 Oiv 51 (Access Management'Rule) considers
south 32nd St. as "alternative reasonable access" to the pre-partitioned parcel. The
'proposed partition as shown on the submitted tentative partition plat creates three
discreet parcels. Parcel 1 has frontage on both ORE Hwy 1268 (Main St.) and South
1-53
n
32nd Street. Please advise your applicant that the Access Management Rule would
consider Parcell's frontage on South 32nd Street as "alternative reasonable access".'
Should the applicant apply to ODOT for a private approach to. the state highway for
. Parcel I, the alternative reasonable access provision may mean that no private approach
permit to the highway would be approved by ODOT. . .
.
Please also understand that each permit applied for must go through the normal permit
review and approval/denial process, and that this comment is advisory only.
2. As we discussed at the DRC meeting on this partition, it makes sense to consider some
sort of public throughway crossing the larger parcel in an east. west direction for the
. purpose of current and future transportation connectivity. ODOT policy 'is to
encourage the development of street networks parallel to state highways as an
alternative to traveling on the highway for local trips. As I. mentioned at the meeting,
ODOT is funding the local street connection on Daisy Street, a local city street south
of 126B and east of the current partition site, for just this reason. Our goal would be
to work with the city to prevent the need to retrofit this site at some point in the '
future, *after* the site has developed, to provide for a parallel street connection to
South 28th Street an'd the developed and redeveloping areas west and south of the
. current site." .
ODOTs comments address access to Main Street, and the need for east-west' connectivity in order to
reduce auto reliance on the state highway. The City has deferred to ODOT for all access approvals for
Main Street. In regard to the need for east-west access through proposed Parcel 3~ the City
understands the importance in providing east-west connectivity, however at this time, is not requiring
the reserve right-of-way. There are no standards in the SDC tq require such a dedication.
.
Findings: Access and On-Site Circulation .
33. The Transportation Division finds that construction activities associated with development and use of the
partitioned parcel wi/l generate vehide trips and non-motorized trips to and from the site, which require safe
and efficient facilities for access and circulation.
34. SDC 32.080(4), "Intersections", states, "In order to minimize traffic conflicts...intersections involving curb
return driveways and streets, whether public or private, shall be directly opposed, unless a Traffic Impact
Study indicates that an offset intersection benefrts public safety to a greater degree. .. ' '
35. SDC 320080(1)(0) stipulates that each p'arcel is entitled to "an approved access to a public streef'.
36. Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of
conflict points increases the probability of accidents. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic
crashes indude: reducing the number of driveways, aligning or maintaining adequate separation between
intersections and driveways, and establishing adequate vision dearance where driveways intersect streets.
Each of these techniques permits a longer, less duttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number,
and difficulty of decisions drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety. .
J7. Main Street (McKenzie Highway) is a State Highway under the jurisdiction of the 'Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), and access to McKenzie Highway from Parcel I wi/l, be subject to approval by
ODOT. ODOT has submitted comments on the proposed partition indicating that the applicant will not be
granted access to Main Street from Parcel I, as "Alternative Reasonable Access" exists via South 32nd St:eet
(OAR 734 Div 5/ - Access Management Rule). . .'
38. SDC 32.070 provides that all driveways maintain a vision dearance triangle of /0 feet along all property
~a .
39. The applicant has shown a 30 foot-shared access and maintenance easement and agreement along the
southerly property line of Parcel 2.
.
1-54
14
.
Conditions:
12. In order to ensure that safety, circulation, and the requirements of SDC Article 32 are accommodated,
access to South 32nd Street shall be limited to the following locations:
o A shared driveway to serve proposed Parcels I and 2, centered on the common property line; and
o A shared driveway to serve Parcels 2 and 3 centered opposite the center line of Oregon Street
The applicant shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow '
shared driveway access as described in I) and 2) above. These easements shall be at least 24 feet wide
and extend at least /.00 feet to the west of the easterly property line which fronts on South 32nd street.
.
13. In accordance with SDC 32.080(4), any access granted to Parcel 3 from South 32nd Street in the future shall
. be aligned with Virginia Avenue, in order to enhance the circulation and safety of the development area, as
well as to accommodate the future transportation needs of the surrounding urbanizable area.
, 14. In order to facilitate conneaivity between adjacent parcels, in accordance with SDC 32.040, the applicant
shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow north-south
pedestrian, bicycle,' and vehicular access across the parcel boundaries between Parcels I and 2, and Parcels
2 and 3. These easements shall be located not less thein 100 feet west of the' easterly property line along
South 32nd Street, and recorded with Lane County Deeds and Records prior to submittal of the Final Plat
15. In accordance with SDC 34.070, the applicant shall sign an improvement agreement for paving. curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, planter strips, and street trees, along the full frontage 'of the applicant's
property along South 32nd Street .
