Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 7/17/2007 . .. City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 541.726.3753 DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION UNDER BALLOT MEASURE 37 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION (Please type or print) Too Blue LLC Bill Kloos Name of Representative (If Any) Law Office of Bill Kloos, PC Name of Property Owner Philip and Joan Marvin Name of Firm Name of Firm PO Box 2055 375 W. 4th St., Suite 204 Street Address Street Address Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97402 City, State, Zip (541) 302-1778/(541) 345-1811 (f) City, State I Zi P (541) 343-8596/(541) 343-8702 (f) Phone Fax Phone Fax PUBLIC MEETING Does Owner request a public meeting? Yes NoX PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY DSCRIPTION A Demand shall be for a for a single property or separate contiguous properties under the same ownership Map and Tax Lot # 17 -03-34-41 Tax Lots 1 00 and 300 No site address - north west corner of Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette River Site Address Owner's Interest in the Real Property Property Owner REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS (SEE REVERSE OF THIS FORM) AND COMPLETENESS This Demand and all attachments required on the reverse side of this form must be provided before acceptance by the City Manager. Only after acceptance will the 180 day processing period commence as specified under Ballot Measure 37. (Springfield Municipal Code Sec. 2.900 et sec.) NOTARIZED SIGNATURES I/We -1 c.U ~ f'VI.tv II i 1\ & depose and say that I/we am/are the owner(s) of the private real property that is the subject of this Demand and the same is true as I/we verily believe. f ~~C!..ma/vt4 er SIgnature X Owner Signature Subscrtbed to me this rr day of . ~ I ClAL8l!AL 'I)A""ft A. I ......ELL NOTARY PUlIUC-OREOON otarYGOMlQ&SlON NO. 393813 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 13. 2009 ~ Ju\'t 20tl. Notary Signature~ Jf J~ DISCLAIMER NOTICE: Approval of compensation or modification. removal or non -application of land use regulation does not warrant or otherwise guarantee that the present property owner or any successors interest can legally use the subject property for the purpose, or in the manner, approved by the City as such use or P.urpose may impact third parties, including rights established by Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), other private restrictions, or other regulations, restrictions or contracts. . ~ STAFF COMPLETES THIS SECTION File# ~RPd.()Ol'OOOaDateDemandSubmitted 1- 17-07 Received by: $ 5CO~ PR.J2oofo~OOo6~ t\~ Fee Paid Date Demand Accepted for Processing . LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC . OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4'HSTREET. SUITE 204 EUGENE. OR 97401 TEL (541) 343-8596 FAX (541) 343-8702 E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM July 17, 2007 City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Measure 37 Claim by Too Blue LLC Assessor's Map: 17-03-34-41, TLs 100 and 300 Dear City of Springfield: Please accept this letter, and the supporting materials, as a claim for relief under Measure 37. This claim is filed on behalf ofthe current title holder, Too Blue LLC. This claim relates to the land above, which is further described in the materials enclosed. The balance ofthis letter is organized under the checklist items in the city's application form. The owner intends to supplement this application. 1. Application Form: See attached form and checklist of I 1 required items. Some of the items requested by the City are only partially submitted here. The applicant intends to promptly submit the additional supporting information. 2. Property Description: Tax Lot information appears on the application form and above. The metes and bounds property description appears on the warranty deed, instmment number 9857393, recorded July 21,1998, to Too Blue LLC. The deed appears in attachment 2 hereto. 3. Title Report: A current preliminary title report appears in Attachment 3 hereto. The showing the title was acquired by Too Blue LLC on July 21, 1998. A formal Ballot Measure 37 Title Report will be submitted to supplement this application. 4. Copy of Regulations Applicable to the Demand: The claim seeks compensation for or relief from the restrictions adopted in Ordinance No. 6137 (July 18, 2005). 5. Demand Statement: The applicant desires to use the property for uses allowed by the plan and zone designations as they existed prior to the adoption of the new regulations in Ordinance No. 6137 (July 18, 2005). The subject regulations diminished the value ofthe subject property in an amount of 50% of its fair market value, or not less than $3.5 million. The claimant will supplement this application with a formal appraisal valuing the property with and without the regulations complained of. The compensation of$3.5 million should be paid to the title holder, Too Blue LLC. As an alternative to payment of compensation, the City should waive application . . City of Springfield July 17, 2007 Page 2 of3 of the new regulations and allow the property to be developed for uses allowed prior to the date of the ordinance. 6. Demand Criteria: The City has enacted Ordinance No. 6137, which is a land use regulation that restricts the use of the real property. The restriction reduces the fair market value of the real property. The restriction was enacted on July 18, 2005, after the applicant acquired the property. The land use regulation at issue here is not an exempt regulation in the meaning of SMC Section 2.920(4). Ordinance No. 6137 applied a range of new land use regulations to the subject property through amendment to the Metro Plan, refinement plans and code amendments. It designated the subject property as being in a "River Opportunity Area." It changed the Metro Plan designation and the Glenwood Refinement Plan designations to Mixed UselNodal Development. It added text amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plall that limit development ofthe subject property. And it adopted a new zoning district, the Glenwood Riverfront zone (GR), SDC Article 44, that will apply specific development standards and a special development review process to the subject property. Collectively, the new restrictions in Ordinance No. 6137 limit the development options for the subject property and impose more complex, discretionary and costly procedures for approving development. These new restrictions include, but are not limited to: a 50,000 square foot limitation on building size (SDC 44.090); a prohibition on drive-through uses (SDC 44.070(13); a potential Type IV review and decision process for this site, which is larger than five acres (SDC 44.030(2)(c); new limitations on allowed uses (SDC 44.070); additional density and general development standards (SDC 44.100); heightened development standards for property that fronts on the Willamette River (SDC 44.120), including a minimum 75-foot setback from the top of bank (SDC 44. 1 20(2)(a)); percentage limitation for uses (commercial, residential and open space) in the plan area that will severely limit the potential uses on the subject property; and incorporation of mixed use development standards from SDC Chapter 40. 7. Appraisal: The applicant will submit a formal appraisal meeting the city's standards. 8. Additional Documentation: The applicant will submit copies ofrestrictions shown in the title report. 9. Access to Property: The City Manager and/or his designee may have access to the property to evaluate this claim, subject to reasonable notice being given to the owner. 10. Fee: The City fee accompanies this application. 11. Statement Regarding Exempt Land Use Regulation: The regulations complained ofhere are not exempt from this claim. The regulations are not directed activities commonly recognized as public nuisances. The regulations are not intended to promote public health or safety. They City of Springfield July 17, 2007 Page 3 of3 . . are not required to comply with federal law. They do not relate to pornography. The regulations were el cted after the date the claimant acquired the property. Enc!. ~ ~- .. )f ~' Iil:t.w. <<. <q,~."", .s",. 700 , .~ . v II 16 "'5.$' , . .. 0 , ~ I . . , ;; " ~ ,...,- ;-:- , : ":.0.'" , " . ..... J'" ~ :'"1 ~. I OJ. LHI"L.. \JVV'" I 1'" 100' '<~7.0!..- ---.. -F Cor LeN BankO., . Mealder PI" "'" /".." . ~ . . S ,_ 'oli-', 'r .., tr.'= _..- '-T...~ JI. --U?;--- , ,,' \ . 35.., ;, 1700 . ~ \; ) - i' . .- t J, : ~ , I, "" )00 ~ r-...-U,- -I- . I ~ . . 100,... ~ . .. ~ SI"".. -!!"1 U::.--~.. n-'""y .."....r... ~~.3" V,/ly 0 ~_ ..z....:l/.7.. "" . lOll; Lotted on 11033414 CITY OF SPRINGFI D 17-03-34-41 TL 100, SO ~ -<-. ~,..:;..~ ... '1 ~ ~ << -v~ <"..>. ..>. <" ~ ?- ~~. ~.. ", , Rt.Bmk', Meoodff Pt. "'" '" i "- " " . . ~"'#-..~. ~~ ".~. o " '" II,r1 L" i.'-~,... ,/ Il,- ,-)' ;l;4rT-J'.' "" 400 .:-?~;,. . \ :. l 300 " . . . \ 1 , / ~. ~'\~ 1\ SITE ~~ l.... " . '- 'I (' 'I \ ~/ >v -' 0..' "..f'.' ,S".6 ',). .,. "" ~.;'" ,,:,,~,;,~ ~ ~.,,..I- il'O' .~ ..~...-.. See Mop 17033444 , <!1 ~/J!:-.~~E. I . \ "'-.. \ \ " To( Lotted on 17033523 0' 9-01 ~ /..:.. <"~ ", " '" ..' / // -!/'/ /// "- " ~ ).......1-' " .. /- Sfoe fy' . . I RETURN TO CASCADE TITlE CD. C1 3~LE NO. 2''''5 ~ ESCROW NO. EU9S-eoctE 1.J TAX ACCT. NO. 299667 Le<;,{ TAX ACCT. NO. 299GBJ ,.. . r7--tJ3 ,3'1 -If _101- /~ 9857393 - -.... CASCADE TITLI; ce. WARRANT'! DEED - - STATUTORY' FORM PHILIP L. MARVIN and JOAN C. MARVIN, Grantor, conveys and warrants to \~ ~ TOO BuOE LLC, an Oregon LiQited Liability Company, Grantee, the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: .' SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOr ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN TBIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OP APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FER TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR CODN'I'Y PLANNING DEPARMBNT TO VERIlY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUZTS AGAINST P~NG OR POREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS JO.gJO. The true consideration for this conveyance is NONE Dated this ,2/ ad.. , V" I PHI~~ ilOO7JUL.21 '9BHOSREC 10.00 M!Q!JUl.21 "9SltOSPFUND 10.00 !QQZJUL.21'9BHDSA.T FUND 20.00 day of . 192,L. ~d'/J7",,,,-"""":'" J . MARVIN STATE OF' OREGON', County of /7;'f/l.L/ lss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on ~y PHILIP L. MARVIN and JOAN C. MARVIN 192L-. ~d;~ (], d.d,~ otary Publicvtor Ore~n My commission expires: 6. y'~ 00 I) oma.Il...... WUl!JIl\lQJlE9 t(lTARYf'lJGUC.OP.EGCfI .,-' ~NO.052664 Ili~EXPIRES.A.M4,~ PHILIP L. MARVIN PO BOX 2055 EUGENE, OR 97402 GRANTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: *** SAME AS GRANTEE *** TOO BLUE LtC PO BOX 2055 EUGENE, OR 97402 GRANTEE'S NAME AND ADDRESS After recording return to: CASCADE TITLE CO. Bll WILIJl.METTE EUGENE, OR 97401 - ,..~,., "7" ~. i , i i i I I , I i t. 1"" r l . I -/. ToI ~ . ' ~Our NO: CT-214415 @" {Nt> " 9857393 ~.;t PROPERTY D9SCRIPTION PARCEL 1: . Beginning at a point which is 603.0 feet Eaat and 273.5 feet North of the Northwest corner of the Daniel McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian; said point being marked by an iron pipe; from said beginning point run North 652.0 feet to the Willamette ~iver; thence meandering said river up stream as follows: South 410 11' East 633.9 feet; thence South 340 45' East 470.8 feet to a point of intersection with the Northerly right of way line of the McKenzie Highway; thence leaving said river and following said right of way line South 640 47' West 346.7 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 150 44' West 152.1 feet to an iron pipe; thence South 890 59' West 56.7 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 450 30' West 179.4 feet to an iron pipe; thence North S70 29' West 65.3 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 84.5 feet to an iron pipe; thence West 81.0 feet to the place of beginning, being a part of Section 34, in Lane County, Oregon; EXCEPT that portion described in Final Judgment in favor of State of Oregon by and through its State Highway Commission filed December 12, 1947, Case No. 33924, Circuit Court of the State of Oregon. PARCEL 2: Beginning at a point which is 684.0 feet East of the Northwest corner of the Daniel McVay Donation Lane Claim No. 82, Township 17 South, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian, from said beginning point run North 189.0 feet; thence South 870 29' East 65.3 feet; thence South 450 30' East 95.9 feet; thence South 10 24' East 192.3 feet; thence South 70 40' East 78.a feet to the Northerly right of way line of the McKenzie Highway; thence following said right of way line Southwesterly along arc of a spiral curve to the right. (the long chord of which bears South 760 48' West 127.5 feet) a distance of 127.6 feet; thence leaving said right of way line and run North 160 15' West 110,0 feet; thence North 94.3 feet to the place of beginning, being a part of Section 34, Lane county, Oregon; EXCEPTING that part of the above described real property conveyed to Earl L. Dickson and wife, by instrument recorded February 7, 1938, in Book 193, Page 321, Lane County Oregon Deed Records, in Lane County, Oregon. State of Oregon County of Lane - 55. C.lncCollllfyOeIK, (nllnd(orlJle}~id Counly.doh'1!Ieby~ellilYlhallhe within Irnlf1JmenIW\l.$re~eivedlorrccordal Reel '98 JUL 21 PM 2:09 2444R Larre CourrlyOFFlCIAL Recoros l....1IneCollnlyOerk By, ,Q,,;fl4.--1...f..)/ CountjlClerk f ... !;! ~,' I' III "'1" . , -'t., "" r l . . 1l~IVru~ IU \,o1\;:'l"IIUt: IllLt liU. I .. ~ Ir\ . t '.\ /7-tl3- 3'f-~-/4#=-ltJtl d&o TITLE NO. / ESCROW NO. 9857392 TAX ACCT. NO. N"""",,",Y DEED .. STATlITORY FORM 214/41' G/ EU96-2501 '-<.fIT 299667, 299563 - .... CASCADE nn.s ec. EMERALD VALLEY PUBLISHING CO., an Oregon Corporation, Grantor, conveys and wa~rants to PHILIP L. MARVIN and JOAN C. MARVIN, Grantee, \~ \~~ the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein: SEE EXHIBIT A WHICH IS MADE A PART HEREOF BY THIS REFERENCE THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF TH~ PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTROMBNT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARMENT TO VERIJ?~ APPROVED USES AND TO pE~ERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST F~NG OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORB 30.930. Except the following encumbrances: 1998/99 taxes which are a lien but not yet due and payable. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. This transaction is part of a simultaneous tax deferred exchange. The true con6id~ration for this conveyance is exchange for property of equal value Dated this 2/ tt-day of <1.7 ./ . 19 2.E:.. EMERALD VALLEY PUBLISHING CO. By,.-;;;t;~4e?' GYM. LAN "QQ2JUL.21'9snOSREC 10.00 If!Q2JUL.21"9Sn05PFUND 10.00 ,QQ2JUL.21 '9Sn05A&T FUND 20.00 President STATE OF OREGON, County of ,~~~ . 192L. This instrument was acknowledged before by GARY M. KAPLAN, as President PUBLIS lNG CO., on behalf the grantor. me on U>lJEJIIlKlIIEll HOTAH'iPlJBlJJ.ORS3ON """""","HO.D52684 "Yl'''"I''''''EXi'lIIll.u<E~llXIl expires: EMERALD VALLEY PUBLISHING CO. PO BOX 21705 EUGENE, OR 97402 GRANTOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS Until a change is requested all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: *** SAME AS GRANTEE *** PHILIP L. MARVIN PO BOX 2055 EUGENE, OR 97402 GRANTEE'S NAME AND ADDRESS After recording return to: CASCADE TITLE CO. 811 WILLAMETTE EUGENE, OR 97401 f~'F." l':}:'.r ffill mJ .L ;.. i I I t ,. I ! i I I 1, f I [,.'. I I f" , r I , r i i> I i i' I , [ I _I . . I .i' i;u~ NO;. CT'~144150' r;.;17 fo fill tVrv'i).,U 9857392 ~jt PROPERTY D~SCRIPTION PARCEL 1: Beginning at a point which is 603.0 feet Ea6t and 273.5 feet North of the Northwest corner of the Daniel McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Township 17 South, Range J West of the Willamette Meridian; said point being marked by an iron pipe; from ~~id bcgirUling point run North 652.0 feet to the Willamette River; thence meandering said river up stream as follows: South 410 11' East .633.9 feeti thence South 340 45' East 470.8 feet to a point of intersection with the Northerly right of way line of the McKenzie Highway; thence leaving said river and following said right of way line South 640 47' West 346.7 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 150 44' West 152.1 feet to an iron pipe! thence South 890 59' West 55.7 feet to an iron pipel thence North 450 30' West 179.4 feet to an iron pipe; thence North 810 29' West 65.3 feet to an iron pipel thence North 84.5 feet to an iron pipe; thence West 81.0 feet to the place of beginning, being a part of Section 34, in Lane County, Oregon: EXCEPT that portion described in Final Judgment in favor of State of Oregon by and through its State Highway Commission filed December 12, 1947, Case No. 33924, Circuit Court of the State of oregon. PARCEL 2: Beginning at a point which is 664.0 feet East of the Northwest corner of the Daniel MCVay Donation Lane Claim No. 82, Township 17 South, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian, from said beginning point run North 189.0 feet; thence South 870 29' Bast 65.3 feeti thence South 450 30' East 95.9 feet: thence South 10 24' East 192.3 feet; thence South 70 40' East 78.8 feet to the Northerly right of way line of the McKenzie HighwaYi thence following said right of way line Southwesterly along arc of a spiral curve to the right. (the long chord of which bears South 760 48' West 127.5 feet) a distance of 127.6 feet; thence leaving said right of way line and run North 160 151 West 110.0 feet; thence North 94.3 feet to the place of beginning, being a part of Section 34, Lane County, Oregon! EXCEPTING that part of the above described real property conveyed to Earl L. Dickson and wife, by instrument recorded February 7, 1538, in Book 193, Page 321, Lane County Oregon Deed Recorda, in Lane County, Oregon. State of Oregon County of Lane - 55. I, theCountyClerk,lnandforlhesllid Counlv, do hereby certify thaI the Within ilUtrument was recelvcd for record al '98 JUL21 PH 2'08 Reel 2444R ~ne COllJ)ly OffiCJAl Record5 leneCollrltyClerk f].;JJ...! ~~..y CounlyClerk By: I ..Mi I' It I I r l .:.." ..1. .,;- 's.~.'" .- . . . . . ORDINANCE No. 6137 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM FOR PROPERTY IN THE GLENWOOD AREA, WITH CONCURRENT GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM, REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council is committed to establishing policies and procedures to guide development in Glenwood in the area known as "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area", in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, excepting the parcels south of the railroad tracks, and as such, initiated the following Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) diagram and concurrent Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram amendment, Glenwood Refinement Plan Text amendment and Springfield Development Code amendment on September 20, 2004: Redesignate approximately 47.5 acres of/and from "Commercial! Industrial! Multi- Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed User Nodal Development", amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan to add policies and procedures to guide development, and amend the Springfield Development Code to add "Article 44: Glenwood Riverfront (GR) Plan District", Jo. No. LRP 2004-00031, City of Springfield, applicant. WHEREAS, the combined application conforms to the provisions of Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code for providing timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of the Springfield Development Code, as well as applicable provisions of Lane Code (LC) chapter 12; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2005, public hearings on the Metro Plan diagram and concurrent Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram amendmen~ Glenwood Refinement Plan text amendments, and Springfield Development Code amendments were held. No persons testified in favor or against the proposed amendments. The Planning Commissions of Lane County and the City of Springfield held the written record open until April 29, 2005, in order to solicit more written testimony from interested parties. The Development Services staff notes, including criteria of approval, findings, and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of those persons testifying at the hearing or in writing, have been considered and are part of the record. In accordance with Chanter IV Plan Amendments and Refinements of the Metro Plan, Policy 6, the Springfield Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Springfield City Council to adopt the package of amendments on May 18,2005. The Lane County Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to adopt the amendments on June 7, 2005; and . WHEREAS, Chapter IV Plan Amendments and Refinements of the Metro Plan, Policy 13 requires Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments to be referred to the other two jurisdictions for review and determination of Metro Plan consistency; and WHEREAS, The City of Eugene was provided a referral notice on March 17,2005. No response from the City of Eugene was received that indicated the proposed amendments have a Regional Impact; and , ". - f; . . . . . WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has an acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program with a process for securing citizen input on all long range planning projects, which has becn followed since the project's beginning in fall of2000, and opportunities for citizen influence have been available at all stages during the development of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the proposed amendments. A group of property owners, business owners, and residents of Glenwood formed the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), which provided oversight to the project, and additionally, approximately 1\ public open houses and workshops were offered throughout the project history to receive citizen input, in addition to a number of City Council and Planning Commission work sessions; and WHEREAS, Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements policy 3(b) supports the proposed amendments as a Type II amendment; and WHEREAS, the requested Metro Plan diagram amendment, concurrent refinement plan diagram amendment, Glenwood Refinement Plan text amendments, and Springfield Development Code amendments, are consistent with the criteria of approval of Section 7.070 and the provisions of Section 7.110(4) of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report (Exhibit "E") attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Springfield Development Code, Article 44, Glenwood Riverfront (GR) Plan District was developed to implement the Metro Plan and GJenwood Refinement Plan amendments for the area known as "Subarea 8"; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners conducted a joint public hearing on this proposal on June 20, 2005, with the Springfield City Council, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Metro Plan, LC chapter 12 and 10.600-J5 requires Lane County participation in all refinement plan adoptions or amendments which affect land outside the city limits of Springfield; and WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, ofLC chapters 10 and 12, Springfield Development Code Articlc 7, and of applicable state and local law as described in Exhibit "E", attached, and which is adopted in support of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield ordains as follows: Section I. The Metro Plan diagram is amended to change the current designation of approximately 47.5 aCres ofland from "Commercial! Industrial! Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development," as identified and described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached and incorporated here by this reference. Section 2. Concurrently and consistent with the provisions of Springfield Development Code Article 7, the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram for the area known as Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, excepting the area south of the railroad tracks, is amended to change the current designation from "Commercial/ Industrial! Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development," as identified and described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached and incorporated here by 2 Ordinance No. 6137 " , . . . , ; . . this reference. The parcels south of the railroad tracks currently part of Subarea 8, will become part of Subarea 9 at the time of annexation request and subsequent Glenwood Refinement Plan Amendment. Section 3. The Olenwood Refinement Plan, Subarea 8: River Opportunity Area text is hereby amended by replacing the current pages with revised text as described in Exhibit "c" attached and incorporated here by this reference. Section 4. The Springfield Development Code is amended to add Article 44: OR Plan District, as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated here by this reference. Section 5. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.1 10 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its acknowledgement as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later, provided that by that the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Sections 1,2,3, and 4 of this Ordinance. FURTHER, although not a part of this Ordinance, the Common Council of the City of Springfield adopts findings as set forth in the staff report, attached as Exhibit "E", in support of this action. The prior underlying Metro Plan designations replaced by this Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. 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, such portion shall 'be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not effect the validity to the remaining portions hereof. Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 18thdayof July 2005. City~~ . "-',' ~ ~~11 n, jI ;:""::'''::C~\I~D ", ,.., II ."(~''''' ~ . " .J~~j \."'~""I :;. .," ..., -/l--I - '.' , ::'''".I,___._._O~_ G;c;::!GE OF CITY ATTORNEY 3 Ordinance No. 6137 '1 ~ ,,' . PLAN DIAGRAM N A July, J 999 Plan Designations a Commercial ~ Commerciallndustrial/Mixed Use Il<iiilll Light Medium Industrial D Low Density Residential k'':~1 Cammercial/lndustrial/Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use ~ Parks and Open Space 1""""1 Public Land o 500 G o L E N w o 1000 Feet . Exhibit A . 1 Subarea 8 proposed Plan Designation: Mixed UseJ Nodal Development D , . . . , " Exhibit B .1 . EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN PLAN DIAGRAM Change to Mixed Use! Nodal Development o Low Density Residential o Medium Density Residential L .:: ~!l High Density Residential ..commerCial . Major RetaU Center . Heavy Industrial III Special Heavy Inllustrlal k:..,::.:~.;1 Ught.Medium Industrial f;,:i'i}i Special' Light Industrial 8universltY/ReSCBrCh ___. Urban Growth B1lundary Pion Boundary FloaUn,;: Node o Government & EducatIon . Parks & Open Space . Natural Resource F-~' >1 Sand & Gravel . Agriculture . Forest Land [J Rural Residential . Rural Commercial J'<'L'. '1 Rurallndustrial r!:;:~1 Urban Reserve '-.~. - . A1rport ReseNt . Mixed Uses ~ Refinemf:nt Plan "1.,.' 1/ ~. .....; ",' 1..,' ",-," .p..~-:':." _'!'t'''''''~ <II... ~~ .. '" ,-.,. ",- ~."~.,:-.,,,- ::.J:::J!~.>.t~\i.. J ",' " ~. ". .IF ~ ,c' \- 3~" \"'lt~n In:lk~l!t L~"J UI;(: 'kcIS(<lI',~ III ",,,:IS f''r\~ UV lu.lllfllcdH:(jr;wu:l1lpl<tll~, (l1;e'Jsshould n,U'f 1(. . ;~c~~."r;~'~:,i,~!~';~: :~ej:\,'~l::~:t ~~I~;~:\~",';';I~"ltf ill: rdl'~Il"'l\t l'luns "(!"IIl",1 g"b~<""""1I110.hlnr I~ltl....\", ~ \ ; '---- \~ .~\ \ ) ;/ j' j , --.... OILL...il,) -":::J.... ___ r ~ Q "ODO ., . . . . . ,,' . Exhibit C -1 . SUBAREA 8"RIVER OPPORTUNITY AREA (Refer to the Plan diagram on Page 20). The River Opportunity Area encompasses the parcels between the river and Franklin Boulevard. extending from Ponderosa Manufactured Dwelling Park east to the Springfield Bridge and continuing' south just past the railroad crossing. This is an area of mixed uses. It includes commer~ial uses such as' a veterinary clinic; commercial-industrial uses such as tractor sales; industrial uses such as warehousing; and residential uses. This subarea contains approximately 47 acres, a significant portion of which is vacant or underutilized property", especially along the riverfront. This is the last vacanti under-developed land along the Willamette River in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area, and is central to the entrances to Springfield and' Eugene. The opportunity to create a special place on this site is enhanced by the amount of vacant land with river frontage. the potential for consolidation of parcels under a few ownerships, the recent installation of sanitary sewer in Franklin. Blvd.. and the creation of the Glenwood Urban Renewal District. This is considered an area that could provide an oppon:unity for new development. The' opportunities for a signature development are enhance!,! by the Riverfront Plan, the Urban Renewal District, and future tr.insportation improvements to Franklin Blvd. This development could include any mixture of office developments, retail commercial uses, quality re~idential development, and public plazas and space for public riverfront parkland that would promote public enjoyment of and access to the river. . . .' In recognition of the mixed development pattern of the area, the RiverOpportunity Area is designated . Mixed Use (MU) in the Metropolitan Plan. This area is identified as a Node in TransPlan because of its location between the downtowns of Springfield and Eugene, along the first phase of L TD's Bus Rapid Transit system; Because of Subarea 8's identification for Nodal Development, the Nodal Development Overlay (IND) applies to all property within Subarea B. Under the MUI ND Plan Designation, within Subarea B, the following zoning districts are permitted: Medium and High Density Residential (MDR and HDR), Community Commercial (CC), Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC). Mixed Use Employment (MUE), and Public Land and Open Space (PLO). These zoning districts are designed to work together to result in development that is an attractive place to live, work, shop, and recreate, with less reliance on the automobile than is found elsewhere in the community. In addition to these zoning districtS, the Nodal Development (ND), Willamette Greenway . (WG) and Floodplain (FP) Overlay Districts also apply in Subarea 8. . Glenwood Riverfront Plan- Background Shqrtly following the transfer of jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield in late 199B, .the Springfield City Council identified the area known as "Subarea B: The River Opportunity Area" as an area suited for redevelopment into a vibrant, residential! office/ commercial mixed use center, that would take advantage of the location along the riverfront, and become an asset to the community. In order to develop and ultimately adopt a plan that would guide redevelopment of Subarea B in a manner consistent with the policy direction from the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the City of Springfield was awarded multi-year Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grants from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Project consultants were retained to assist in the 1 . . development of a plan that achieved the following objectives, established by the project's Citizen Advisory Committee in October 2000: . . Riverfront Plan Project Objectives I. Propose a mixed use development pattern and accompanying design guidelines that will enhance and complement the adjacent riverfront and that are consistent with the Neighborhood Center Node designation; 2. Provide transportation linkages between the Study Area and the surrounding neighborhoods; 3. . Establish design and streetscape standards lor the Study Area,.including provision of sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities; 4. Establish the most appropriate location and design for an east-West bike path along the riverfront, to strengthen local and regional connections; S. Implement the objectives of TronsPlon to increase densities in areas identified for nodal development; 6. Reduce reliance on State Highway .126 for local east-west traffic through a strategy to resolve and reduce acce~s issues within the Study Area; 7. Plan for a connected street pattern within the Study Area that facilitates internal circulation, promotes walking, and that minimizes conflicts on Franklin Boulevard; 8. Identify the most appropriate location for a new transit station; 9. Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for endangered species through environmentally sensitive development; and . 10. Present the Riverfront Plan for adoption. The Riverfront Plan was developed with guidance from the Springfield City Council, city staff, agency staff such as Willamalane and the Oregon Department of Transportation, OLCO, the TechniCal Advisory Committee, and the Citizen Advisory Committee. The Riverfront Plan envisions that the planning area is developed in a manner that maximizes it's location along the riverfront, and that becomes an asset to the community by providing a high quality mix of housing, commercial, and office uses, through design that reflects the Riverfront Plan Project Objectives. . Copies of the full Glenwood Riverfront Plan and supporting documents can be obtained at the OevelopmentServices Division, or online at www.cLspringfield.or:us. Substantial public resources have been expended to develop the Riverfront Plan including extensive citizen involvement, research, and development of design guidelines that were completed to ensure that this plan met the expectations of the City Council and ultimately benefited the community in terms of added value and quality development. However, recognizing that there could be a single purchaser of the land within the plan area who may have a development proposal not anticipated by. the Riverfront Plan, the City is providing a flexible twO track development review process for development proposals within Subarea 8. These development review processes are described in detail in Article 44, of the SOC, the GR Plan District. . . C .'2 . . . . . 2 .,\ . . . . .. . C.3 . Offering two processes for development review within Subarea 8 allows the.city to react to unanticipated future development scenarios. using adopted master plan objectives and design guidelines to ensure that development meets specific criteria that will assist in meeting the Riverfront Plan. Project Objectives, described above. Development proposals within Subarea 8 must meet the requirements of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Arcide 44, GR Plan District. Proposals using the Riverfront Plan as framework. or those . proposals using an alternative framework through the Master Plan process will use the development standards outlined in the GR Plan District for project design of buildings and parking areas. POLICIES I. This subarea shall be considered appropriate for mixed use. 2. The City shall allow for a mixture of zoning districts in order to facilitate development of a mixed-use area. 2.1 Consider zone changes that would allow for park development, office. and medium- and high- density residential development and commercial uses that would provide public . enjoyment of and access to the river. such as restaurants. outdoor recreation, and plant nurseries. 2.2 Within Subarea 8, allow rezoning of land to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), ~ommunity Commercial (CC), Medium Density Residential (MDR). High Density Residential (HDR). Mixed Use Residential (MUR). Mixed Use Employment (MUE), and Public Land and Open Space (PLO), with development applications consistent with the Riverfront Plan. through the Master Plan process, and during the City's nodal implementation project. 2.3 The presence of existing zoning other than those listed in 2.2 above, may remain until such as time that the property is annexed or a development proposal is submitted, at which time, the developer shall request zoning consistent with the districts listed in 2.2. During the interim period, the existing zoning shall not constitute a plan-zone conflict. 3. All development proposals within the GR Plan District shall include an application for anneJiiation and annexation agreement, where necessary, as determined by the Director. . 4. The following range of land use allocations shall be allowed within the GR Plan District: . Residential: 30-60 percent, with an overall net residential den.sity of at least 12 units! acre, based on the definition of a node contained in the Metro Plan; . Commerciall Office! Employment: 10-30 percent . Open Space, drainage facilities. the riparian setback area, and public right of way normally will be 25-35 percent of the Gienwood Riverfront Plan area. A request to increase or decrease the limits of any of the above allocations, i.e. commercial development of 35% of the GR Plan District, shall require an amendment to the text of this refinement plan to correspond to the proposed allocations, consistent with the requirements in SDe Article 44. 3 . . . C-4 " . 5. The City shall encourage development proposals that consolidate parcels into cohesive . development sites, including office and industrial parks, civic centers, high tech manufacturing firms, government and institutional uses, hospital and medical facilities, and other similar uses. These uses may need to invoke a Type IV Master Plan Modification application, consistent with the requirements of SDC Artkle 44. 6. The City shall defer to Willamalane to investigate the potential for acquiring! developing riverfront parkland in this area. 7. The City shall investigate the possibility of partnering with a housing provider to provide housing within Subarea 8 for low and low! moderate income residents. 8. The City shall allow for continued commercial use of smaller parcels with highway frontage, wher<; such commercial uses already exist. 9. In addition to all applicable standards and provisions regulating development in .Springfield, all development adjacent to the Willamette River or the Willamette River riparian setback shall provide public access to the Wiliamette River or the Willamette River riparian setback. Surface parking areas shall not be visible frc;>m the Willamette River corridor and shall be screened from public streets. 10. All development within the Subarea 8 shall meet the provisions of SDC Article 44, the GR Plan District. II. Development proposals within Subarea 8 shall comply with the setback requirements for Water Quality limited Watercourses in SDC Article 32 and as mapped on the Water Quality limited Watercour,ses Map contained on file in the Development Services Department, unless a Willamette Greenway delineation in accordance with SDC Article 25 identifies areas that warrant additional setback protection. . . 12. Development proposals within the GR Plan District shall be consistent with the Glenwood Riverfront ,Plan regarding access, circulation, pedestrian and transit amenities, and allocation of commercial.. residential, and public uses. Proposals which seek to amend these elements of the Riverfront Plan shall be subject to the Master Plan Modification requirements in Article 44 of the SOC. 13. The Franklin Blvd..design and alignment shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan is conceptual only and not an adopted alignment. Development proposals along Franklin Blvd. shall adhere to the existing setback standards outlined in SpC Articles 31 and 32, until such a. time that an alignment and streetscape design for Franklin Blvd. is adopted by the City Council. 14. The Franklin! McVay Highway intersection illustrated in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan is conceptual and not an adopted alignment. Development proposals that affect the ,intersection shall coordinate with ODOT and the City, until such a time that an intersection design is adopted by the City Council. 15. Design of stormwater systems shall comply with that proposed in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the Storm Drainage System Master Plan completed as part of the . 4 . . . . . , ,''" . . study, until such a time that the City completes the Storm Water Master Plan for Glenwood. .' , '. 16. All new publicly financed improvements within the GR Plan District shall provide one (I) percent of the project cost towards an art feature, as approved by th~ Springfield Economic Development Agency. . ( C.5 5 .., . . . " . Exhibit 0 -1 . . ARTICLE.44 GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT (GR) PLAN DISTRICT 44.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GR PLAN DISTRICT. 44.020 GR PLAN DISTRICT APPLICABILITY. 44.030 GR PLAN DISTRICT REVIEW PROCEDURES 44.040 NEW MASTER PLAN AND MASTER PLAN MODIFICA TlONS CRITERIA OF APPROVAL. 44.050 NEW MASTER PLAN OR MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 44.060 GR PLAN DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF USE CATEGORIES 44.070 OR PLAN DISTRICT PROHIBITED USES. 40.080 LOT SIZE AND DIMMENSIONS, LOT COVERAGE, SETBACK, OFF-STREET PARKING, AND FENCE STANDARDS. 44.090 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 44.100 MINIMUM DENSITY AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 44.110 STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 44.120 GR PLAN DISTRICT SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT FRONTING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER. 44.130 GR PLAN DISTRICT STREET, SIDEWALK, AND ALLEY STANDARDS. 44.] 40 GR PLAN DISTRICT DRAINAGE SYSTEM STANDARDS. . 1 . . ARTICLE.44 GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT (GR) PLAN DISTRICT 44.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GR PLAN DISTRICT. (1) Purpose. The OR Plan District provides opportunities for an urban level of mixed-use development including commercial, employment, office, higher density housing, institutional, and recreation uses. The specific objectives of the OR Plan District regulations guide both new development and redevelopment in order to strengthen Olenwood's role as a residential, commercial, and civic center within the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area. The regulations in this Article are intended to: stimulate business and economic vitality; promote housing choices and mixed-use development; ensure functionally coordinated, aesthetically pleasing and cohesive site planning and design; enhance the pedestrian environment; promote innovative building design through design guidelines; and protect the Willamette Greenway and opportunities to integrate the Willamette River as a unique element of the urban environment. (2) Relationship to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Glenwooa Riverfront Plan. The GR Plan District regulations encourage the development of a mix of commercial, residential, and office, and employment uses in a pedestrian- oriented environment. The regulations protect the significant environmental features of the area, while accommodating development. The regulations in the GR Plan District have evolved from the policies contained in Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area in the Glenwood Refinement Plan; adopted by the Springfield City Council in 1998. The GR Plan District regulations also implement the guiding principles of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. (3) GR Plan Designation. In recognition of the policies within the Glenwood Refinement Plan that reflect the desire for mixed use development within Subarea 8, the Metro Plan and Glenwood Refinement Plan designation for the GR Plan District is Mixed Use/Nodal Development. (4) Permitted zoning and overlay districts. The following zoning and overlay districts shall be permitted within the GR Plan District: Medium and High Density Residential (MDR and HDR), Community Commercial (CC), Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), Mixed Use Employment (MUE), Public Land and Open Space (PLO), and the Willamette Greenway (WG), Flood Plain (FP), and the Nodal Development (/ND) Overlay Districts. These zoning and overlay districts are designed to work together to result in development that is an attractive place to live, work, shop, and recreate, with less reliance on the automobile than is found elsewhere in the community. . 0-2' I" . . . 2 '" . . . . "., . . 0-3 (5) Scale and character of development. The scale and character within the GR Plan District is intended to be similar to a traditional "main street" rete,il and residential district, with two- to four-story buildings placed close to sidewalks, and parking lots located behind or to the side of buildings. However, allowances are made for buildings that are taller than four-stories, in order to create an interesting skyline and allow for some higher density residential or office uses with extensive views. Parking structures are encouraged within the GR Plan District, and in some instances, may be required, in order to reduce the impacts of impervious surfaces on water quality in the Willamette River. The GR Plan District can also accommodate development proposals of all or most of the site by incorporation of these identified objectives and design principles into these proposals. 