16. In accordance with SDC 320070, the applicant shall maintain a vision clearance triangle of 10 feet along all
property lines.
Consideration of Natural Features
The Metro Plan, the draft Natural Resource Special Study, the Local Wetlands Inventory Map, the
National Wetlands Inventory Map, the Hydric Soils Map, the Drinking Water Protection Overlay
District Map, and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted.
.
Findings:
40. The ~ocal and National Wetlands Inventory Maps have been consulted, and there are no inventoried
wetlands on the subject site.
41. The Hydric Soils Map has been consulted, and there are no known hydric soils on the site.
42. The Historic Landmark Sites reference has been consulted, and there are no known historic resources on the
site.
43. SDC Article 38 requires that an applicant shall apPly for a Tree Felling Permit if more than 5 trees greater
than 2 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) are to be felled in calendar year.
44. Springfield has several wellhead proteaion areas. One hundred percent of Springfield's drinking water
comes from wells. In every instance, care shall be taken to prevent groundwater contamination.
45. The Springfield Wellhead Protection Overlay Map was consulted in review of this application, and a portion
of the development area is within the boundaries of the 10-20 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) of the
Maio Well. In accordance with the standards of SDC article I 7, the applicant may be required concurrent
with. Site Plan Review, to submit a Drinking Water Protection Overly Distria Application for review by the
~ ' '
46. The application complies with criterion I, as the Tentative Partition Plan, as conditioned herein, and
conforms with the provisions of the SDC pertaining to: Lot size' and dimensions, the efficient provision of
public facilities, and services, street improvements and consideration of natural features.
1-55
15
Condition: .
I 7. The applicant. at the time of Site Plan Review, shall ensure that the future development complies with the
standards in SDC Artide 17, Drinking Water Overlay Distria for development within the 10 to 20-year Time
of Travel Zone, and that chemicals, petroleum products, fertilizers are handled in a manner which prevents
groundwater and storm water runoff contamination. .
U(2) The zoning is consistent with 'the Metro Plan diagram and! or applicable refinement
diagrams." ,
The subject site is zoned approximately 50 percent LMI and 50 percent HI. The subjeci: site is within
the boundaries of, the Mid Springfield Refinement Plan, and the plan designation is also Light Medium
Industrial and Heavy Industrial.
Findings:
'47. The zoning for the site is 50 percent LMI, and 50 percent HI, and the property is designated LMI ~nd HI in
, the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan.
48. The proposed Tentative Partition complies with criteria 2, as the zoning and the Mid-Springfield Refi~e~ent
Plan Designation are consistent for the subjea site.
U(3) Development of any remainder of the property in the same ownership can be
accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this co~e."
Findings:
49. The proposed Tentative Partition Plan complies with criterion 3, as the area property within the. same
ownership can be developed within the guidelines of the SDC
.
U( 4) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development
in accordance with the provisions of this code."
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of South 32ndand Main Streets.
. '
Directly south are the railroad cracks! Booth Kelly Road, and Agnes Stewart Middle School. Directly
west lies Wiltamette Industries log processing facility. The site abuts South 32nd Street to the east, and
the east side of South 32nd Street is developed with LOR and MDR properties. The adjacent properties
are already developed and provided access, and the current partition proposal, ,as conditioned, will not
adversely affect established access points.' '
'Findings:
50. The Tentative Pai-tition Plan complies with criteria 4, as the adjacent properties are already developed and
provided access; and the proposal as conditioned will not adversely affea the 'established access points of
adjacent properties. '
SUMMARY: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL~ PARTITION TENTATIVE PLAN
Conditions:
I. The applicant shall contaa SUB Water Division for detailed information on the materials and construction
standards, detailed costs for installing SUB water facilities, and a schedule of construction.
2. All water meters shall be placed in public right-or-way at a location identified by the developer, and each lot
or parcel shall have its own water service.
.
1-56
16
.
.
.
3. The applicant shall coordinate with SUB and the City Fire Marshall regarding funding of the design, and
construction of the waterline, if the development is determined to require it
4. In accorda'nce with SDC 32. I 20(5), which provides that the utility provider can require a 10-foot PUE where
necessary to serve the development, the applicant shall dedicate a 10-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcel I which fronts on Main Street, to accommodate a future water main improvement project
5. In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), the applicant shall dedicate a 7-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcels I, 2, and 3, along South 32nd Street
6. In accordance with SDC 340030(8), the applicant shall clearly show the existing sewer easement, proposed
PUEs, and any necessary private utilities and private utility easements on the Final Plat; coordination through
the City Public Works Department on the easement plan shall be completed prior to submittal of the Final
Plat
7. The applicant shaf/ coordinate and receive approval from the City Public Works Department for the utility
plan prior to submittal of the Final Plat If other easements are required upon review of the utility plan, the
applicant shall provide additional private and public easements in the' location and width necessary to
accommodate the development proposal.
8. The applicant shall design the sewer system so that sanitary sewer service for Parcel 2 connects to the
existing service for Parcel I with a wye and c1eanout
9. In accordance with Springfield Public Works specifications, all connections to the sewer trunk lines shall be
made by offSet outside drop manholes. .
10. Upon submittal of a Site Plan Review application, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage plan, which
demonstrates capacity in the City's storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed development, and
how each parcel will be connected to the system, in accordance with 32.11 D( I). .
II. Where joint use of drainage facilities will be incorporated, the applicant shall execute joint use access and
maintenance agreements for each shared facility.
12. In order to ensure that safety, circulation, and the requirements of SDC Article 32 are accommodated,
access to South 32nd Street shaf/ be limited to the following locations:
o A shared driveway to serve proposed Parcels I and 2, centered on' the common property line; and
, 0 A shared driveway to serve Parcels 2 and 3 centered opposite the center line of Oregon Street
The applicant shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow
shared driveway access as described in I) and 2) above. These easements shaf/ be at least 24 feet wide
and extend atleast 100 feet to the west of the eas~erIy property line whichfronts on South 32nd Street
, .
13. In accordance with SDC 32.080(4), any access granted to Parce/Jfrom South 32nd Street in the future shall
be aligned with Virginia Avenue, in order to enhance the circulation and safety of the development area, as
wef/ as to accommodate the future transportation needs of the surrounding urbanizable area.
14. In order to facilitate connectivity between adjacent parcels, in accordance with SDC 32.040, the applicant
shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to af/ow north-south
pedestrian,' bicycle, and vehicular access across the parcel boundaries between Parcels I and 2, and Parcels
2 and 3. These easements shall be located not less than 100 feet west of the easterly property line along
South 32nd Street, and recorded with Lane County Deeds and Records prior to submittal of the Final Plat
15. In accordance with SDC 34.070, the applicant shall sign an improvement agreement for paving, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, planter strips, and street trees, along the full frontage of the applicant's
property along South 32nd Street
16. In accordance with SDC 32.070, the applicant shall maintain a vision clearance triangle of 10 feet along all
property lines. . '
. 17. The applicant, at the time of Site Plan Review, shaf/ ensure that the future development complies with the
standards in SDC Article 17, Drinking Water Overlay District for development within the 10 to 20-year Time
1-57
17
of Travel Zone, and that chemicals, petroleum products, fertilizers are handled in a manner which prevents .
groundwater and storm water runoff contamination. .
Additional 'Information
The application, all dOl:uments and evidence relied upon .DY the applicant and the applicable criteria of
approval are available for a free inspection and copies will be available at a cost of $0.75 for the first
page and $0.50 for each additional page at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield Oregon. .
Expiration of Approval
SDC 34.090 provides that within 12 months of the date of Tentative Plan approval, a Final Partition Plat
incorpor;iting the above listed Conditions of Approval shall be submitted to the City for review. The
requirements for the Final Plat are listed in SDC 34.090.
Appeal
If you wish to appeal this Type II Limited Land Use Tentative Partition Plan decision, your application
must comply with SDC Article IS, APPEALS. Appeals must be submitted on a City form and a fee of
$250.00 must be paid to the City at the time of submittal. The fee will be returned to the appellant if
the Planning Commission approves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for a 10 day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule I O( c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00
p.m. on May 28th, 2002.
.
Questions
Please call Susanna Julber, Planner II, in the Development Services Department \f you have any
questions regarding this process, 726~3652.
.
1-58
18
.
us; 103, 2CZlCZl2
1" = 200'
~ HIOHU.I,'l" ~IN &~)
! 17,al'
--...I.,
PARcm., I
N9..r~nt .271114
PA~m. %
PA~CI!L. 3
----~~--
-----------------------
EXHISIT A
1 59
. ...,...
=w=" r,-
, I
. '/
/ /
I ~----
, /
/
I I
I !