44.020 GR PLAN DISTRICT APPLICABILITY. (1) GR Plan District boundaries. The GR Plan District applies to all property within the boundaries of "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area"in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The GR Plan District is located in northeastern Glenwood, and extends north from Franklin Blvd. to the Willamette River, east from Lexington Ave. to the Glenwood-Springfield bridges, and south to the Southern Pacific Railroad overpass, as illustrated in Figure 1. below: E'i.guxe 1. Glenwood Plan District Boundary (2) Relationship to permitted zoning and overlay districts. The GR Plan District provisions and standards supplement those of the applicable underlying zoning district and other applicable over:lay zones. Where theGR Plan District and base zone provisions conflict, the GR Plan District regulations shall control. (3) Development requiring review. The GR Plan District requirements described in 3 . . this Article apply to the, foIlowing: (a) New development on vacant land. , , (b) New structures on already developed sites, such as conversion of a parking area to a structure or demolition of a structure andconstruciion of a new structure. (c) EXCEPTIONS: 1. The GR Plan District standards in this Article shall not apply to an interi!Jr building alteration. 2. Single family dweIlings in the GR Plan District for which building permits were filed prior to the designation of the area as Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Overlay shall be allowed to remain specified in Sections. 5.030 and 5.040 of this Code. 44.030 GR PLAN DISTRICT REVIEW PROCEDURES (1) Proposals that are substantially consistent with the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. Developers who use the adopted Glenwood Riverfront Plan as guidance shall not be required to submit an additional application for a new Master Plan or Master Plan Modification approval. However, the following standards shall be addressed concurrent with other necessary land use applications, including, but not limited to: an annexation application and annexation agreement, where applicable; Site Plan Review; and! or a Zone Change: (a) Streets, alleys, pedestrian accessways, bike lanes, drainage facilities, open spaces, and riparian corridors shall be located in conformance with those shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan; and (b) The location ofland uses may vary from those shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan depending on developer preference and market conditions; however, the proposed land use allocations shall be as ' follows, based on the findings of "Market Position Analysis for the Glenwood Riverfront", Zimmerman- V olk! ZHA, June 200 I: 1. Residential: 30-60 percent of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan area with an overall net residential density of at least 12 units/ acre, based on the definition of a node contained in TransPlan. 2. Commercial! Office! Employment: 10-30 percent of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan area.' . D -4", ,,' . . . 4 -. . . 0-5 . 3. Open Space, drainage facilities, the riparian setback area, and public right of way normally will be 25-35 percent of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan area. (2) Proposals that require modifications to the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. In order to allow flexibility in development options, the Glenwood Riverfront Plan shall be considered the equivalent of a Master Plan, without the seven year expiration restriction. A developer may choose to use the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as adopted, or use a new Master Plan or Master Plan Modification process, to be reviewed as follows: ' (a) Type I reView. Those modifications that do not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and which are not determined by the Director to be similar to Subsections (b) or (c), below shall be processed under Type I Master Plan Modification, as a decision by the Director. (b) Type II review. Those modifications that are significant but do not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as determined by the Director shall be processed under a Type II Modification procedure as a decision of the Director, Examples of a Type II Master Plan Modification areas follows: . 1. A change in the street layout that requires a local street, alley, easement, pedestrian/bicycle accessway or utility to be shifted more than 50 feet in any direction, as long as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Glenwood Riverfront Plan; 2. A request by the City or applicant for a change to the size or location of public facilities; 3. A request to integrate improvements to nearby transportation facilities; 4. A request initiated by the City to implement newly adopted state or federal regulations, or adopted or amended City plans; S. A request by the applicant for a one time extension of the approved time limit for up to 3 years. An extension shall be granted provided the applicant has made reasonable progress in the implementation of the Master Plan and public services and facilities remain available; and . 5 . . 6. Other requests by the applicant that the Director determines to . . be similar to the modifications specified in Subsections. I. - 6., above. (c) Type IV review. Those modifications that are significant and modifies the basic underlying assumptions of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as determined by the Director shall be processed under a Type IV Modification procedure. Examples of a Type IV Master Plan Modification are as follows: 1. The modification affects an area of 5 acres or larger. 2. A request by the applicant to alter significant natural resources, wetlands, and open space areas as prescribed in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan; 3. A change in the street layout plan that requires a street to be eliminated or to be located in a manner inconsistent with the Glenwood Riverfront Plan; 4. A change in the GR Plan District building design standards or guidelines; and 5. Any change not specifically listed under the Type I or Type II . Modification in Subsections (a) and (b) of this Section. 6. The request shall be processed as a new Master Plan and shall comply with the Master Plan submittal requirements listed specified in Section 37.030 of this Code and the following: a. The application shall illustrate the proposed street layout, open space, pedestrian connections, riparian protection, and other infrastructure alignments necessary as determined by the Director for the entire 48-acre site. The requirenient for written consent from multiple property owners specified in Section 37.0]5(2) of this Code shall not apply within the GR Plan District. b. The applicimt shall adgress the applicability.ofthe development standards in this Section to the proposed Master Plan. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may determine that the development standards in this Article may not apply, ifthe purpose and intent of the GR Plan District is satisfied. . .. . o - 6~' t. . . . 6 ." . . . The application shall be prepared by a design team that includes; but is not limited to the' , following consultants: an architect, a landscape architect, a civil 'engineer, a geotechnical engineer, an acoustic engineer, a certified, arborist, a transportation engineer and a qualified person to address riparian issues. c. ' (d) Supplemental submittal requirements. , In order to allow the Director to determine the correct level of review, the applicant shall submit findings demonstrating how the proposed modification: 1. Maintains the transportation and multi-modal connectivity established by the Olenwood Riverfront Plan; '2. Furthers the design and access concepts advocated by the , Olenwood Riverfront Plan, including but not iimited to ' pedestrian access, bicycle access, and public access to the Willamette River; 3. Demonstrates how the proposal does not adversely affect the objectives of the OR Plan District listed under Section 44.040 of this Article; and . 4. Avoids physical constraints, or protects significant natural features including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries. (e) Revie~ authority. The Director shall have the authority to raise any review level to a higher review, for example, tliat a Type II Modification may be raised to a Type IV Modification. 44.040 NEW MASTER PLAN AND MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS, , CRITERIA OF APPROVAL. In addition to the Master Plan criteria of approval specified in Section 37.040 of this Code, new Master Plans and Master Plan Modifications within the OR Plan District shall meet the following specific objectives established during the development of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. Where an objective does not apply, the applicant shall address 'why that objective does not apply. A new Master Plan or Master Pllin Modification proposal shall: (l) Establish a !llixed use development'pattern that will enhance and complement, the adjacent riverfront and that is consistent with the nodal designation for the OR Plan District; . D -7 (- 7 . . (2) . Provide transportation linkages between the Master Plan area and the. surrounding neighborhoods; . (3) Incorporate access to transit into the design of the Master Plan area. (4) Incorporate design and streetscape amenities into the Master Plan area which promote bicycle and pedestrian transportation opportunities. These amenities include sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities, with a focus on the edges of the Master Plan area, such as Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette ~v~' . , (5) Establish a multi-use riverfront path; (6) Identify open space and appropriate connections to open space. Public open space shall be designed to provide active and passive recreation opportunities for residents, visitors, employees, and provide visual relief. Streets shall be designed as view conidors, in ord~to'open the site to. the Willamette river; (7) Implement the objectives of TransPlan to increase densities within the OR Plan District. Average residential density for residential components shall be a minimum of 12 units per acre; (8) Reduce reliance on State Highway )26 (Franklin Blvd.) for local east-west traffic through a strategy to resolve and reduce access issues within the OR Plan District boundaries; . (9) Provide a connected street pattern that facilitates internal circulation, promotes walking, and that minimizes conflicts on Franklin Boulevard; (10) Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan that cleanses and treats the runoff prior to discharging into the Willamette ~ver, and provides adequate drainage solutions as det=ined through Master Plan review; and (11) Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for' endangered species and other indigenous wildlife through environmentally sensitive development. 44.050 NEW MASTER PLAN OR MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. New Master Plans or Master Plan Modifications within the OR Plan District shall be subject the conditions of approval specified in Section 37.050 of this Code and any additional conditions found necessary by the Approval Authority to grant a new Mast~ Plan or Master Plan Modification approval. D -S" ,.. . . . 8 " . . -', 0-9 Base ZOne Allowed Use Catee:ories CC, MUC Those uses allowed within, Mixed-Use Commercial MUC District in Article 40.020 of this code. MUE Those uses allowed within Mixed-Use Employment MUE District in Article 40.020 of this Code. MDR, HDR, MUR Those uses allowed within Mixed-Use Residential MUR District in Article 40.020 of this code. PLO Those uses allowed within the PLO zone as described in Article 23.020 of this code. 44.070 GR PLAN DISTRICT PROHIBITED USES. The following uses shall be prohibited within the GR Plan District: . . (13) Drive-through facilities. (14) Moving and storage facilities. (15) _ Truck and auto repair and painting facilities. (16) Exterior display and storage. (17) Free-standing wireless communication towers. (18) Key! card lock fuel facilities: . EXCEPTIONS: (a) . Outdoor seating for restaurants and pedestrian-oriented accessory uses, including flower, food, or drink stands shall be permitted. Temporary open-air markets and carnivals shall also be penllitted specified in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997. (b) In the case of the expansion of an outdoor storage facility ofiess than 50 percent of the total floor area, service yards and outdoor storage areas in the GR Plan District shall be screened from public areas, streets, alleys, and adjacent areas through the use of one or more of the following: walls, fencing, or plantings, addressed during the MDS or Site Plan Review process specifiedin Article 31 of this Code. 40.080 LOT SIZE AND DIMMENSIONS, LOT COVERAGE, SETBACK, OFF- STREET PARKING, AND FENCE STANDARDS.' Lot size and dimensions, lot coverage, setbacks and fence standards shall be consistent with the underlying zoning district. . . EXCEPTION: Any stricter GR Plan District standards shall apply. 44.090 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Mixed .Use development within the GR Plan District shall comply with the specific development standards specified in Section 40.110 of this Code. EXCEPTION: The maximum building footprint for a single use shall be 50,000 square feet, unless approved through a Type IV Master Plan Modification. 44.100 MINIMUM DENSITY AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards shall apply to development within the GR Plan District. The general development standards for Mixed-Use specified in Section 40.100 of this Code . 0-10' '., . . . 10 '" . . . . ;""!- . . 0-11 describe the pedestrian friendly anq transit oriented design standards that shall apply to mixed use and nodal development. . The Multi-Uilit Design Guidelines specified in Section' 16.100 of this Code 'provide design standards that promote livability, neighborhood '. '. compatibility, and public safety for multi-unit housing as well as promote higher density housing: . (1) Building Design and Building Form. The intent of the Building Design and Building Form Standards for new development within the GR Plan District is to . ensure that development is aesthetically pleasing and provides pedestrian orientation, even with a mix of uses and higher intensity development. New' structures and improvements to facades shall provide architectural relief and . interest, with an emphasis at building entrances and the appearance along sidewalks, in order to promote and enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and orientation, contribute positively to the neighborhood, and create an interesting streetscape. (a) Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Building . Design Standards specified in Section 40.100(1) of this Code, and Multi Family Residential or Mixed Use Residentialdevelopment shall meet the standards for Building Form specified in Section 16.110(4)(b) of this Code. Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Building Design and Building Form Standards listed above .and shall comply with the following guidelines, as determined during the Site Plan Review process: (b) 1. Building scale is consistent with the scale of nearby buildings, transition is provided to adjacent buildings, and porches, bays, balconies, imd hwnan scale architectural detail are included. 2. Multi-story buildings are designed and constructed so the first floor is at a greater height than the upper floors, and architectural detailing that horizontally divides the first and second floors is incorporated in design and construction. Examples include bays windows, decks, or balconies for upper levels, and awnings, canopies, or other similar treatments for lower levels. Variation . in building materials, trim, paint, ornamentation, windows, or other features such as public art, may also be used. 3. Variations in roofforms, such as gabled, hipped roofs, or cornices are provided. 4. Views into shops and offices for ground floor facades along public right-of-way are provided. 11 . . .5. In order to break up vast expanses of single element building elevations, the building design includes a combination of . architectural elements and features including, but not limited to offsets, windows, entry treatments, wood siding, brick, stucco, or textured concrete block. 6. Structures do not present excessive visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties. 7. Buildings provide architecturally defined entryways ~d design which provides a human scale. (2) Building Orientation and Maximum Setback Standards. The intent of the Building Orientation and Maximum Setback standards is to create a street. presence that is a pleasant, diverse pedestrian experience by connecting activities occurring within a structure to adjacent sidewalk areas; to encourage continuity of retail and service uses; to encourage surveillance opportunities by restricting fortress-like facades at street level; and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment. All new buildings in a mixed-use developrnent shall. be oriented toward both exterior and internal streets in a manner that frames and defines both streets and pedestrian areas along those streets to the greatest extent practicable. Buildings in mixed use developments shall not be separated from fronting streets. Parking shall be located behind buildings, internal to development on a site. For existing development sites, out parcel buildings between a large parking lot and the street shall be used to help define the streetscape, and lessen the visual impact of the parking lot from the street. (a) Development within the OR Plan District shall incorporate the Building Design Standards specified in Section 40.100(2) of this Code, and Multi. Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential development shall meet the standards. for Building Fonn specified in Section 16.IIO(4)(a) of this Code. (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent ofthe Building Orientation and Maximum Setback Standards described above and shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review: 1. Buildings are designed and constructed adjacent to a public street right-of-way that create safe, pleasant, and active pedestrian environments. 2. Buildings are designed and located to reinforce the pedestrian orientation of the OR Plan District. 3. An urban streetscape along street right of way is created by . 0-12 ." . . . 12 , " . . . . (4) . . D -13 locating new buildings close to the street and close to one another wherever practical. The',streetscapes create'a Sense of enclosure along sidewalks and provide a variety of street h~veI ' facades, 4. Views into shops and offices are provided. Upper building levels incorporate decks and balconies. 5. To the greatest extent practicable, all new buildings are oriented toward both exterior and internal streets in a manner that frames and defines both streets and pedestrian areas along those streets. 6. Where setbacks from the street right-of-way are proposed, pedestrian amenities such as public seating, courtyards or plazas between the building and the street is provided. 7. New residential development is oriented to a public street, unless ' buildings cannot meet this requirement due to inadequate street frontage. In this case, buildings are oriented to a private street, alley, or lane, and designed in conformance with the pedestrian circulation standards in this Code. 8. For existing development sites, outparcel buildings between a large parking lot and the street are used to help define the streetscape, and lessen the visual impact of the parking lot from the street. (3) Weather Protection Standards.' The intent of the weather protection requirement within the OR Plan District is to provide for a pedestrian~oriented environment in inclement or warm weather, to break up long expanses of buildings, and to create an interesting streetscape. (a) Development within the OR Plan District shall incorporate the Weather Protection Standards specified in Section 40.100(3) of this Code. (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Weather Protection Standards described above and shall comply with the following guideline, addressed during Site'Plan Review; weather protection in the form of awnings or canopies is provided appropriate to the design of the structure, Landscaping, Screening, Fences, and Walls Standards. The intent of the Landscaping, Screening, Fences, and Walls Standards for development in the OR Plan District is to provide shade, erosion control, visual interest, buffering, separation between abutting properties, privacy, open space and pathway identification, shading and wind buffering, noise attenuation, reduction of glare, 13 . . . D -14: ,'1. screen objectionable views, to reduce the rate of storm water runoff, and enhance the visual environinent, to establish a sense of place, prorriote safety, security, and privacy, to help retain the long-term value of properties, minimize the impacts of impervious surfaces and reduce the rate of storm water runoff, and ensure aesthetics and compatibility with surrounding land uses. . (a). Development withIn the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Landscaping and Screening Standards specified in Section 40.100(4) of this Code, and Multi Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential development shall meet the standards for Landscaping, Screening, Fences, and Walls specified in Section 16.110(4)(f) of this Code. . ' . (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Landscaping, Screening, Fences, and Walls Standards described above and shall . comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review: 1. Landscaping is designed and located so that enhances the urban character of the GR Plan District, so that it is visible from public right-of-way, and so that it provides adequate screening and buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping is distributed in those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, . open space uses, shading and windbreaks, and aesthetic qualities. . 2. All landscaping is either irrigated or is certified by a registered Landscape Architect that it can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. 3. Natural vegetation and existing healthy trees are retained to the maximum extent feasible in the design of landscaping. 