I
f I
I
I
L__~
r--
/
I
. / I
/1::/,
a,
a "'/
~ j~
- I
~I
!l~'~ '
, ..~
'r--
,
I t
tL
I
L__
, '-1,":'~"YJ;
r
III
~:
/
/
L__
6...~
r""""-
/
r kllnrl....
...'!!'
225 FIFTH STREET
, SPRINGFIE~D, OR 97477
(541) 726-3753
"FAX (541) 726.3689
www.ci.sp~ngfield.or.us
AMENDEDDEGISION
'.
Notice of Amended Decision - Limited Land Use - Partition- Te~tative' Plan
Date of Letter: June 10, 2002
Journal Number:' 2002-02-0044
Owned Applicants:
. Arlie & Company .
722 Country Club Road
Eugene, Oregon 9740 I .
Desi~n Consultants:
. Jim Colton '
. , Ford-Ness-Fassbender'
P.O. Box 2273'5 '
. Eugene, OR 974q2 .
N~ture of this Notice: The applicant,. Arlie &.Company, submitted a Partition T~ntative Plan ~o th'~ . .
. City on Februiry IS, 2002, proposing to partition Map' Number 17-02-3\,' Tax Lot 500, into 'three
parcels. The Notice of Decision (Decision) was ,issued May' 15, 2002, which approv~ the Tentative
. Parti,ti~n.~lan with 17 ~tta..ch~d. ~ondi~~ns ,of ~~p.roy?-1. ~ " ' .... '. ..
. '. , ..
.,/,/
--""
Upqn further c~nsid~ratiori.ofth~ May" J5'D~ision;' as ~used by t,h~ appli~nt's notice ,of an int~nt t~ .
. appea{ it WaS' found that,the'Decision 'Vfai not organized in' accordance' With'sck:' 34.070(5)', Whic~'-
requires that Conditions of Approval for Partition Tentative Plans. must be identified as immediate or
delayed conditions, and,.adcliclonally: .mat som,e of the Cond.itiofls of App'roval could ~ave. been',worded '
to provide' greater darity for the applicant 'and interested .parties. Furthermore,' the' City wishes' :to'
: ~Iarify Finding 24 and supporting text, which S?ted there was adeq~ate storm drainage capacity in South
. 32nd Street to accommodate futur:e ,~eveloPlT'!ent of the site. . . '. :' '. '.
As such, the City is issuing this Amended D~ision with the following language, which amends and
. repl~~es the Conditions in the May 15 D~~i~~.on., ..' ..
, '
Amended Conditi?ns, 'Partition "f.,entative Plan, )0. No. 2002~02~0044 .
. , .' ~
. Inaccord~ce with the ~equii-ements. of SDC 34.Q70(5}, which ,requires that attache~ co"nditions d . 0 .
approval be either immediate' or delayed, the Conditions of Approval contained within the. Notice of ,
Decisiqn.issued May 15,2002, are revjsed!~.follows: ..... . ..'. '..., .' ;' ..... "
.' ., ...', .
. . 0..
. .... . .
. Immediate ConditiqnsJ which are requited to be fulfiIIed prior to or concurrent with Final Plat
Submittal: ", .
4. In accordance' with SDC 32.120(5); ~ich provides that .the utility provider can require a IO-foot
. "", PUE where 'neceSsary to' serve the development, the applicant shall dedicate 'a', O-~oot PUE al!Ong th~
. :: .Jul! fron'iageDf proposed parcel.! w~lCh frql"lts on. Main street, t~ .ac~6nim'od~~e ~ f~ure '!!F~er. i)1airi
'. ~~, impC9vement proie~ . , ,,~ : "::',: ',' ;'.:.. .' ...'. .,., ... . '.:' , . " ;'. ; .:,:..,., ..... .',,> ',' .' '.
5: :.rri:acco'~dance'with 'SDC 32. 1'10(5); the 'applicant shall dediCate i'7-foot PUE along'the flilUrontage
, of proposed Parcels I. 2, and 3, along South 32nd Street. . '. . . :. , , ,.' .
6. In accordance with SDC 34.030(8),. the applicant shall clearly show the existing sewer. easement,
proposed ~UEs, and any' ne~essary pnvate utilities and private utility easements on the Final Plat;
CWlIIT I
.
'.
.
.
..'
..
:. ~ c'?~rdina~ion.th~~ugh the;c;:ityPublic Works Departme~t on the,ea~ement plan ,shall bE;! completed
';, prior ~o submittal of the Final :Plat. -:':', . . . '., .. ' . '.