4.' The design and development oflandscaping retains and conserves the riparian vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, where development is adjacent to the Willamette River setback. . 5. . Pedestrian pathways and open space areas' are defined with landscape materials, trees, and shrubs. 6. Signature trees (for example, large or unique trees), hedges and flowering plants provide focal points for the development area. 7. Trees provide summer shading within common open space areas and within front yards when street trees cannot be provided. . 14 .,. . . . . '!"" . . 0-15, 8. A' combination .of plants is provided for year-long color and interest, and a variety of tree types is distributed throughout the site to maximize coverage. 9. Landscaping is used to screen outdoor storage and mechanical equipment areas, and to enhance graded areas such as berms, swales and detention/retention ponds within the development area. 10. Trash collection, recycling areas, service areas, and loading docks are screened on all sides so that no portion is visible from , public streets, alleys, and adjacent properties. Required screening may include new and existing plantings, walls, fences, screen panels, doors, topographic changes, buildings, horizontal separation, or any combination thereof. 11. Landscaping is provided to define and accentuate the primary entry way of a'dwelling unit or combination of dwelling units. 12. Vertical and horizontal landscape elements are provided along all exterior walls to soften the visual impact of new residential construction, and promote the residential character of the site. 13. Landscaping or a combination oflandscaping and fencing is used to buffer multi family developments from abutting properties. 14. In multi family developments, landscaping is planted and fencing installed that does not obscure visual surveillance of common open space, parking areas, or dwelling entryways. 15. In multi family developments, fencing is designed to provide privacy and buffer sound, but does not create long expanses of uninterrupted walls. (5) Street Connectivity and Vehicular Circulation Standards. The intent of the Street Connectivity And Vehicular Circulation requirements within the OR Plan District is to encourage developments that are easily accessible for all modes of transportation, to promote the scale and character of a mixed use retail and residential district, to provide safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian circulation, to provide safe and efficient site access between parking areas and multi-family developments, and to encourage pedestrian and vehic1e'circulation linkages that will integrate amenities within multi family developments with the surrounding area. 15 . . D -16 ",. (a) Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Street . . Connectivity and Circulation standards specified in Section' 40.1 00(5) of this Code, and Multi Family Residentiai or Mixed Use Residentiai' development shall meet the standards for vehicular circulation specified in Section 16.llO(4)(i) of this Code. . (b) .Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Street Connectivity and Vehicle Circulation Standards described above and shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review: . . I. Public pedestrian access between streets provides an inter~ connected pedestrian circulation system within the development area and adjacent development. . 2. A continuous pedestrian and/or multi-use pathway system is provided within the development area to ensure safe, direct and convenient pedestrian circulation. 3. The development is designed so that public and private transportation connections are provided to surrounding areas. 4. Block sizes are consistent with Section 32.020(1)(a)1.b. of this Code. . 5. An internal circulation plan is provided that promotes accessibility to and from the site for all modes of transportation. 6. Access is designed and constructed to consolidate driveways with existing or future adjacent developments. 7. Methods that minimize vehicle and pedestrian conflicts are incorporated into the design of the development. 8. Driveway access is connected to alleys and local streets, rather than directly onto arterial streets. . 9. Loading and service areas are located for ease of use and minimal conflict with on-site parking and circulation activities. (6) Pedestrian Amenities. The intent of the pedestrian amenity requirements for development within the GR Plan District is \0 provide comfortable and inviting pedestrian spaces. Pedestrian amenities serve as informal gathering places for socializing, resting, and enjoyment ofthe Glenwood Riverfront, and contribute to a walkable district. .' . 16 . . . " . . 0-17 ,(a) Development within tb,e GR Plan District shall incorporate the Pedestrian Amenity standards'specified in Section 40.100(7) of this Code, (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Pedestrian Amenity Standards described above and shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review: 1. Pedestrian amenities are visible and accessible to the general public' from a fully improved street Access to pocket parks, plazas, and sidewalks are provided via a public right-of-way or a public access easement 2. The size and capacity. of pedestrian amenities is roughly proportional to their expected use, including use by employees, customers, residents, and other visitors. 3. Pedestrian amenities are consistent with the character and scale of surrounding developments. For example, similarity in awning height, bench style, planter materials, street trees, and pavers fosters continuity in the design of pedestrian areas. Materials are suitable for outdoor use, easily maintained, and have at least a 10-year expected service life. 5. Bus stops, as a pedestrian amenity, are designed to Lane Transit District standards. (7) Parking Standards. The intent of the parking standards for development within the GR Plan District is to minimize the amount ofland devoted to off-street parking; develop land so that the primary focus is not the parking areas; to ensure that parking structures and lots are visually pleasing; to minimize the visual and environmental impaCt of parking areas; to increase Springfield's commercial land inventory by allowing retail uses on the ground floor of parking structures; to provide services for residents of nearby residentiai developments; and to provide adequate parking to serve development (a) Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Parking standards specified in Section 40.090(1 )(b) ofthis Code, and Multi Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential development shall meet the standards for Parking specified in Section l6.110(4)(h) of this Code, (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Parking Standards described above and shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review: 17 . . 1. Parking areas are designed to minimize the expanse of continuous patking and impervious surfaces. 2. Parking areas are designed and located to reinforce the pedestrian orientation of the GR Plan District. 3. Parking areas are designed to minimize the impact to abutting properties and promote the human scale of development. 4. Canopy trees are distributed throughout the parking area, including the perimeter ofthe parking lot. 5. Sufficient shade is provided for all surface parking areas. ,6; Pedestrian pathways are provided that connect parking areas to and between buildings, open space areas, and surrounding uses. 7. Topography, natural contours, and natural features such as stands of trees are considered in the design of parking areas and circulation systems. 8. Parking area circulation systems are designed to minimize vehicle and pedestrian conflicts.. 9. Parking areas are located to minimize views from the public right of way and abutting properties. . 10. Parking areas are located to the rear or side of buildings. n. Adequate, pedestrian scale lighting is provided in parking areas. 12. Pedestrian scale and orientation that is consistent with a pedestrian-oriented retail and residential .district is provided for all parking areas. 13. Stormwater treatment techniques, including swales and pervious pavement treatments are included in all parking areas. . 14. Parking lots are sited and designed to mitigate adverse lighting and noise impacts on residents. 15. In multi-family developmen!s, pedestrian connections through parking areas are enhanced through scored concrete, striping, landscaping or other identification methods that provide compatibility in design and materials between parking areas and the dwelling units. " . D -18 . . . 18 '. . . . . . 0-19 16. In COmIl1ercial and mixed use commercial areas, parking structures provide retail storefronts at the ground level at the periphery of parking areas and structures. In residential areas, . the street side of residential parking structures may contain . facilities or services for residents, such as laundry. rooms, lobbies, or exercise rooms. 17. In cases where a parking structure extends to the periphery of a site, the design of the structure reflects the massing, building materials, fenestration and detailing of adjacent and abutting buildings. 18 Entries are designed to be subordinate to the pedestrian entry in scale and detailing. If possible, automobile entries to parking structures are located. away from the street, to the side or rear of the building. 19. Parking structures are sited and designed to mitigate adverse lighting and noise impacts on residents. 8. . Height Standards. The intent of the building height standards for development in the GR Plan District that is not adjacent to the Willamette. River is to encourage a built environment that provides compatibility with the surroundings, but also provides opportunities for higher density development and views of the Willamette River. Where a development proposes to exceed the height limitations of the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall illustrate the development meets the intent of the height standards, and satisfies the following guidelines. In no case may a development proposal exceed 90 feet in height within the GR Plan District. See Section 44.120(3) of this Article for height standards for development adjacent to the Willamette River. (a) Additional on-site pedestrian amenities are provided where a building exceeds the maximum height standards of the underlying zoning: district. (b) When a greater height standard is proposed, a building offset interval along structure facades is established. (c) Structures that optimize light and views of the Willamette River and surroundings are provided. (d) Buildings are deSIgned and constructed to take advantage of views to the Willamette River and surrounding natural features, including private open space on upper floors, and building facades with windows. 19 . . 0-20" , .. (e) Provide additional setbacks, stepping-down of building elevations, visual buffering, screening, arid/or other appropriate measures.to create . a height transition between the proposed development and adjacent development. Roof equipment and other similar features necessary to a building operation are screened, and may not exceed 8 feet in height. . 44.110 STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. (1) Storage. The intent of the storage standards for MUR, MDR, and HDR development is to provide space for trash receptacles, personal storage, and equipment. All new residential and mixed use residential development shall meet the storage standards specified in Section 16.110(4)(d) of this Code. (2) Open Space. The intent of the open space requirements in the MUR, MDR, and HDR development is to provide usable common and private open space for residents and centrally located open space for activities; maximize private open . space for each dwelling unit; preserve exposure to light, air, and visual access; provide safe children's play areas interspersed and centrally located within multi family developments; maximize visual relief from structural bulk; promote active recreational opportunities within open space; and provide pedestrian access to all common open space areas to promote active use. (a) All multi family development within the OR Plan District shall meet the standards for Open Space specified in Section 16.1 IO(4)(e) ohhis Code. . (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfY the intent of the Open Space. standards described above and shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review. 1. The design and development of open space retains and conserves the riparian vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, where development is adjacent to the Willame.tte River setback: 2. Native trees, shrubs, or other plants. adapted for survival and growth in the Eugene-Springfield area are utilized in open space areas. 3. Trees proposed are in scale with the proposed development. 4. Open spaces and plazas are incorporated into the development that provide pleasing transitions between uses, soften and buffer utilities and loading areas, and provide variety next to buildings, along walkways, and within pedestrian plazas. . 20 . . . " . 0.21 . 5. Open space areas are included which are in scale with the development and sited to invite activity appropriate'to adjoining' uses. 6. Pedestrian amenities such as seating areas, drinking fountains, low level directional signs, and waste receptacles are provided in open space areas. 7. The design provides a cohesive open space and pedestrian network within the development, with appropriate connections to surrounding properties and uses, (3) Pedestrian Circulation. The intent ofthe pedestrian circulation requirements is to provide separation between vehicles and pedestrians, and to provide clear, direct, safe, and identifiable connections between individual units, parking, . storage, common open space areas, public sidewalks, imd neighborhood uses. (a) All multi family development within the GR Plan District shall meet the standards for Pedestrian Circulation specified in Section 16, II O( 4)(g) of this Code. (b) Alternatively, development shall satisfY the intent of the Pedestrian Circulation Standards described above and shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review. 1. . Privacy of ground floor residents is considered in the design of pedestrian circulation within the development area. 2. Pedestrian linkages integrate amenities such as open space areas, walkways, and activity centers within the multi-family developments and with the surrounding area. 3. The design of pedestrian pathways considers the natural contours, features, and topography of the site. 4. Pedestrian circulation areas include sidewalks, landscaping, crosswalks, and pedestrian-scale lighting. 5. Pedestrian pathways are provided that connect to and between buildings, open space, parking areas, and surrounding uses. 6. Adequate lighting levels for parking and pedestrian pathways are provided. 21 . . 0-22' 7. Pedestrian scale lighting is provided within internal blocks and walkways on poles nof more than 16 feet high and shielded to.. light the walkways and open spaces only. . . 8. Clear and identifiable pedestrian connections to and between buildings are provided. 44.120 GR PLAN DISTRICT SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT FRONTING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER. (1) Special standards, The intent offhe special standards relating to development adjacent to fhe Willamette River is to implement fhe goals and policies relating. to the Willamette River as expressed in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, SubareaS: The River Opportunity Area and the Willamette River Site Development Guidelines, and to: (a) Recognize and respect the beauty and character of the WillametteRiver; (b) Conserve and enhance the existing riparian zone along fhe Willamette River; (c) Conserve and enhance property values; . (d) . Preserve, protect, and enhance water quality; (e) Encourage development, preservation, and enhancement of reasonable public access to the river for recreational use and visual enjoyment. (2) Proposals for development adjacent to the riparian corridor setback area shall consider the following, within a new Master Plan, Master Plan Modification, or . Site Plan Review application: . (a) Riparian setback area. The setback for all new buildings, parking lots, and loading areas shall be a minimum of75 feet from the top of bank, or as identified on the City's Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map in fhe Development Services Department, unless significant stands of trees or other identified natural resources warrant a greater setback. EXCEPTION: Rebuilding of existing structures. The setback restriction shall not prohibit rebuilding an existing structure provided that the rebuilt structure is comparable in size, profile, use, and location . to the structure that previously existed. The term "new development" shall not include rebuilding an existing structure provided that the rebuilt structure is comparable in size, profile, use and location to fhe structure fhat previously existed. . 22 . . . .;. (b) . . D -23 Conservation of natural. features. Major outcrops, stands of trees, ripariari areas, or other promirient natural features are an irriportant part of the visual character and quality of the community. The impacts 'of.. the proposal on these resources will be reviewed, and limitations may be placed on the amount of removal. In order to mitigate adverse impacts, additional screening may be required, or a reduction in the size of the building or structure may be required. (c) Compatibility with existing area. The proposed development is similar with the existing surroundings, in terms of building bulk, height, . location, separation, shape, parking areas, lighting, fences, landscaping, open space, visual and physical corridors to the river, and adjacent land use. (d) . View Protection. 1. New development shall preserve and enhance views of the Willamette River and the views across the river to Kelly Butte and downtown Springfield. These regulations are not intended as a guarantee that a view will be preserved or created, only to require special and significant efforts to maintain and provide views. 2. New structures shall be designed and located to preserve and enhance views of the Willamette River and across the river. 3. Restaurants, outdoor cafes, housing, public gathering places, and. hotels shall be oriented to available views, especially views of . the Willamette River, where feasible. 4. Development along the Willamette Greenway Boundary or setback shall be designed and constructed to take advantage of views to the Willamette River, including private open space on. upper floors and building facades with windows that face the river. 5. Staff may require site sections, photographs, view diagrams, survey spot elevations, view easements and other similar tools in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. (e) Conditions of Approval. For projects proposing development adjacent to the riparian corridor setback area, the degree. to which the project provides public access along the riverfront may be evaluated and dedication of public access along the riverfront may be required. Other. conditions of approval for projects may include enhanced landscaping, minimum corridors between buildings, variations in building setbacks, 23 . . 0- 24" . size or bulk of f!lcades, limitations on building heights, lighting, the size. and shape of windows facing thetiver, and the location of parking areas. . (3) Proposals for development adjacent to the riparian corridor setback area shall not exceed 35 feet in height. 44.130 GR PLAN DISTRICT STREET, SInEW ALl(, AND ALLEY STANDARDS. (1) Development proposals that utilize the Olenwood Riverfront Plan, as a Master Plan shall use the streetscape cross-sections illustrated in the Olenwood Riverfront Plan. (2) Development proposals that use the Master Plan Modification process shall design the transit stations according to Lane Transit District standards, and street and sidewalk system using the City's existing street standards specified in Article 32 of this Code, the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or satisfy the criteria of approval listed for Master Plans within the OR Plan District. (3) Alley Standards (a) . All blocks or individual sites shall be served by alleys, all vehicular access for on-site parking, services and utilities shall be accessed by alleys. . (b) Alley right-of-way shall be a minimum of22 feet-wide with 14 feet paved for vehicular uses. Within this right-of-way, the alley shall provide visible and direct pedestrian walkways and connectiOlis to. the commercial mixed use.or central areas of the proposed redevelopment scheme. The pedestrian portion shall be distinguished from the vehicular portion of the alleys. The walkways are encouraged to be paved with pervious materials. . (c) Alleys shall drain to lined interior "block" swales or from drains then piped to swales as the grades permit. (4) Alley Space. Where feasible, outdoor cafe seating, landscaping, signage, lighting and display features shall be included in alley design. Alley space shall be designed to minimize service functions, to screen trash/storage areas and to enhance pedestrian/patron use. . 44.140 GR PLAN DISTRICT DRAINAGE SYSTEM STANDARDS. Development proposals within the GR Plan District shall use the "Storm Drainage Master Plan for the Glenwood Riverfront Area", the drainage design standards developed as part 24 . '.' . . 0-25 . of the Glenwood. Riverfront .Plan, and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual as guidance for designing drainage systeinswithinthe GR Plan District, as interim. guidance until such a time that the City adopts the. Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. . . 25 ',' . . . . . Exhibit E - 1 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT, RESPONSE TO CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT SUBAREA 8: THE RIVER OPPORTUNITY AREA IN GLENWOOD I. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Nature of Request: The City of Springfield (City) is requesting that the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopt a package of Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram and Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) Diagram and Text, and amendments to the Springfield Development Code (collectively, the "Amendments"). The Project Area is shown in Attachment I. The Amendments will allow the development of the Project Area into a land use pattern which includes a mix of residential, office, and commercial uses along the Glenwood Riverfront, as' well as allow the flexibility to respond to a changing market through a Master Plan Modification procedure. The flexible Modification process allows larger employers, such as but.not limited to, campus industrial, institutional, civic or medical- related uses to be developed within the Project Area, provided specific criteria is satisfied. The Mixed UseINodal Development Metro Plan and Refinement Plan diagram designations are effective upon adoption of this amendment. The remainder ofthe Amendments, including Article 44 of the Springfield Development Code, and zoning districts consistent with the policies of the Refinement Plan, are applied as the properties within the Project Area are annexed into the City. This request is a combination of the following; l> Metro Plan Diagram Amendment, in order to change the current Metro Plan Designation (Plan Designation) from Commercial/Industrial/Multi Family Mixed Use, to Mixed UseINodal Development; ~ Glen wood Refinement Plan Diagram Amendment, in order to change the current Refinement Plan Designation (Plan Designation) from Commercial/Industrial/Multi Family Mixed Use, to Mixed UseINodal Development; ~ Text Amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan that will add policies and text to Subarea 8; The River Opportunity Area; and l> Adoption of a new article into the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Article 44; Glenwood Riverfront (GR) Plan District. The City is undertaking adoption of the Amendments and the SDC articles for several reasons; E.2 . . ',' 1. In 1998, the City of Springfield assumed jurisdiction of the area known as Glenwood from the City of Eugene. Shortly following, the Springfield City Council identified "Glenwood . Direction" as a top priority, and later identified the Glenwood Riverfront as an area suited to redevelopment into a vibrant, mixed use center that would become an asset to the community and compliment adjacent downtown Springfield. In response to the Council direction, staff applied for, and was awarded multi-year planning grants from the Department of Land Conservation and Development's Transportation Growth Management (TGM) division in order to establish a redevelopment plan that capitalizes upon the location of the Project Area, and it's designation in the Metro Plan and Gtenwood Refinement Plan as an area suited to mixed use. The TGM planning project resulted in the development of the "Glenwood Riverfront Plan", which is essentially a Master Plan that guides development within the Project Area. The proposed Amendments implement the principles of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan in the SDC ' and the Glenwood Refinement Plan. 2. The City has installed sanitary sewer within Franklin Blvd. The City anticipates the , availability of sanitary sewer to the Project Area will increase development pressure on the Glenwood area, and advance planning in order to guide development in the Project Area is timely. 3. The advent of an urban renewal district for all of Glenwood, combined with the availability of services, and future roadway improvements, has increased the development pressure on the area. The Amendments and SDC articles will provide guidance as this development 'occurs within Subarea 8 in a manner that encourages the area to redevelop in a pedestrian-friendly, mixed use land use pattern, which combines accesses onto Franklin Blvd., is respectful of the adjacent Willamette River, and that becomes an amenity to the community. . No specific development is approved pursuant to the City Council's approval of the Amendments. ,Plan Diagram Map Changes; The specific map changes requested are: I. Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram Metro Area General Plan map amendment from" Commercial! Industrial! Multi Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use! Nodal Development", for the area known as "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area" in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, excepting the area south of the railroad bridge, in Glenwood. 2. G/enwood Refinement Plan Diagram Map Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram map amendment from "Commercial/Industrial! Multi Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use! Nodal Development", for the same . area described above. 2, 'i' . . . . -~--t. <\.=.- ~j . 3. - Glen wood Refinement Plan Text Glenwood Refinement Plan Text amendments for "Subarea 8: TbeRiver Opportunity Area" to add policies that will guide redevelopment within Subarea 8, consistent with its Mixed Use! Nodal Development plan designation. 4. Springfield Development Code (SDC) Text Add a new SDC Article, "Article 44: Glenwood Riverfront (GR) Plan District", which will contain the specific development standards and outline the development review process for proposals within Subarea 8. Services: Subarea 8, also known as the Project Area, and the GR Plan District, is within the City's urban growth boundary and outside the city limits ofSpringfieJd. Prior to development of any of the properties within Subarea 8, property owners will be required to annex into the City. Services and facilities available to the site area are as follows: - Fire: Police: Schools: Power: Water: Sewer: - SWDF: Access: Springfield Fire Department, through the Glenwood Water District Lane County Eugene School District 19 SUB SUB At site, however unavailable until annexations and hook ups are to occur. Glenwood Receiving Station From Franklin Blvd. II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA Article 8 of the SDC establishes criteria for "Adoption or Amendment of Refinement Plan Text, Refinement Plan Diagrams, and Development Code Text". Section 8.030 of the SDC requires that, in reaching a decision on proposed amendments, the Planning Commission and City _- Council "shaIr adopt findings which demonstrate conformance with the fonowing: "(1) The Metro Plan; "(2) Applicable State Statutes. "(3) Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules." (1) Conformance with the Metro Plan 3 : E'-4'-' J-- . . ',' This section of the application addresses compliance with the policies of the Metro Plan. Each of the MetroPkm policies that apply to the Amendments are listed in the following section, with . a staff response addressing the applicability of each policy provided. The Metro Plan Introduction, Section D provides the following definitions: ~ A goal is a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of the people of the community for the future of the community. A goal may never be completely attainable, but is used as a point to strive for. ~ An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving to meet a goal.. An objective may also be considered as an intermediate point that will help fulfill the overall goal. ~ A policy is a statement adopted as part of the Plan to provide a consistent course of action moving the community towards attainment of its goals. In recognition of the fact that the fulfillment of the adopted Metro Plan Policies will lead the community towards the achievement of the Metro Plan Goals and Objectives, the analysis provided in this section deals exclusively with the Metro Plan policies. The following staff analysis of the Metro Plan and GRP application's compliance with the Metro Plan focus on the two following Criteria of Approval: 1. For the Metro Plan Map amcndment, the amendment must not make the Metro Plan, internally inconsistent (SDC 7.070(3) (b)). For the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the proposed amendments must demonstrate consistency with the Metro Plan (SDC 8,030(1)). . 2. THE PLAN DIAGRAM In the Metro Plan, the Plan Diagram is discussed beginning on page II-E-l. Under "Land Use Designations", beginning on page Il-E-2, the various land use designations within the urban area are defined. The proposed Plan Designation Mixed Use/ Nodal Development is consistent with the definition of Nodal Development and Mixed Use provided in the Metro Plan, as follows: 'iNodal Development Area (Node): Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan are considered to have potential for this type ofland use pattern. Nodal development is a mixed- use pedestrian-friendly land use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require: . 4 ',' . . . . . E-5 . Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use, walking, and bicycling; . . A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 'l:I mile) of anywhere in the node; . Mixed uses so that services are within walking distance; . Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public facilities, that can be reached without driving; and . A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at least 12 units per acre." (p. n-E-9) "Mixed Uses: This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate, usually determined by refinement plans on a local level." (p. II-E-13) The Amendments facilitate the development of the Project Area consistent with the definition for a Mixed Use Nodal Development area provided in the Metro Plan. The Project Area is known . as "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area'; in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, and is currently designated for "Commercial! Industrial/ Multi Family Residential Mixed Use" on the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram (page 20, Glenwood Refinement Plan). METRO PLAN ELEMENTS Growth Manal!ement Policies (Metro Plan, beginning on page II-B-3) "1. The urban growth boundary and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be concentrated inside the urban growth boundary." Response: All of the property affected by the proposed Amendments is within the Springfield urban growth boundary. The Project Area is centrally located between the downtowns of Springfield and Eugene, on a major Bus Rapid Transit route. The City and utility providers are improving the urban services to'the Project Area by providing sanitary sewer, storm water, a water line, an~ transit service. Additionally, ODOT is improving the Franklin Blvd. transportation system adjacent to the Project Area with a roadway overlay and adjacent sidewalks in some areas. Adoption of the Amendments is consistent with Growth Management. Policy 1, as the focused improvements and development guidance will help achieve compact urban growth. . "8. Land within the urban growth boundary may be convertedfrom urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city when it is found that: a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manlier. 5 E-6 . . ',' b. There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with the . Metropolitan Plan. " Response: The properties within the Project Area are outside the Springfield City Limits.. Prior to more intensive development occurring in the Project Area, the properties will be required to be annexed to the City of Springfield and key urban services provided, in accordance with SDC . Article 6 and with Growth Management policy 8 in the ORP. Language in both the proposed Article 44: OR Plan District, and the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan policies, requires annexation in accordance with the requirements of SDC Article 6. "12. When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land which is not contiguous to its boundaries, a. The area to be annexed wiUbe provided an urban seYVice(s) which is (are) desired immediately by residents/property owners.' b. The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level of services as. directed in the Metropolitan Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and is a logical extension of the city's service delivery program. c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within the area proposed for annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory." Response: Staff anticipates, with the advent of sanitary sewer and other essential City services to the Project Area, property owners may request annexation and apply for subsequent . development applications as soon as fall 2005. Currently, the Project Area is not adjacent to the city limits; however, the City will support annexation requests, with annexation agreements, that meet the criteria outlined in Growth Management Policy 12, above, and the requirements of SDC Article 6. "24. To accomplish the fundamental principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text and on the diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre over the planning period. " Response: Adoption of the Amendments implements Growth Management Policy 24, as the properties within the Project Area are proposed to be designated "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Overlay", and thereby will be required to accommodate an average residential density of 12 units per acre for the residential portion. Residential Land' Use and Housinl1. Element Policies (Beginning on page III-A-6) Residential Land Supply and Demand . 6 ',' . . . . . E-7 "A.4 Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning, redevelopment, and in fill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand." Response: The proposed Amendments support Residential Land Supply and Demand Policy A.4, as the Amendments will allow greater opportunities for increased housing density, redevelopment and intill development. Collectively, the Amendments support the potential for 850 new housing units within the Project Area. The properties are currently developed with low density residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Amendments facilitate redevelopment and intill development through a flexible design review process, providing opportunities for higher density housing development to meet the projected demand. "A.7 Endeavor to provide key urban services and facilities required to maintain a five-year supply of serviced, buildable residential land. " Response:. While the Amendments do not directly relate to the provision of key urban services to the Project Area, the City and other service providers have focused efforts on upgrading existing facilities, in anticipation of development in Glenwood. The Amendments support advance planning prior to allowing property owners to annex and request development approval, and work in conjunction with the upgraded facilities, such as sanitary sewer and a new water line. The Amendments work in conjunction with the new facilities to maintain a supply of serviced, buildable land with opportunities for higher density housing. Residential Density "A. I 0 Promote higher residential density inside the urban growth boundary that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services-and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the urban growth boundary." "A.I I Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation- efficient nodes. " "A.I2 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities." - - "A.I3 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed lnfill, redevelopment, and mlxed use whlle considering the impacts of lncreased resldential denslty on historic, exlstlng, and future nelghborhoods. " - Response: The Amendments are supportive of Residential Density Policies A.I 0, A.II, A.12, and A.13, as they promote higher density, mixed use development in a centrally-located area, that will be well-served by nearby transit. Housing Type and Tenure 7 E-8 . . \, "A.18 Encourage a mix of structure types and densities within residential designations by reviewing, and, if "ecessary, amending local zoning and development regulations. " . "A.19 Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities." Response: The proposed Amendments implement Housing Type and Tenure Policy A.18, as the proposed Article 44: OR Plan District language strives to achieve a mix of structure types, such as apartments, rowhouses, and mixed use residential of varying densities within the Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation. The Project Area is adjacent to downtown Springfield, and the Amendments facilitate the potential for 850 housing units, supporting Policy A.19. Mixed Use "A.21 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. " "A.23 Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed use development on surrounding uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design standards or guidelines in local zoning and development regulations. " "A.24 Consider adopting or modifying local zoning and development regulations to provide a discretionary design review process or clear and objective design standards, in order to address issues of compatibility, aesthetics, open space, and other community concerns. " Response: The Amendments directly implement Mixed Use Policies A.22, A.23, and A.24. The proposed Article 44: OR Plan District promotes the use of mixed use development, and provides a two-track design system for reviewing developmeni applications. A developer can use the standards in the City's existing Mixed Use Zoning Districts (SDC Article 40) or Multi Unit Design Standards (SDC Article 16), or propose a varying design that meets the intent of the standard, and complies with a list of criteria. The Refinement Plan text recognizes the benefits of flexible guidelines based on market dynamics and in response, establishes a process for plan modification that involves staff, the planning commission and the city council, depending upon the magnitude of the proposed amendment. . Economic Element Policies (Beginning on page II1-B-I) "1.4. Continue efforts to keep the. Eugene and Springfield central business districts as vital centers of the metropolitan area. " Response: The Amendments focus on improving economic conditions and spurring redevelopment in a centrally-located area adjacent to downtown Springfield, supporting Economic Element Policy 14 by improving downtown Springfield's role as a central business district. . 8 ',' . . E-9 . "16. Utilize processes and local controls which encourage retention of large parcels or consolidation of small parcels of indu,~trially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their use 'or reuse in a comprehensive manner rather than piecemeal fashion. " Response: The Amendments establish a review process that uses a Master Plan concept as the basis for reviewing development proposals. The proposed review process allows a developer to use either the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as a Master Plan, or propose a Master Plan Modification with a minimum development area of 5 acres. The proposed review process supports Economic . Element Policy 16 by facilitating comprehensive development proposals as opposed to piecemeal development. "23. Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under procedures which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall be permitted and which (a) preserve the suitability of the affected areas for their primary uses; (b) assure compatibility; and (c) consider the potential for increased traffic congestion." Response: By proposing a Mixed Use! Nodal Development Plan Designation for the Project Area, the City is implementing Economic Element Policy 23. The Amendments collectively help ensure that the design will promote compatibility, and achieves a reduction in auto-oriented uses, consistent with the Nodal Development Plan Designation. . Environmental Resources Element Policies (Beginning on page III-C-?) "1. Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts when planning for urbanization,flood control, urban storm runoff, recreation, and water quality along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. " "18. Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict development in wetlands in order to protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values 'of those areas." Response: Two of the objectives of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the accompanying Amendments are to: . . Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan area that cleanses and treats the runoff prior to discharging into the WiIlamette River, and provides adequate drainage solutions as determined through Master Plan review; and . Protect and enhance the WiIlamette River's water quality and habitat for endangered species through environmentally sensitive development. . Currently, the Project Area is not well-served by drainage facilities. A primary component of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan is the drainage system which promotes the use of swales, 9 E -10 . . ',' environmentally sensitive building design, and riparian restoration along the river's edge, in order to improve water quality and provide passive recreational opportunities for residents and .. visitors to Glenwood. The Amendments require the use of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan drainage system plan, until such as time that the City adopts a Storm Drainage Master Plan which will provide more detailed guidance for development within Glenwood. By using innovati ve techniques for treating storm and surface water runoff, the Amendments support Environmental Resources Policies I and 18. WiIlamette River Greenwav. River Corridors. and Waterway Element Policies (Beginning on page III-D-4) "3. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to cooperate in expanding water- related parks and other facilities, where appropriate, that allow access to and enjoyment of river and waterway corridors. " . "5. New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall be limited to uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those water featu res. " "6. New industrial development that locates along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers shall enhance natural, scenic, and environmental qualities." "10. Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the Willamette River Greenway." . Response: The Amendments support the Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterway Element Policies 3, 5, 6, and 10, by providing design guidelines for development along the Willamette River, and, additionally, requirinKthe provision of a multi-use riverfront path to facilitate public access to the river. Under current zoning regulations and.policies that . govern the Project Area, there is little guidance for design and incorporafion of environmental features in development. While the Glenwood Refinement Plan contains standards for environmental design, these are not implemented in the soc. Further, since the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the City's Water Quality Limited Watercourse Setback ordinance has been adopted, and the setback prescribed for the Willamette River is 75 feet. The Amendmen~s implement the existing policy guidance in both the Metro Plan and the Glenwood RefinementPlan for providing development that incorporates the riverfront as an amenity, encOurages riparian restoration, and provides opportunities for public access. . Environmental Design Element Policies (Beginning on page III-E-3) . 