7. The applicant shall coordinate and receive' approval from the City Public Works Department fpr the
'.1. .' utility pl3;n. prior to subJTlittal of .the; .Final ~Iat. If other ~emen.ts.are ,r:-~quired upon reyiew of the
'- utility plan, the applicant shall provide additional private and. public easements in the. location and
width necessary to a.ccommodate the development proposal. .', . . '. ,
S. The applicant shall plan, and show on the Final Pla~ necessary easements for, the proposed public
sanitary sewer serYice to each parcel, as well as to . allow extension of serYice to the westerly'
property' line. Connection to the public sanitary system is limited to one new tap to the sanitary
!: s.ewer trunk line through .a drop manhole,. in accordance with Springfield Public .Works
specifications. .
:~. The applicant shall submit a ~onceptual drainage plan, and show on the Plat 'any necessary easements
to 'accommodate the plan, which demonstrates capacity in the' City's storm sewer system to
accommodate proposed development, including handling of storm water overflow for each
individual parcel and sheet flow from adjacent properties, as well as h~w each pat:"cel will be.
connected to the system, in a:ccoraan~ewith SDC 32.-1 10(1):" .. .
1.0. Where joint use of drainage facilitles will be incorporated, the applicant shall execute joint use
access and m~intenance agreements for each shared facility. '. .
,,=1. In order, to ensure that safety,. circulation, . and the. requirements -of SDC Article 32 are
::: . accommodated, access to South 3~nd Street shall be Iimitecfto the fO,lIoWinglocations:
. " '. q..
a) A shared driveway to serve proposed Parcels I and 2; and .
'): ' b) A s~ared driveway ~o serve Parcels 2 and 3 ce~tered opposite the ce!iter line of Oregon Street.
". :"',..':' .,' '. :," .:...,._~'.:::.. ,... ~,~"':' .~...:~.:. ....'.:.. "i~ ".: :~,.:...:":'., ',;.... ".:' .........
:i. The 'applicant shall eXecute 'ahd'.record, tWo. 24-foot.wide: 19int :use..a.ccess. and. maintenan.ce.
easements to allow shared' driveway access as described in a) and b) above.. Each of these
. i e~ementS shall ext:endat.l~t I 00 f~t.t6 the west.of the '.easterlypropercy line whiCh fr~n~ on
South 32nd Street;..... '" '.
.' .' .. , ." .... . ~i~~'
12. In accordance with SDC 32.080(4), access to Parcel 3 frof'!1 South 32nd Street, if permitted by the
.1 City! shall .be aligned with, Virginia Avenue; in order 'to . enhance the circulation and safety of the
~ development area, as well as to accommodate the future. transportation. nee~s of the, surrol:lnding
, .. urbanizable area. . . . , :
1,3., In order to fadlitate connectivity between adjacent parcels,' in aq:ordance with SDC '32.040, the
; applicant shall execute and record two 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easements~
~ all.ow north-'south pedestrian, 'bicycle;'andvehicular access: across.theo.parcel boundaries between
I Parcels I and 2, and Parcels 2 and 3.. These easements shall be 'Iocated not less than I 00 f~et west
r.' .o~ the easterly propercyline along South 32nd Street, and be recorded with Lane County Deeds .and
Records prior to sub'mittal of the Final Plat. At the time of Site Plan Review, a relocation of these
cross easements may be .approved by the City~ provide9, the City Traffic El1gineer finds that
. relocation will facilitate safe and efficient ingress, egress, an9 cross access in accordance with the '
provisions of SDC Articles 3 I and 32. .
.' 4. In accordance with SQC 34.070, the applicant shall sign an improvement agreement for 'paving,
.: ~urbs, gutte~s, sidewalks, street Iigh~, planter strips, ~n~.~e~t tr~es,. along ~e full frontage of the
app!i9:~t's proper:9' along ~~u,th 32&1 Street. .".. :. . :,:' _.:. ".: . ....:: " ~.~
" .. ;. ~ . .'. .. . . . '.. .... ." ,. .0: . ': . ... .... .
~'.. ~ .' .'. .;
D~fayed Con'diiions; -which' are' required to be' f~IfilIeci as pari:' of 'd -(utoreSitePfaf{- Revi~w
application submittal:
1-"61-
1h___.J_-'r-- ;,. ... .,._. \r ..,;"1,.,.... "'" ,.,,.,,,,. ,,, "'''1''1'''
.