10 ',' . . .. . . . E -11 "1. In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be encouraged when consistent with other planning policies. " Response: The Amendments comply with Environmental Design Element l, as the proposed . Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation provides opportunities for a diverse mix of land uses and supports existing policy direction encouraging Nodal Development. "2. Natural vegetation, .natural water features, and drainageways shall be protected and retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those natural features. This policy does not preclude increasing their conveyance capacity in an environmentally responsible manner." Response: Through the specific requirements of Article 44: OR Plan District, Environmental Design Policy 2 is supported. In the landscaping standards in Article 44, retention of existing natural vegetation and physical features is required in site design, where feasible. "8. Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in design that will achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems. " Response: The Amendments provid.e a flexible, two track design system for designing the buildings within the Project Area. Developers can either use the strict standards from the Mixed Use zoning districts in SDC Article 40, the Multi Family Design Standards in SDC Article 16, or amore flexible process in which design satisfies specific criteria in order to meet the intent of the standard. Examples of these standards include Building Form, Building Orientation, and Pedestrian Orientation. This flexible review process supports Policy 8 of the Environmental Design Element. Transportation Element The Transportation Element of the Metro Plall has been amended to incorporate the findings and policies of TrallsPlall, the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan, in its latest version from June 2002. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the following policies from TransPlall. Land Use Policies (Beginning on page m-F-4) "F-l. Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have id.entified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. " "F-3. Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations; medium- and high-density residential developmellt within ~ mile of transit stations, major transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development alld II E -12 . . ',' redevelopment in designated areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned tran~'it. " . "F-4. Require improvemellts that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development. " Response: The Project Area is identified as a potential "Node" in TransPlan, and was recommended as a priority area for nodal development implementation by the Springfield City Council in 2002. The Amendments implement existing policy direction to support the nodal development land use strategy, consistent with Land Use Policies F-l, F-3, and F-4. Development within the Project Area will be guided by the standards in Article 44: GR Plan District, and will require design eJements that encourage a pedestrian-oriented environment, such as weather protection, architectural enhancements, street furniture, and public spaces. Articles in the SDC require that new developments encourage bicycle access, provide bicycle amenities, and make bicycling more accessible for employees, customers, and residents. These standards are applied through site plan review for new development and redevelopment. The proposed designation for Mixed Usel Nodal Development acknowledges that the Project Area will be developed as a Node, consistent with its definition provided in the Metro Plan. "F-5. Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development, designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of nodal plans and implementing ordinances. " . Response: The Springfield City Council chose the Project Area as one of the six priority node areas identified for implementation of the nodal development land use strategy, along with Riverbend, Downtown Springfield, the Mohawk district, and the two nodes identified in Jasper- Natron. The Amendments directly implement. Land Use Policy F-5, and fulfill the City's responsibility from TransPlan, as the implementing ordinances will ensure that the Project Area is developed consistent with nodal development characteristics. Transportation System Improvements: System-Wide "F-10. Protect and manage existing andfuture transportation infrastructure." Response: The Amendments comply with TransPlan Transportation System Improvements policy F-lO. Part of the impetus to develop and adopt a redevelopment plan for the Project Area is because of programmed and plan system improvements to the existing infrastructure in Glenwood, including Franklin Blvd. As part of the improvements to the Glenwood area, ODOT will be completing a preservation project for Franklin Blvd., along with adjacent sidewalks in some areas, and bike lanes. In this manner, the existing transportation system is improved and preserved, consistent with Policy F-IO. . 12 . . . . . E -13 "F-J3. Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability." Response: The Amendments collectively support the nodal development land use strategy, which by definition promotes higher density, mixed use development with accompanying design guidelines that enhance livability in the community. Transportation System Improvements: Transit "F-I8. Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for aI/users, including the transportation disadvantaged population. " Response: While the proposed Amendments do not directly affect transit service, the Project . Area is centered on a Bus Rapid Transit station that will be located at the intersection of McVay Highway and Franklin Blvd. The layout of the Project Area as depicted in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or a development scenario developed through the Master Plan Modification process, will provide access to transit for multiple users, an objective of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. Transportation System Improvements: Bicycle "F-22. Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. " . "F-23. Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. " "F-24. Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and major destinations." . Response: Currently, there are few bicycle facilities in Glenwood as a whole. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the supporting Amendments require the provision of bicycle lanes on the collector streets that provide east-west connectivity through the Project Area. The bicycle lanes will effectively link the Project Area to nearby neighborhoods, and provide facilities to encourage commuting where they do not presently exist, supporting Policies F-22, F-23, and F- 24. Transportation System Improvements: Pedestrian . "F-26. Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience.ofwalking." "F-27. Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points. " 13 E -14 . . "F-28. Construct sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except freeways. " Response: Through the proposed Mixed Use! Nodal Development Plan Designation, Pedestrian Policies F-26, F-27, andF-28 are supported. A primary purpose of the Amendments is to ensure that redevelopment provides pedestrian access, connectivity, and facilitates pedestrian orientation throughout the Project Area, provided through the Master Plan review process, as well as site plan design review. (2) Conformance with Avplkable State Statutes State statutes which apply to this request include those statutes requiring compliance to Statewide Planning Goals. The statute requiring compliance is ORS 197.250. This application can be deemed in compliance by adoption of findings relating how the application conforms to each of the Statewide Goals, as outlined in the following section. (3) Conformance with Applicable State-wide Plannin1!Gtials and Administrative Rules. STATEWIDE GOAL CONSISTENCY: The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and . Administrative Rules as follows: GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. Springfield has an acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program with a process for securing citizen input on all long range planning projects. The Citizen Involvement Program has been followed sincc the project's beginning in fall of2000. Opportunities. for citizen influence have been available at all stages during the development of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the proposed Amendments. A group of property owners, business owners, and residents of Glen wood formed the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), which provided oversight to the project. The CAC core group includes the following property owners! citizens: Steve Moe Steve Roth George Karotko Randy Hledik Steve Pardo Taylor Ramsey Pam Seaver Phil Marvin John Brombaugh Bill Seaver Joan Marvin [n addition; approximately 11 public open houses and workshops were offered throughout the project history to receive citizen input, in addition to a number of City Council and Planning Commission work sessions. Table I illustrates the history of the public workshops and opportunities for public input on the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. . . . 14 . . E -15 . Table I. Public Involvement History, Glenwood Riverfront Plan . Date Subject Comments 8/2212000 Original Contract signed for TGM Glenwood Riverfront Plan 9/28/2000 CAe Meeting Introduction 11/212000 CAC Meeting Establish Project Goals. Discuss Existing Conditions 12111/2000 CAC Meeting Discuss Economic Analysis 1/30 and 1/31/01 Public Workshops- Also T AC and CAe meetings 3/7/01 Open House 3/12101 City Council Work session 3/15/01 Open Housel Redevelopment Forum! CAe Meeting 3/20/01 Planning Commission work session Get a sense of PC's preferred land use scenario. 4/2101 City Council work session Refine. choose a land use alternative. 7116101 Planning Commission work session Present Economic Study 7/17/0 I City Council Work session Present Economic Study 7/17/01 CAC Meeting Present Economic Study. 11/18/2002 CC )'Iork session Update ~:m progress 1/27/03 City Council Work session Bring cross sections of Franklin to Cc. 4/17/03 CAC Meeting Update of projects affecting Franklin blvd., ete. 5/20/03 CAC Meeting 6/3/03 and 6/4/03 Public Workshop! Open House 6/23/03 City Council Work session to present financial piece Council suffers from "sticker shock". and we take a breather and decide a course,of action. April. May Outreach meetings w! property owners john Tamulonis, Susanna julber 5/10/04. City Council work session Proceed with "Plan B"; follow through with development code, refinement plan amendments to get development process, design guidelines adopted. 6129/04 Glenwood public meeting Per Task 8. 7/1/04 Glenwood public meeting Per Task B. 7/19/04 Ponderosa Mobile Home Meeting at Roaring Rapids Additional meeting. 7/26/04 City Council Work session Update on Public Involvement 9/20/04 . City Council initiates package of plan amendments. etc. necessary for plan implementation. January 4, 2005 Planning Commission Work session February 15.2005 Lane County Planning Commission Work Session Presentation of Riverfr.ont Plan to PC. February 23. 2005 Public Open House at L TD Opportunity to solicit comments. February 24. 2005 Public Open House at l TO OpportUnity to solicit commenti. March 15, 2005 Springfield Planning Commission Work Session Presentation of Riverfront Plan to PC, April 19. 2005 joint lane County and City of Springfield Planning Presentation of implementing GR Plan District, Commission Work Session and Public Hearing Refinement Plan amendments. Public Hearing. Staff finds that the citizen involvement process used to develop the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and implementing Amendments satisfies the requirements of Goal I, Citizen Involvement, as the City's acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program was used to develop the Citizen Involvement process for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. . .> 15 E -16 ". . . GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING. Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with statewide goals, that local comprehensive plans are 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. . I. Coordination with Affected Jurisdictions ORS 197.610 requires the City to forward notice of proposed Metro Plan and GRP amendments to OLCD a minimum of 45 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. Notice was provided to OLCO on March 4, 2005; the first evidentiary hearing is being held on April 19, 2005. Metro Plan policy 1(3) (b) characterizes the plan amendments as Type II, "A Type 11 amendment shall include any change to the Plan diagram or Plan text that is site specific and not otherwise a Type I category amendment." ' The proposed amendments are considered a Type 11 amendment, as the changes include a change to the Plan diagram that is site specific. A Type II amendment can be initiated by any of the three governing bodies. Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 5(b) provides guidance with respect to process: . "...a Type II Metropolitan Plan amendment between the city limits and Plan Boundary, must be approved by the home city and Lane County. The non-home city will be sent a referral of the proposed amendment and, based upon a determination that the proposal will have Regional Impact, may' participate in the decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of Regional Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision. " The City of Eugene was first provided a referral notice of the proposed amendments on October 6,2004, when the first evidentiary hearing was scheduled for January 4,2005. Because of implementation and scheduling issues, the first evidentiary hearing was rescheduled for April 19, 2005. The City of Eugene was provided an additional referral notice on March 17,2005. No response from the City of Eugene was received that indicated the City of Springfield's package of Amendments have a Regional Impact. Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 6 provides: "Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metropolitan Plan amendments requiring participation from one or two jurisdictions shall be held within 120 days of the initiation date." This policy applies when a citizen initiates a plan amendment process. The Springfield City Council initiated this request on September 20,2004. Although the first public hearing is . 16 ,," . . . . . E .17 \ . beyond the 120-day window as provided in Policy 6 of the Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements, it does not apply to city-initiated requests. The first hearing dates took longer than expected, in order to offer additional public involvement opportunities and to resolve some implementation issues. The Metro Plan Amendment is a "Type II" amendment as defined in the Springfield Development Code' at SDC 7.030, because it a) involves a specific .piece of property; b) does not change the Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary; c) does not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary; d) does not require a goal exception; e) 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 the subject site is east ofl-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 amendment of 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, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, or transportation facilities of the City of Eugene. The subject amendments are site specific Type II map amendments with no regional impact as those terms are defined at Section 7.030 of the-Springfield Development Code. A Type I Metro Plan Amendment is "Any change to the Metro Plan which (I) 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 II Metro f'.lan 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." 17 E -18 . . 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. . Accordingly, the Amendments and the City's adoption thereof are consistent with the requirements of Goal 2. 2. Consistency with Adopted Plans The application is consistent with adopted plans such as the existing Glellwood Refillemellt Plall, the Metro P/all, and TraIlSP/all. The proposed changes implement the intent of these guiding documents for the Project Area to develop into a mixed use node, and help accomplish the City's responsibility of Nodal Development implementation as prescribed in TraIlSP/all. GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS. This goal is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural lands and the subject property is within an acknowledged urban growth boundary. OAR 660-]5-000(3). GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS. Goal 4 does not apply within urban h'fOwth 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 HISTORIC 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 (I) identifY such resources: (2) determine their quality, quantity, and location: (3) identifY conflicting uses: (4) examine the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences that could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the conflicting uses, and. (5) develop programs to resolve the conflicts. No part of the subject site is on any acknowledged Metro P/all Goal 5 inventory, but is adjacent to the Willamelte River, an inventoried Natural Resource Special Study Site (NRSSS), Site W NWB. The City has adopted the inventory, and is currently completing an ESEE analysis on the inventoried sites. Currently, the land adjacent to the Willamelte River is developed with a mix of residential, commercia], and industrial uses, many of which have no formal drainage system for treatment of storm water. Several uses are developed up to the top of bank, with liltle apparent setback. . 18 . . . . . E -19 Two of the primary objectives of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the proposed Amendments that require a Master Plan Modification for development that varies from the mixed use land use scenario shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan are to: I) Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan area that cleanses and treats the runoff prior to discharging into the Willamette River, and provides adequate drainage solutions as determined through Master Plan review; 2) Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for endangered species and other indigenous wildlife through environmentally sensitive development. Development in accordance with the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or a Master Plan Modification will be required to use the Storm Water Master Plan and Rip'lrian Protection and Enhancement guidelines developed for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, until such time that the City adopts a Storm Drainage Master Plan to provide guidance specifically for development in Glenwood. This requirement is outlined at Section 44.130 in the proposed SDC amendments and within the proposed amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, under Policy l4. Further, the Riverfront Plan Storm Water Master Plan recommends using swales and open ditches for treating storm water prior to entering the Willamette River along streets, within parking areas, and through design standards for buildings. To further the protection of the Willamette River and its natural resource qualities, development . within the Project Area will be required to adhere to the City's existing setback requirements for Water Quality Limited Watercourses in SDC Article 32 and as mapped on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map, unless.a Willamette Greenway delineation in accordance with SDC Article 25 identifies areas that warrant additional setback protection. The Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map requires a minimum 75 foot setback from the top of bank for development along the Willamette River. The combination of the riparian setback and the drainage system requirements within the proposed Amendments will help to improve the quality of the Willamette River: GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY Statewide Planning Goal 6 requires that cities maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. The subject property is located within the Springfield urban growth boundary. Any development must comply with applicable state and federal air and water quality standards. Future development and redevelopment of the site will be reviewed under Springfield's standards for development to ensure that the integrity of the air, water, and land resources are preserved. GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss of life not be planned or located in known areas of natural hazards and disasters without appropriate 19 E - 20 . . safeguards. The goal also requires that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural disaster and hazards. Additionally, a slight portion of the properties are within the floodway. The Metro Plan and local regulations do not pennit building within the floodway, however with the required 75 foot water quality limited watercourse setback, this should not be an issue where the floodway encroaches on these properties. Development applications within the 100 year floodplain 'inSpli"ngfield are governed by the requirements of SDC Article 27, Floodplain Overlay (FP) District. Among the requirements of the FP Overlay District, construction must have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation. 20 '. , , . . . . . . . '. . E - 21 . The existing SDC requirements in Article 27 provide proper safeguards to guide development' along the Willamelte Riverfront in a manner that will provide protection from the potential hazards. 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 (I) 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 oflimited mobility and finances, "(c) meet recreational needs requirements while providing the maximum conservation of energy both in the transportation of persons to the facility or area and in the recreational use itself, . ' "(d) minimize environmental degradation, "(e) are available to the public at nominal cost, and "(t) meet needs of visitors to the state." Whether a developer chooses to use the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or the Master Plan Modification process to propose a varying land use scenario, the Amendments provide the opportunity to 'add passive and active recreation opportunities along the Willamelte River, through the passive viewing opportunities in the regional drainage/ wetland park, and through the open space requirements contained in Article 44: GR Plan District for residential developments. The Amendments comply with (a) and (b), above, as the Project Area is directly adjacent to downtown Springfield and its population base, and will provide opportunities for recreation for . those with mobility limitations and limited finances. Currently, there is no formal public access to the Willamette Riverfront area within the Project Area. The Amendmentswill support the establishment of a multi-use riverfront path, providing river access and opportunities for Glenwood residents and visitors. The Amendments comply with (c), above, as they facilitate the development of the Project Area a "node", which implies that opportunities for work, living, and recreation are within walking distance. Additionally, the Amendments collectively require the design of the Project Area to promote walking and multi-modal transportation choices, reducing the need to drive to the site. Further, the requirement for a multi-use path will create a link between downtown Springfield and the riverfront, and provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a means to travel east-west through the Project Area. The Amendments comply with (d), above, as they will facilitate the protection and enhancement of the Willamette River riparian edge. The Amendments will implement the City's existing 75-foot riparian setback requirement, and the drainage system proposed for the project Area incorporates Best Management Practices such as 21 E -22 . . ., ~ t' using swales to treat storm water and improving the environmental conditions within the Project Area. The Amendments comply with (e) and (t), as the proposed riverfront multi-use path is to . be free of charge, and will serve as an attractor for visitors to the area. GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development 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." The proposed Amendments provide opportunities for higher density housing, commercial, and office uses, which assists in furthering economic opportunities for the businesses and residents of Springfield. Furthermore, because the Amendments create a flexible review process, the City is enabled to respond to development requests from larger users that may add to the employment base of the region, and that may not be anticipated at this time. More generally, Goal 9 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 industrial '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 compatible with proposed uses." , , While currently undergoing review, LCDC is preparing amendments to the Goal 9 Administrative Rules that recognize the importance of providing mixed use opportunities for living, working, and providing commercial services in close proximity, to meet multiple, community needs. The proposed Amendments implement this objective. Further, the proposed Amendments do not adversely affect Springfield's commercial and industrial land inventories. The City's acknowledged Commercial Lands Study (CLS), adopted by the Council in February 2000, identified a need for an additional 255 acres to meet the demand for commercial land to the year 2015. Commercial land in Glenwood was not included in the inventory, because the City'had recently assumed jurisdiction of Glen wood from the City of Eugene. Because sanitary sewer was unavailable to serve the Project Area, none of these properties would have been included on the short-term CLS inventory, and possibly not the long- term, as construction of the sanitary sewer was not anticipated at the time the CLS was written. The Plan Designation for the Project Area properties is currently "CommerciaIl IndustriaIl Multi- Family Residential Mixed Use", and the properties within Subarea 8 are currently zoned a mix of Community Commercial, Light Medium Industrial, and Low Density Residential. The . 22 ." ' , .' . . . " . . E -23 Amendments propose to change the Plan Designation to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development", Under this new Plan Designation, up to 30 percent of the 48-acre area is allowed to be developed as Community Commercial or Mixed Use Commercial Devt,'lopment. The purpose of the Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation is to promote a mix of uses, so people can shop, work, and live in close proximity, and have less reliance on their automobiles. The intent of the Amendments is to facilitate a mix of successful commercial, residential, and employment opportunities. The Amendments effectively add potential commercial land to the City's Commercial Land Inventory. Additionally, the proposed Amendments do not adversely affect the Industrial Lands Inventory, The adopted inventory was published in July, 1993 as the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report (industrial lands inventory). The 1993 industrial lands inventory identifies 3,604 acres ofbuiJdable industrial land in the Eugene-Springfield UGB, out of a total of 4,039 vacant industrial acres. In the industrial lands inventory, the Metro Area is broken down into subregions, and Glenwood is "Subregion 6", Within the Project Area, industrial sites #5 and #6 are listed on the inventory, as identified in Figure 2, below. At the time the Industrial Lands Inventory was completed, these sites were zoned 12 (Eugene's zoning district, roughly equivalent to Springfield's Light Medium Industrial zoning) and their Plan Designation was Commercial! Industrial! Multi-Family Mixed Use.' l NORTH o 2000' I I I SCALE :UOOO Figure 2. Industrial.Lands Study, 1993 I Sites 5 and 6 During the transfer of jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield, property owners were given the opportunity to change their zoning if the Plan Designation allowed for a different zoning than what was currently in effect, if the property owner desired. Because of the Mixed Use Plan Designation, property owners were given an opportunity to change to Community Commercial, Medium Density Residential, or . Light Medium Industrial as the City transferred Eugene's Zoning Districts into Springfield's. The owners of sites #5 and #6 changed their zoning to Community Commercial, effectively taking the sites off of the Industrial Lands Inventory. Therefore, the Amendments do not adversely reduce the Industrial Lands Inventory, as these sites were rezoned to Commercial in . 1998, '. The proposed Amendments provide the opportunity for a mix of commercial, residential, and industrial uses consistent with the uses in the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Zoning District, effectively adding to the industrial lands inventory by allowing industrial development of these properties. 23 E -24 . . " \ I,' _,f , By providing the allowance for a mix of uses, the Amendments provide an opportunity for a key . economic activity vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the region, consistent with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 9. GOAL 10 - HOUSING Statewide Planning Goal 10 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 units 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." The Eugene-Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS), conducted in 1999, found that there was an excess of buildable residential land within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the future housing needs of the projected population. The RLS shows an excess of 239 acres of Medium Density Residential and an excess of 60 acres of High Density Residential land Metro- wide that is available to meet the demand for such housing to the year 2015. The Metro Plan states in ihe Supply and Demand Analysis (Metro Plan page 1lI-A-3), "Housing is not allocated to commercial and mixed use designated land due to State Administrative Rules although it is known that some housing will be built on commercial and mixed use land." Although the actual amount of housing developed in mixed use areas is not specified in the RLS, the potential for housing to be created in these areas is acknowledged. Because the Amendments change the Plan Designation to Mixed Use/ Nodal Development, an average residential density of 12 units per acre must be achieved for the residential component of the Project Area, due to the requirements for Nodal Development areas as defined in TransPlan and the Metro Plan. Therefore, the Amendments actually add to the RLS Inventory, in the sense that the mixed use area was not factored into the RLS Inventory, and these Amendments will help facilitate the development of medium, higher density, and mixed use residential development. The proposed Amendments provide target land use allocations that must be achieved in a development proposal. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan Market Analyses were heavily weighted towards a residential component that provides a mix of housing types, sizes, and ranges of prices, consistent with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 10. The Market Analysis completed in 2001 by Zinimerman Volk Associates found that the Project Area could support 850 housing units of medium and higher density, if the Project Area was improved with the design standards and guidelines that the proposed Amendments provide. The Market Analysis recommended the following land use allocation for the Project Area, illustrated in Table 2 which is an allocation of approximately 60 percent residential, 8-10 percent commercial and office: . . 24 .'.' " , " . . . . . E -25 . Table 2. Suggested Land Use Allocations, GR Plan District Potential Residential Buildout Number Net Densityl Lot Housing Type Approx. Unit Average square Total square Size Size Range footage footog. (sf) Multi Family for Rent NIA Apts. Over retail 450.900 sf 675 sf 162,675 482 35.50 du per building apartments (3.5 500-1200 sf 850 sf 204,850 stories) Multi Family for Sale 2~story units 1,000-1,350 sf 1,175 216,200 184 25 du per building over one~5tory units Single Family Attached for Sale 100 Rowhouses 1400-1550 sf 1.475 147,500 84 Rowhouses 1650-1800 sf 1,725 144,900 (Master down) Total Units: 850 . 876,/25 sf Potential Commercial Buildout 200/-2008 2008-10 Total Riverview Office 30,000 (al 50,000 (b) 80,000 Retail Riverview Restaurant 15,000 10,000 25,000 Franklin Blvd. Commercial 15,000 15,000 . 30,000 . Total 60,000 75,000 135,000 sf (a) Smgle-user bUlldmg (b) Multi-user building Generally, approximately 25-35 percent of the acreage within the Project Area will be utilized by streets, right of way, and drainage system requirements. Further, the Market Analysis recommended that the housing provided be priced at a mix ofhighcr and lower ranges, in order to accommodate a wide range of incomes, as illustrated in Table 3, illustrated in 200] dollars. Table 3. Suggested Pricing of Housing and Distribution of Types Ol'llMUM MARKET l'OSITION GI.ENWOOD REDEVELOI'MENT AREA City "fSprill,lifield, Lalle OlUllly, Or<1{()[/ Net ' Appl'Dx. Apprm. Approx. Dmsit,i Uousing Ba<;t' Rent! UnitSiz:e RentJPrke Number 1..01 Size T)"pe: Price Range RBnb~ Per Sq. Ft_ l\1t.'1. n.F~MlLY FOR-RE1'I"..~56,8% nil} ApI.\:, Over Reloril $415 to 450 to 50.8910 4~2 S800/mo. 900 Sl.OG 35-50 du AJ1l1rlm:nt.'l $550'0 SOO to $0.92 to lJ-5 stut\C'l1 S l.IOOimo. 1.200 $1.10 ML1..ll.FAMn. Y FOR-SALE--21.6"';, 184 25 du Two-Slur)' Units $110,000 to 1,000'" $107 to O"'~'T Ono-Stury Unil!l 5145,000 1.350 $1 to SIJ'IIGLE.FAMILY ATTACllm FOR.S,-\LE~21.6% 100 1,440 sf Ru.....lulUSes S 160,000 to 1.400 to 5110 to 2 $170,000 1,550 $114 84 1,800 sf Ru.....houseil $190,000 to 1.6;0 to $1.1110 3Ox60 lma..~ltt IlU....il} 5200,000 1,&00 SI15 $OlJltct:; Zimmcnnan/VoIk As..'\OCialc,,". Inc. 25 E -26 . . ~, h . . " ' Although through the Amendments, a developer can vary from the Glenwood Riverfront Plail in terms of the land use patterns shown (street locations, access, building locations, and location of . land uses) through a Type IV Master Plan Modification, a change in the range ofland use allocations outlined in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Subarea 8, would require a GI,enwood Refinement Plan Text Amendment. Recommended Policy 4 in Subarea 8 is as follows: "4. The following range of land use allocations shall be allowed within the GR Plan District: . Residential: 30-60 percent, average residential density 12 units/ acre, based on the definition of a node contained in the Metro Plan; . Commercial/ Office/ Employment: 10-30 percent . It is expected that open space, storm water facilities, riparian setback areas, and right of way will occupy 25-35 percent ofthe Project Area. A request to increase or decrease the limits of any of the above allocations, i.e. commercial development of 35% of the GR Plan District site, shall require an amendment to the text of this refinement plan to correspond to the proposed allocations, consistentwith the requirements in SDC Article 44." The Amendments promote opportunities for medium and high den.sity housing that is located in close proximity to transit and other community services and facilities, and therefore comply with the requirements of Goal 10 Housing. GOAL 11- PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. . This goal requires the planning and timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. The Project Area is located within the City of Springfield urban growth boundary, outside the City Limits. Prior to development of any portion of the Project Area, property owners will be required to annex and execute an annexation agreement, which will stipulate responsibilities for provision of services. Upon annexation, the following public facilities and services can be provided to properties within the Project Area. Storm Sewer: Sanitary Sewer: Water: Electricity: Natural Gas: Schools: Parks and Recreation: Fire and Police Protection: Transit: City of Springfield* City of Springfield! Metro Wastewater Springfield Utility Board Springfield Utility Board Northwest Natural Gas Eugene School District 4J Willamalane Parks and Recreation District City of Springfield Lane Transit District *Stonn sewer an4 storm drainage is not currently available to serve properties within the Project Area, but guidance for a drainage system plan is provided within the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. . 26 '," '" ~~ . . . . . E - 27 The City will be adopting a drainage system plan for the area of Glen wood in fall 2005. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan will provide interim guidance until the City's plan is adopted. GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION Statewide Planning Goal] 2 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 (I) 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 b'feater or different transportation demands and impacts than development under the existing acknowledged designations. The Amendments, collectively, comply with the purpose of Goal 12, as (I) the Amendments accomplish the City's responsibility to implement the nodal development land use strategy, (2) the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Plan land use scenario does not create more trips than allowed under the current zoning and plan designation, and (3) the Amendments allow for a flexible development review process that still requires that transportation impacts are addressed. Furthermore, the Amendments facilitate improved safety and fuI:lctioning of the State facility, because they reduce ihe number of access points along Franklin Blvd. and encourage a comprehensive view of development, rather than encouraging continued piecemeal development along the transportation corridor. The City was awarded multi-year Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Grants from DLCD in order to establish a redevelopment plan consistent with the objectives advocated within the TPR. The Project Area has access to a principal state and local urban arterial, Franklin Blvd./Highway 126, which is under ODOT's jurisdiction. Its location is also on the first phase of Lane Transit District's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route and the Project Area will be served by 3 transit stations along Franklin Blvd.- one west of Glenwood Blvd., a second near the intersection of Lexington Avenue, and a third at the McVay Highway intersection. The proposed Amendments seek to change the Plan Diagram of both the Metro Plan and the Glenwood Refinement Plan to "Mixed Use! Nodal Development", as follows: Guiding Document Plan Designation! Other Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Commercial/Industrial! Mixed Use! Nodal Development Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use Glenwood Refinement Plan Commercial! Industrial! Mixed Use! Nodal Development Diagram Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use TransPlan Identified for Nodal Mixed Use! Nodal Development Development 27 E - 28 . . By changing the plan designations as shown above, the City is implementing its responsibility from TransPlan, to implement the Nodal Development land use strategy in order to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). In recognition that the Nodal Development land use strategy does reduce trips, the state has credited Nodes with a 10% reduction measure in VMT, as acknowledged in OAR 660-012-0060(5)(a). Prohibition on Auto-Oriented Uses and Building Footprint Maximum In recognition that the Project Area is identified for nodal development, the following auto- oriented uses are allowed presently under the current zoning, but will not be allowed under the proposed Amendments: I. Car washes. 2. Auto parts, tires, batteries, and accessones. 3. Recreational vehicle and heavy truck, sales/rental/ servi ceo 4. Motor vehicle sales/rental/service. 5. Service stations and gas stations, including quick servicing. 6. Tires, sales/service. 7. Transit park and ride, major or minor, except under a shared parking arrangement with another pennitted use. 8. Agricultural machinery rentall salesl service. 9. Motorized Boats and watercraft sales and service. 10. Equipment, heavy, rental/sales/service. II. Manufactured dwelling sales/service/repair. 12. Heavy industrial uses. 13. Mini-warehouse storage facilities. 14. Drive-through facilities. 15. Moving and storage facilities. 16. Truck and auto repair and painting facilities. 17. Truck and car washes. 18. Exterior Display and Storage. . . In addition to the prohibition on auto-oriented uses, the proposed GR Plan District language contains a building footprint maximum of 50,000 square feet. This implies that users larger than 50,000 square feet may build up; however, this is often prohibitive for a larger user. This footprint limitation may eliminate some of the larger traffic generators. . Traffic Impact Analysis Findings A Traffic Impact Analysis completed for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and a City evaluation of the probable land uses that could be developed under the present plan designation showed that the present plan designation and land uses allowed under the current zoning and plan designation would generate substantially more traffic than that proposed by the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. Additionally: I. There are presently II accesses used along the north side of Franklin Blvd. abutting the Project Area to the south. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan reduced these accesses to 2-3 by consolidating accesses and realigning streets consistent with the south side of Franklin Blvd. .:, .,., . " to. . . . 28 .,~,;.,. ",." .., . . . . . E .29 2. By implementing the Nodal Development land use pattern in the Project Area, multi- modal transportation choices are provided, and standards ensure the Project Area is developed to encourage walkability. 3. Within the GR Plan District, auto oriented uses are prohibited. Without the Amendments, a much broader list of traffic-generating uses are allowed within the Project Area. 4. Without adopting the Amendments or a development review process that requires Master Plans in this area, the risk exists for a resulting haphazard land use pattern. The possibility of the interchange at nearby Interstate 5, provides further credence why the "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Land use strategy should be adopted for the Project Area, consistent with policy direction from TransPlan, the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Metro Plan, and DLCD, who supported the development of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and s]Jpporting amendments with Transportation Growth Management Grants, 5. DLCD and ODOr recognize that the Nodal Development land use strategy does in fact reduce trips on a transportation system, by allowing a lO percent trip reduction for nodal development areas, outlined in the Transportation Planning Rule. In order to gauge the transportation impacts of the proposed GJenwood Riverfront Plan, a reasonable worst case land use scenario was evaluated in a Traffic Impact Analysis (T1A), completed in November 2002, by JRH Transportation Engineering. The TIA was based on the land use allocations recommended in the Market Analysis, detailed under "Goal 10: Housing" above. Table 4 illustrates the traffic generated by the development scenario proposed in the Gknwood Riverfront Plan. Table 4. Glenwood Riverfront Plan PM Peak Hour, Adjacent Street Traffic, ITE Trip Generation Land Use ITE Number Rate Trips Code Unitsl Size Mid-Rise Apartments 223 482 .39 188 Residential Townhouse/ 230 184 ".54 99 Condominium~ Single Family High-Rise Residential 232 184 .38 70 Condominiuml Townhouse. Multi Family General Office Building 710 80 1.49 119 Restaurant 931 25 7.49 187 Specialty Retail Center- 814 30 2.59. 78 Commercial Total Trips Generated 741 Source: JRH Engineering, November 2002 In order to estimate a "reasonable worst case scenario" of the number of trips generated under the current zoning and plan designation, staff looked at the existing uses and assessed what would likely be developed at the site, given other strip developments within the Metro Area, 29 E - 30 . . such as East Main Street in Springfield, and West 11th west of Chambers in Eugene. The following assumptions were made in estimating the type ofland uses that are likely to be developed in the Project Area in the absence of the Amend,ments: I. Sanitary sewer is available to serve the Project Area. Properties within the Project Area have not been served by sanitary sewer and are unable to redevelop to a greater intensity on present septic systems. With the construction of sanitary sewer in Franklin Blvd. and the fact that properties will be able to annex in fall 2005, development requests will likely increase substantially in the next few years. The lack of sanitary sewer has kept properties in the Project Area from developing to their full potential. 