I. The' applicant shall contact SUB Water Division for detailed .information on the materials and
. construction ~~?ards,. detailed com for in~lIing SUB \Vater facilitieS, an9a schedule of
'construCtion. ' ,.., ":: .' . , " ' , ' " . " '- ..
2.' All Water, n:eters shall be placed in p~blic',right-Of-WaY at a ,location .ide,ntifiedby the developer, and,
each lot'or, parcel shall have its own water service. . . ' .. ,- ~ ' . .' . ,.
3. The applicant shall coordinate with SUB and the City Fire Marshall regarding funding of the des'ign, '.
and construction of the waterline, if the development is determined to require it. .
15. In accordance with SDC 32.070, the applicant shall maintain a vision clearance triangle' of 10 feet
. . along each access to a public street. . ' ' ,
16. The applicant, at the time of Site Plan Review, shall ensure that the future development complies
with. the standards in SDC Article 17, Drinking Water Overlay District, and that chemicals..
p~troleum products, fertilizers are handled in a mar)ner which prevents groundwater and storm
water runoff contamination.
"
Amended Fi~.9ings:
.... .
:', The last sentepce of Paragraph J, page II of the May 15 Notice of DecisiolJ states, "The' City Public
Works Depargnent has indiO:ted that there is adequate capacity in the storm sewer trunk line in South
32n<l Street to serve the development." Finding 24, on the same page ~tes, "The, Public Works
Department finds there is sufficient capacity in the existing storm sewer to serve the future'
de~elopment." '
Upon further c6nsideratio~, the CitY's P!JblicWorks Department determined the following, which
amends the May, 15 Decision findings pertaining to storm \Vater as follo~s: '
.
, .
, ,
Finding: The majority of the acreage of the subject site is located:within the upstream extent of the
South A Street Drainage Area as shown in the West Springfield Drainage Master Plan, dated June 1983"
, with tf)e remaining acreage lying within, the Upper Q Stre~t Drainage Area. '
, , ".'
Finding: Pur";uant t~.the Wen Springfield Drainage'Master Plan, the South A Street Draina~e A~'ea
, requir~ 25 acre-feet of stormwater detention to accommodate future development within the'
upstream portion of this Drainage. Area. .
Finding:' Pursuanqo the West Springfield Drainage Master Plan, the Upper'Q Street Drainage Area in
th~ vicil1ity:ofthe. subject site is essentially,built-out, and the, existing :storm~ter: .~ra,iriage.system. in
South 32nd Street has a Iimit~d amount excess capacity (approximately ~' cis) a~ilable beyond the .
, capacity needed to accorri!Tiodate future development within its tributary drain~ge ~~ .
Finding: The subj~ctsite is physically constrained and isola,ted from the remainder of the South A.
Street Drainage Area by the existing railroad line along the westerly boundary of the site, and the
exiting public stormwater system in this qrainage Area is not currently extended to serve ,the ,subject
site.
"
Finding: The P~bli~ Works Engineering Division ha~determined th~t,assigning,the excess capacity in '
the South 32nd Street stormwater drainage system to serve the subject site will not materially affect the
City's ability to serve the remainder of the I~nd within the Upper Q Street Drainage Area. . '
. .
..
Finding: The existing public stormwater system within Main Street afong the frontage of the subject .
site is owned and operated by the Oregon Department of ~ransportation'(ODOT).'
1'-62
.
.'
.'
Your Right to Appeal
If you wish to appeal this Type II Umited Land Use Tentative Partition Plan Amended Decision, your
application must comply with SDC Article 15, APPEALS. Appeals must be submitted on a C{ty form and
a fee of $250.00rilust be paid to the City at the time of submj~l. The fe~ will be returned to the
. appellant if the Planning Commission approve$ the appeal appliCation.
In accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for a 'I 0 d~y appeal period and Oregon R.ules of Civil
Procedures, R.ule IO(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00'
p',m. on June 24, 2002.
Questions
Please call Susanna Julber, Planner II, in the Development Services Department if you have' any
questions regarding this process, 726-3~52.
. "
.,
..'
. ,
'.
.\
. '
,.' ,.,
" ..
'. '...
'.
'. '
1-63
DKS Associates
.
1400S. IN. Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97201-5502 .
Phone: (503) 243-3500
Fax: (503) 243-1934
Memorandum
Date: November 19,2002
To: Greg Mott, Gary McKenney, John Tamu10nis - City of Springfield
Bill Kloos, Al Johnson
From: Carl D. Springer, P.E., Julie Sosnovske, P.E.