2. Under the current zoning and with no change in the Plan Designation, many of the existing uses will remain for a number of years. The traffic analysis assumes that the Ponderosa Mobile VIllage, Camp Putt, and a few of the other existing uses will remain in the Project Area without further land use designation changes. 3. Under the current zoning and Plan Designation, auto-oriented uses such as gas stations, auto parts stores, and auto sales could develop within the Project Area. Glenwood presently is home to may of these uses already. The Traffic Analysis for the potential buildout under the present Plan Designation and allowable zoning of Community Commercial, Light Medium Industrial, and Medium and High Density Residential is illustrated in Table 5. Table 5. Traffic Analysis for Potential Buildout under Present Zoningl Plan Designation PM Peak Hour, Adjacent Street Traffic, ITE Trip Generation Unit for ITE Average Average Square Number Site Trip Use Code Rate Rate Footage Units Acreage Generation Hotel 310 0.59 per room 60.000 150 2.5 89 Single- Family Detached per dwelling Housing 210 1.01 unit 10 1.75 10 per dwelling Apartment 220 0.62 unit 100 J 62 Mobile Home per dwelling Park 240 0.59 unit 52 6 31 Building Materials and Lumber Store 812 4.49 Pcr I 000 sf 80.000 3 359 New Car Sales 841 2.64 Per 1000 sf 3.000 0.5 8 Auto Parts Sales 843 5.98 Per 1000 sf 4.500 0.2 27 Video Rental Store 896 13.6 Pcr 1000 sf 2.800 0.2 38 Fast Food wI Drive Through (I) 934 34.64 Per 1000 sf 3,200 0.2 III Fast Food wi Drive Through (2) 934 34.64 Per 1000 sf 2,800 0.2 97 30 .. 'r"........,.. . . . '.~'.i. ",;..." .... . . . . . E .31 Sit Down Restaurant 932 10.92 Per I 000 sf 5,000 0.25 55 Drinking Place 936 11.34 Per I 000 sf 2,500 0.17 28 Gas Station wi Convenience Market 945 96.37 Per 1000 sf 800 0.17 771 General Light Industrial , 10 0.42 per employee 100,000 5 32 Miniature Golf Course* 431 0.33 0.25 - Industrial Manufacturing 140 0.36 per employee 100,000 4.5 23 Mini-Warehouse 151 0.03 Per Unit 85 I 3 Willamette Riparian Setback 6.5 - Right of Wayl Open Space! Roads. 10.5 - . Total Acreage 45.89 Total Trips 1,743 *The'ITE Manual only has one inCidence of observation for a Miniature Golf Course. Because Camp Putt is a seasonal use, staff chose to not estimate trips generated, especially because many of the same users will be going to Roaring Rapids Pizza, The comparison illustrates that the land use scenario proposed in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan generates 741 trips', substantially less than the 1,743 trips generated under the current zoning and Plan Designation. Based on the current plan desil,'Ilation, allowable zoning districts, allowable uses in these zoning districts, and the lack ofland use requirements that require a consolidated plan or Master Plan prior to development approval, the above land use scenario could reasonably develop within the planning period to 2023. Further, these land uses would most likely develop under current access permits, many of which do not comply with access spacing standards in the Oregon Highway Plan or the SDC. Without the Amendments and the requirements for Master Planning that they impose, the unsafe, inefficient land use strategy that currently exists across the Metro Area along transportation corridors will most likely be perpetuated. Collectively, the Amendments implement the purpose of OAR 660-012-0000; which states, "The purpose of this Division is to implement Statewide Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and promote the development of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile so that the air pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced by urban areas in other parts of the country might be avoided." Master Plan Modification Process I With the 10% reduction for mixed use pedestrian centers allowed by the TPR, the trips generated by the Riverfront Plan land use scenario is reduced to 667. 31 E - 32 . . With the Master Plan Modification process proposed in the Amendments, developers are permitted to propose a Master Plan idea that varies from the Olenwood Riverfront Plan. A concern is that allowing this flexibility does not, provide assurance that traffic impacts will be addressed. The Amendments require that Master Plan Modifications to adhere to the submittal requirements found at SDC 37.030(10), which provides: "The Director may require additional information necessary to evaluate the proposed development including but not limited to an ESEE analysis, geology, soils, storm water, sanitary, tree preservation, historical, archaeological, and traffic impact." , Through the Master Plan Modification process, a Traffic Impact Analysis can be required to assess the impacts of the proposed development. Additionally, the proposed OR Plan District requires that Master Plan Modifications be consistent with the objectives of the Olenwood Riverfront Plan. The language contained at 44,040 provides tbe criteria of approval as follows: "In addition to the "Criteria" listed at 37.040 of this code, Master Plans and Master Plan Modifications within the OR Plan District shall meet the Jollowing specific objectives, established during the development of the Olenwood Riverfront Plan. Where a criterion does not apply the applicant shall address wby that criterion does not apply. The Master Plan and Master Plan Modification proposal shall: 1. Establish a mixed use development pattern that will enhance and complement the adjacent riverfront and that is consistent with the nodal designation for the OR Plan District; 2. Provide transportation linkages between the Master Plan area and the surrounding neighborhoods; 3. Incorporate access to transit into the design of the Master Plan area. 4. Incorporate design and streetscape amenities into the Master Plan area which promote bicycle and pedestrian transportation opportunities. These amenities include sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities, with a focus on the edges of the Master Plan area, such as Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette River; 5. Establish a multi-use riverfront path; 6. Identify open space and appropriate connections to open space. Public open space shall be designed to provide active and passive recreation opportunities for residents, visitors, employees, and provide visual relief. Streets shall be designed as view corridors, in order to open the site to the Willamette river; 7. Implement the objectivcs of TransPlan to increase densities within the OR Plan District; Average residential density for residential components shall be a minimum of 12 units per acre; ~ ,~ ... .to .. ., ....'. . . . 32 ....,.L .~.'o ..... . . . . . E -33 8. Reduce reliance an State Highway I 26(Franklin Blvd.) far lacal east-west traffic thraugh a strategy ta resalve and reduce access issues within the GR Plan District baundaries; 9. Provide a cannected street pattern that facilitates internal circulatian, pramates walking, and that minimizes canflicts an Franklin Baulevard; ] O. Facilitate a starm drainage system far the master plan that cleanses and treats the runaff priar ta discharging inta the Willamette River, and provides adequate drainage salutians as determined thraugh Master Plan review; II. Pratect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat far endangered species and ather indigenaus wildlife thraugh enviranmentally sensitive develapment." Because .of these requirements, Master Plans that vary fram the land use scenaria shawn in the Glenwaad Riverfrant Plan still must meet the fundamental .objectives afnadal develapment. Develapment prapasals that are incansistent with these .objectives require a Plan Amendment ta the text .of the GlenWaad Riverfrant Plan, Subarea 8. The propased Amendments camply with the requirements .of Statewide Planning Gaall2, as they (I) accomplish the City's respansibility t.o implement the nadal develapment land use strategy, (2) the propased Glenwaad Riverfrant Plan land use scenariadaes nat create mare trips than allawed under the current zaning and plan designatian; in fact, it generates substantially less, and (3) the Amendments allaw far a flexible develapment review process that still requires that transpartatian impacts are addressed. Furthermare, the Amendments facilitate improved safety and functianing .of the State facility, because they reduce the number .of access paints alang Franklin Blvd. and encaurage a comprehensive view .of develapment, rather than encauraging cantinued piecemeal develapment alang the transpartatian carridar. GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERV A TlON. The Energy Gaal is a general planning gaal and provides little guidance far site-specific map changes. Hawever, the Amendments provide the appartunity far a'mix .of uses in a centrallY- lacated area, provide guidelines that encaurage the develapment .of the area in a manner that reduces auta trips and provides access ta recreatian, and facilitates redevelapment .of underutilized praperty. Any future develapment will be subject ta applicable energy efficiency requirements established by building cades. GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION. The subject site is within the Metro Area UGB, .outside the city limits .of Springfield, hawever centrally lacated between the dawntawn areas .of Eugene and Springfield. The prapased amendments are intended ta facilitate efficient redevelapment .of the site far urban uses, thereby facilitating the campact urban grawth farm which is the subject .of Statewide Planning Gaal ] 4. 33 E -34 . . GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY . The project area abuts the WiIlamette River for approximately 0.75 miles. SDC Article 25 contains regulations that help to enhance and protect the resource value of the WiIlamette River. Article 25 was acknowledged by LCDC in ] 986 and has undergone several subsequent amendments to remain in compliance with the Goal. The requirements of SDC Article 25 are enforced through the requirement that all multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial development within the City is processed through Site Plan Review, and, for properties within 150 feet of the ordinary low water mark of the WiIlamette River, Discretionary Use Review (review by the Planning Commission). ]n the Site Plan and Discretionary Review process, specific development proposals are reviewed, and conditions of approval are applied in order to mitigate adverse impacts of the development. Adoption of the Amendments proposed here will not relieve a developer of the responsibility to submit a Site Plan Review and/or Discretionary Use Review application prior to development approval. The following section discusses the regulations related to water quality and riparian protection that are adopted by the City of Springfield and that will guide redevelopment within the GR Plan District. These are as follows: 1. Willamette Greenway Overlay District (also the Willamette Greenway BoundQ/Y, SDC Article 25), .2. Greenway Setback (SDC 25.060), and 3. Water Quality Limited Water Course Ordinance (SDC 32.110(6) and (7)). 1. Willamette Greenway Oveaay District and Willamette Greenway Boundary (WG Overlay Article 25 of the SDC). Article 25 of the SDC implements state law and prescribes a review process for all developmentrequests within 150 feet of the ordinary low water mark ofthe Willamette River, and is called a "Willamette Greenway Overlay District" application, and is a Discretionary Use application heard before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The Amendments we're proposing for Subarea 8 do not relieve a developer of this requirement. 2. A Greenway setback line is established within the Willamette Greenway BoundQ/y. The Greenway Setback line is established when an application for development is reviewed through the Willamette Greenway Overlay District application. Oregon Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 15 and the requirements of SDC 25.060 prescribes that only water- dependent and water-related uses are permitted within the Greenway Setback Area. The definitions for water-dependent and water-related uses are found in Statewide Planning Goal 15, . and are as follows; "Water-Dependent. A use of activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for water-borne transportation, recreation, energy production, or source of water. .. Water-Related Uses which are not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but which provide goods .01' services that are directly associated with water- . ..,. .. ~," '~fI' . . . 34 ",l";~" ''.- . . . . . E -35 dependent land or waterway use. and which, if not located adjacent to water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services offered. Except as necessary for water-dependent or water-related uses or facilities, residences, parking lots, spoil and dump sites, roads and highways, restaurants, businesses, factories, and trailer parks are not generally considered dependent on or related .to water location needs. " SDC 25.060 states, "A Greenway Setback Line shall be established to protect, maintain, preserve and enhance the natural, scenic, historic and recreational qualities of the Willamette GI'eenway. Only water-dependent or water-related uses shall be permitted between the Willamette River and the Greenway Setback Line. The Greenway Overlay District shall substitute temporarily as the Greenway Setback Line for all properties within the Overlay District that do not have an established Setback Line. Establishment of this Setback Line may occur with or with our' a request for development approval, but any request for development . approval on land without an established Setback Line must be accompanied by an application for establishment of the Greenway Setback Line. The location of the Greenway Setback Line shall be determined consistent with the following standards derived from Section C.3 of the Willamette River Greenway Goal J 5: (1) Local, regional and state recreational needs shall be provided for consistent with the carl)'ing capacity of the land. The possibility thai public recreation use might disturb adjacent property shall be considered and minimized to the greatest extent possible. . (2) Adequate public access to the river shall be provided. (3) Significantflsh and wildlife habitats shall be protected. (4) Identified scenic qualities and view-points shall be preserved. (5) The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private property, especially ji-om vandalism and trespass shall be provided for to the maximum extent practicable. (6) The natural vegetative ji-inge along the river shall be enhanced and protected to the maximum extent practicable. '(7) The location of known aggregate deposits shall be considered. Aggregate extraction may be permitted outside the Greenway Setback Area subject to compliance with State law, the underlying district and conditions of approval designed to minimize adverse effects on water quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, bank stabilization, stream flow, visual quality, quiet and safety and to guarantee reclamation. (8) Developments shall be directed away ji-om the river to the greatest possible degree; provided, however, lands committed to urban uses shall be permitted to continue as urban uses, including port, public, industrial, commercial and residential uses, uses pertaining to navigational requirements, water and land access needs and related facilities. " According to SDC 25.050, except for uses within the Greenway Setback Area, uses allowed in the Willamette Greenway Overlay District are the same as those in the underlying districts. Any change or intensification of use, or construction that has a significant visual impact requires 35 E - 36 . . , r 0, .....~. "Y ,., I- Discretionary Use Approval. The proposed Amendments do not relieve an applicant of the responsibilities associated with the Greenway Setback Line or the Greenway Overlay District . requirements. Further, the proposed language at SDC 44.] 20 provides additional requirements for proposals adjacent to the Willamette River, and establishes a minimum setback area of75 feet, unless existing natural resources warrant an additional setback. The Discretionary Use procedure allows the Planning Commission to review the application in a public hearin~. The Planning Commission can execute conditions of approval, for example: I. A construction management plan that may include, at a minimum, ingress and egress to the site; hours of operation; noise, dust, and lighting concerns; run-off and hydrology; and bicycle and pedestrian safety in the construction area. 2. A restoration and enhancement plan for the adjacent riverbank which may include elimination of invasive plants, plant salvage, and a monitoring schedule to assess on- gomg success. The conditions that may be applied through the review process will be intended to mitigate adverse effects, protect as much of the resource as possible during construction, and restore as much of the resource as possible in conjunction with a development proposal. 3. Water Quality Limited Water Course (wQLW) Ordinance (SDC 32.110(6) and (7)). In July 2002, the City adopted regulations in the SDC for development along all water quality limited waterCourses and their direct tributaries in the City's urbanizable area, including the Willamette River. The WQL W section (SDC 32.1 10(6)) refers a developer to a WQL W map in the Development Services Department that prescribes a setback for a given watercourse. The prescribed setback for the Willamette River is 75 feet from the top of bank, unless a greater setback is warranted. Staff used the WQLW regulation for guidance in establishing the minimum setback for development in the GR Plan District found at SDC 44.120. . The combination of the existing regulations in the SDC that guide development adjacent to the Willamette River, as well as the proposed Article 44 language, will help ensure that development along the river is respectful of the natural resource. GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS These goals are inapplicable. REFINEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed Amendments will be consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan maps as a result ofSDC 7.1 ]0, set forth in full above. The proposed text amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan will, if adopted, be consistent with that plan's text. The proposed amendments will not create any internal inconsistency in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, which urges . 36 .',,)1" f ",' r t') ~ . . . . . E - 37 development of Subarea 8 with a mix of uses, as well as other sections of the Glenwood Refinement Plan that encourage the redevelopment of Glenwood into an area that takes advantage of it's location along the Willamette River, improves conditions for the residents, and becomes a community asset. V. CONCLUSION This consolidated application for Type II Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram, the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram, and the Glenwood Refinement Plan Text, and the SDC will assist in facilitating quality redevelopment within the Project Area. The Amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram and with applicable Refinement Plans, special area studies and functional plans. The addition of Article 44 to implement these policies is further evidence of the consistency of this proposal. 37 """',\,(' .... .., IJ~ ... . . . . . Glenwood Riverfront Project Area Glenwood Riverfront Plan Land Use Plan PHASEONE . - 141hS{.6ic~d"l>~h' UGfNO - Composltto Plan !i~. 11 ,0 ., .. :i .. ..----. : Fut\lre ~ . Nftghbombod :!~ --) '. " DPllo'k OppOrtUnity .8RT MUR' .. MaJor EnHJfl,(1 :~~ "'S10ImWH"rFQ\I"'1~ln t1penS~o! aCYCl~~TRlANS\'SJOd: ~,~ -8- Gt{"mllW~I!'t lnllluJlIn'lZone ........... -- - fll'.'''hwf>IiM R~0I'I7C1fll-1.OIij - - ~ ;;'Ilii~hii.---- Note: "RT' stands for Residential Type, and refers to different types of multi~family residential housing contained in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan document. The alignment shown for Franklin Blvd., the frontage road along Franklin Blvd., and the McVay Highway Intersection are conceptual only. Development proposals should use existing setback sQndards for guidance. A Franklin Blvd. and McVay Highway Alignment will be developed and adopted by the City Council in the next few years. and will guide development proposals at that time. E -38 -,*,- 1-4 ... '.....- ""{'l\ ~ '" . . . . . E -39 List of Properties within the Project Area !mf:~~P.';m.'"^: ,...~~L~ 'l'1~JlGlj~~~ ~LMX~ _f~7{0j~~ ~AG~:~ ih;, "'",.'A''-..... .,' .~~_ -' . '-''- ' 17033441 2100 0.0683 17033442 500 0.2314 17033442 200 0.1792 17033442 504 0.2667 17033441 800 1.6526 17033442 1000 0.2876 17033444 500 2.3316 17033442 900 0.3448 \703344\ 1800 0.0773 , 7033442 800 0.3553 17033441 1700 0.0736 17033442 700 0.3671 17033441 1900 0.1348 17033442 502 0.0100 17033441 1100 0.1456 17033442 1800 0.0653 17033441 2000 0.2973 17033442 1700 0.249\ 17033441 1400 0.5544 17033442 2000 0.3693 17033442 2300 0,2597 17033442 2100 0.6758 17033442 2200 0.2683 17033442 1600 304707 17033442 2400 2.5653 17033442 1500 1.1710 17033442 2500 3.2418 17033442 100 1.3954 17033442 400 0.1894 17033442 1900 0.1422 17033442 300 0.1907 17033444 100 6.0924 17033441 1300 0.1175 17033442 1400 0.1806 17033441 400 0.8292 17033442 501 0.1382 17033441 500 1.5838 17033442 600 0.3632 17033441 1500 1.5873 17033441 300 0.9479 17033441 700 3.2684 17033441 100 7.1477 17033441 200 0.6038 17033442 1300 0.1844 17033442 503 0.0936 17033442 1200 004051 17033441 1000 0.1413 17033444 101 0.9209 17033441 900 0.1658 17033444 400 0.1723 17033444 600 0.1389 Total Acreage 47.6711 17033444 700 0.9572 (V . ~?<hVI0'k-' AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE .' ..--'....-. -.-.---- --. --~~-- -.'..---,- " .,'1-...... .: " ro' PHILIP L. MARVIN '. JOANC. MARVIN P.O. BOX 2055 EUGENE, OREGON 97402 "--. 'PACIFIC CONTINENTAL BANK EUGENE. OR 97402 96-513/1232 MEMO d_:::_._'_=" __.,., -,'- . 4333 7'/707~ . m " o $ 1--0 () Co V ~ .:...J -' ~ ~ DOLLARS 6'i ~ . ~ , U E . . 3 . .t .~ " o . . 00