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis Evaluation for Two Alternative Sports Complex Sites in
Springfield, Oregon
The purpose ofthis memorandum is to summarize our evaluation of the possible transportation
impacts associated with two sites under review by the city to allow Sports Complex facilities at a
more centralized location.
.
Alternative Site Descriptions
The two sites under review are referred to as the Central Site and Gateway Site. The existing and
proposed zoning, and related circulation characteristics are summarized below and onrable 1 on the
following page.
. Central Site - The central site located at Main Street (State Highway 126) and 32nd Street
covers 34.38 acres, The city's existing zoning splits the property north-south between heavy
industrial and light & medium industrial designations. Access standards on the state highway
will affect site access and circulation plans for the fronting acreage. 111is site is undeveloped.
The pending proposal would re-zone the northernmost5.l4 acres to community commercial,
with the balance of 29.24 acres to be public land and open space. The latter designation
specifically allows sports complexes.
. Gateway Site - This site is located at the northern terminus of Sports Way, approximately
one-half mile north of Beltline Road and its interchange with Interstate 5. All vehicular
access to the site is provided via Sports Way. The 21.7-acre site has approximately 6 acres of
commercial zoning along the southern edge, and the remaining 15.7 acres designated as
public land and open space, The proposed zone change would eliminate the commercial
designation, arid replace it with a 15.74-acre site for' campus industrial uses. Remaining
acreage could not be developed given ,the 35% allocation required for landscaping (or open
space) within a campus industrial designation,
The net effect of these two ,land use re-zoning actions would be to allow for a sports complex facility
to be built at the Main Street (Central) site. The primary goal of our investigation was to determine
how the proposed change in allowed uses might impact the transportation system as it relates to
adopted city and state safety and capacity performance standards.
.
1-64
".\ Ju._l______. __.,:__,,\T\nf""\""^""'\"^^" "., {\"t:" t:., Ct___... 1""__+__ .\ _Oo..~_.............\C'__:__&:.;.I..IT'C''' 1 ..I"....
DKS Associates
November 19,2002
Page 2' of 5
.
Table 1: Sports Complex Alternative Site Descriptions
Gateway Site
Sports Way
Central Site
32nd Avenue and Main Street
Existing
Zoning
6.0 ac,'
15,7 ac.
Space
21.7 ac.
Commercial
(PLO) Public Land/Open
17.19 ac. (HI) Heavy Industrial
17.19 ac. (LM!) Light Medium
Industrial
34.3 8 ac. Total
Total
Proposed
Zoning
21.7 ac. (CI) Campus Industrial District 5.14 ac. Commercial
(includes 35% landscape or . 29.24 aco (PLO) Public Land/Open
open space requirement - net Space
developable land is 14.11
acres)
Proposed
Development
Use
No specific proposal at this time
5.14 ac. Mixed-use Retail
19.4 ac. Outdoor Recreation Fields
9.84 ac. Indoor Sports Complex (six
full-sized courts, facilities for
gymnastics, indoor running, hockey,
fitness, and administrative offices,
dressing rooms, showers, and related
facilities.
Main Street(State Highway 126), 32nd
Street
.
Site Access
Routes
Beltline Road, International Way,
Interstate 5 via Beltline Road
interchange.
.
Trip Generation Comparison
The affected zoning districts have a range of permitted land llses. These were reviewed to identify
potential trip activity with and without the re-designation of a zoning district based on the City of
Springfield's development code (Articles 18,20,21 and 23), and the trip generation rates for similar
uses based on the Institute of Transpo11ation Engineers Trip Generation research. Potential site land
uses for both Existing and Amended Plan Designations were determined by City of Springfield staff
for our use in this analysis. It is noted that, for the Central site, warehouse commercial is allowable
under both LM! and HI zoning. A 12-acre warehouse commercial site was assumed, allocated evenly
between the LMI and HI zoned parcels,
The analysis summarized in Table 2 includes assumptions about the intensity of uses based on the
permitted use analysis, published ITE data and trip generation estimates developed for uses for which
data was not rea~ily available (i.e. Outdoor Sports Facility). Specific development applications will
need to be fe-evaluated to assess the trip generation.
The net result of the proposed re-designation was as follows:
· Gateway Site- There is a net reduction of roughly 475 evening peak hour trips with the re-
designation that excludes commercial uses,
· Central Site - There is a net gain of roughly 200 peak hour trips, most significantly because
of the addition of commercial zoning along Main Street.
I Per documentation and telephone discussions with Gary McKenney, P E"Transportation Planning Engineer, City of Springfield,
1-65
DKS Associates November 19,2002 Page 3 of 5
.
Table 2: : Net Change in Trip Generation Related to Proposed Zone Change* (pM Peak Hour)
GatewaySite Central Site
Existing
Acreage 6.00 15.70 12 11.19 11.19
Zoning CC PLO Warehouse LNIl HI
Corrunercial (Rec Ctr)
Average Floor Area Ratio 25% 30% 40% 35-40% 50%
Net Buildable Area 65,340 205,168 200,000 177 ,970 243,718
Trip Rate per 1,000 GF A 10,0 2.0 2,87 1.75 0.5*
Total Peak Trips 653 410 574 311 122
Total Site Peak Hour 1,064 1,007
Tri s
Amended Zoning
Acreage 21.7 5.14 9,84 19.4
Zoning CI CC LMI PLO
. (Rec Ctr) (Outdoor
Sports) .
Average Floor Area Ratio 25% 25% 35-40% 30%
Net Buildable Area 236,313 55,975 '156,500 253,519
Trip Rate per 1,000 GF A 25 7,64 1.75 2,0*
Total Peak Hour Trips 591 428 274 507**
Total Site Peak Hour 591 1,209
Tri s
Net Peak Hour Trip -473 +202
Chanae
>I< Trip rate developed based on typical heavy industrial and/or PLO uses, Rate is representative of a large category of uses
~nd is not specific to a particular use.
** No ITE Rate available, rate estimated by JRH Transportation Engineering for proposed Outdoor Sports Facility (see
~~~ '
.
1-66
.
DKS Associates'
November 19,2002
Page 4 of 5
Scope of Potential Impacts
The net reduction in trips associated with the rezoning of the Gateway Site appears to exclude that
location from further impact analysis. The removal of the Community Commercial designation
creates a net reduction in the trip generation potential relative to the current zoning, and the travel
demands will be less than those forecasted in the latest TSPo'
The Central Site is shown to have a net gain in vehicle trips with the zone change, assuming a
"reasonable worst case" development plan under the Existing Plan Designation (LMIJ1-Th.1I) and
"reasonable worst case" development under the Amended Plan Designation (CC/LMIlPLO). Since
the amended plan designation is anticipated to generate a greater number of evening peak hour trips
than under existing zoning, it is likely that some form of mitigation would be required. Previous
transportation studies have shown that one or more study area intersections do not have any excess
capacity available for additional trips on the street network.
.
Mitigation
Previous traffic studies of the Central Site have shown that long-range peak hour operating conditions
along Main Street will exceed acceptable Levels of Service even with current comprehensive plan
designations, No additional capacity solutions were identified that would mitigate those conditions to
the minimum level accepted by the state or city.
An alternative mitigation approach would constrain the number of peak hour vehicle trips added to
the system such that the re-designation has no net additional trips relative to the, current planned uses.
The mitigation could be a "trip cap" on the PLO designated portion of the site. A "trip cap" would
limit development on the PLO portion of the site to the difference between the trip generation under
Existing zoning and the trip generation under Amended zoning. This "trip cap" would limit evening
peak hour trip generation to and from the site to 305 trips. This number is derived by subtracting the
trips associated with the CC and Recreation Center uses from the number of trips allowed assuming
"reasonable worst case" under Existing zoning:
Table 3: Possible Trip Cap Mitigation for Central Site
Description Vehicle Trips during Weekday Peak Hour
Allowed under current plan designation 1,007
Community Commercial -428
LMI/Recreational Center -274
Remaining Trips to be Allocated 305
.
An implementation plan would need to be developed in order to determine how such a trip cap would
be implemented and enforced,
If a trip cap is determined to be an acceptable alternative, the Central site would then result in a net
even trip generation and would therefore meet the Transportation Planning Rule requirement that
there no further degradation (beyond what is allowable under existing zoning) of study intersections,
1-67
DKS Associates
November 19, 2002'
Page 5 of5
Conclusions
The proposed re-zoning ofr-No alternative sites in Springfield, Oregon is expected to have the
following potential impacts. ' .
1. The Gateway Site will have a net negative change in trip generation at build out. No further
traffic impact analysis is recommended since the surrounding street .network will operate at
the same level, or better, than it would with development under the existing plan designation.
2. The Central Site re-designation will have an adverse transportation impact without further
mitigations. If the suggested trip cap can be developed and implemented, the Central Site will
have a net even or negative change in trip generation at build out. No further traffic impact
analysis is recommended since the surrounding street network will operate at the same level,
or better, than it would with development under the existing plan designation.
1-68
, '
.
.
.