HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6033 12/09/2002 (2)
.
.
.
\" .
ORDINANCE NO.
6033
(REGULAR)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM
BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES OF LAND FROM LIGHT-MEDIUM
AND HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND PARKS AND OPEN
SPACE.
The City Council ofthe City of Springfield finds that:
A. Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth criteria for Plan diagram
amendments.
B. On March 11,2002, the Springfield City Council initiated the following Metro Plan diagram
amendment:
Redesignate 35 acres ofland from Light-Medium and Heavy Industrial to Community
Commercial and Parks and Open Space, Jo. No. 2002-03-0063, Tax Lot 500, Assessor's
Map 17-02-31.
-
C. On November 19, 2002, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted public hearings to
accept testimony and hear comments on this land use proposal. After the close of this public
hearing the Planning Commission considered the testimony provided, including the staff report
and all materials submitted in the application. The Planning Commission voted six in favor,
none opposed, to forw,ard a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council.
D. On December 2, 2002, the Springfield City Council held public hearings on this proposal.
E. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto that the proposal meets the
requirements of Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above findings, and the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted.
Section 2: The Metro Plan designation of the northern 5.1 acres of Tax Lot 500,
Assessor's Map 17-02-31, more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended from Light-Medium and Heavy Industrial
to Community Commercial, and the Metro Plan designation of the southern 29.24 acres of Tax
Lot 500, Assessor's Map 17-02-31, more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, is hereby amended from Light-Medium and Heavy Industrial
to Parks and Open Space.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and that
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
ADOPTED by the Common Council ofthe City of Springfield by a vote of 5 for
and ~ against this ~ day of December, 2002.
Council President
APPROVED by the:lMayom:>fthe City of Springfield this 9th day of December, 2002.
()>
.
.
.
',"'
ATTEST:
x
REVIEWED & APPROVED
Af:! TO FORM
, ~<.)>~".,:) '- ~~..."'r-\
DATE: \ \ J "'2;a. \ ')..(:)t:)~_
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
.;,:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND PROPOSED FINDlNGS
FOR PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONlNG
OF ARLIE PROPERTY .
SW v.., SECTION 32, T. 17 S., R. 2.2, W.M.
Assessor's Map 17-02-'31, Tax Lot 500
L PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
, Applicant: . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Mike Kelly, City Manager
225 Fifth Street
. 'Springfield, Oregon 97477
Ph. 541-726-3700
John Tamulonis
CqrnmunitylEconomic Development Manager
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97'477
Ph. 54l-726-3656
Fax 541-741-2763
. Attorneys: JOHNSON & SHERTON, P.C.
Allen L. JOMson
2303 S.E. Grant Street
Portland, OR 97214
Ph. 541-687-1004 or 503-233-1533
Fax 503-236-8216
e-mail aljohnson@orlanduse.com
Technical Support
DKS ASSOCIATES
Carl D. Springer, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
1400 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97201-5502
Ph. 503-243-3500
Fax 503-243-1934
Page 1 - Applicant's Statement - Sports COf!!glex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
A conceptual plan for the Broadbase site is attached as Exhibit F.
A conceptual plan for the City site is attached as Exhibit G.
A conceptual plan for the Community Commercial site is attached as Exhibit H.
A site assessment sheet from the 1993 Industrial Lands Inventory is atta,ched as Exhibit I
The May 15, 2002 Notice of Decision for the Partition Tentative Plan is attached as Exhibit J
The June 12,2002 Notice of Amended Decision for the Partition Tentative Plan is attached as
Exhibit K '
Plan and Zoni~g Map Changes:
The specific map changes requested are:
1. Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram
A.. Metro Area General Plan map amendment from HeavyIndustrial and Light
Medium: Industrial'to Community Commercial (CC) for the 5. 14-acre frontage
area more particularly described in Exhibit A.,
B. Metro Area General Flan map amendment from Heavy Industrial and Light
Medium Industrial to Public Land and Open Space for the remainii1g
approximately 29 acres of the Arlie property, consisting of the 9.84-acre
Broadbase site and the 19.4-acre City site.
2. Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Map
A.. Mid-Spnngfield Refinement Plan Map amendment from Heavy IndustrIal (Ill) and
'Light Medium Industrial (L11I) to Community Commercial (CC) for the 5.14-acre
frontage area more particularly described in Exhibit' A.
B. Mid-Springfield RefinementPlan Map amendment from Heavy Industrial (Ill) and
Light Medium Industrial (L:MI) to Public Land a,nd Open Space (PLOS) for the
rest of the Arlie property, consisting of the 9.84-acre Broadbase site and the 19.4-
acre City site. :
3. Springfield Zoning ~ap
A. Springfield Zoning Map amendment from Heavy Industrial (HI) and Light-Medium
Page 3 - Applicant's Statement - Sports COJl1Wex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
Industrial (L:rv.rr) to Community Commercial (CC) for the 5 . 14-acre frontage area
more particularly described in Exhibit A
B. Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Map amendment from Heavy Industrial (HI) and
Light Medium Industrial (L:MI) to Public Land and Open Space (PLOS) for the
rest of the Arlie property, consisting of the 9.84-acre Broadbase site and the 19.4-
acre City site.
Services:
The site is centnilly-located with all city services and facilities available to the site, as follows:
Fire:
. Police:
Schools:
Fhones:
Power:
Water:
Sewer:
SWDF:
Access:
Springfield Fire Department
Springfield Police Department
Springfield School District
Pacific Northwest Bell
SUB
SUB
At site
Glenwood Receiving Station
Main Street and 32nd Street
ll. TYPE OF PLAN AlVIENDMENTS:
This application involves site specific amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area Plan
Diagram and the Mid-Springfield RefinementPlan. .
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 Plari text.
Springfield is the "Home City" for the proposed amendment, as provided in SDC 7.030 because
Page 4 - Applicant's Statement -Sports Comlllex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
, 1"";8
SDC 7.110 provides that
"When a Metro Plan amendment is enacted that requires an amendment to a
refinement plan or functional plan diagram map oramehdment for consistency, the
Metro Plan diagram amendment automatically amends the refinement plan or
functional plan diagram or map if no amendment to the refinement plan or
functional plan text is involved. When a Metro Plan diagram amendment requires
a refinement plan or functional plan diagram or map and text amendment for
consistency, the Metro Plan, refinement plan and functional plan amendments shall
be processed concurrently." ,
In this case, the proposed Metro Plan map amendments will automatically amend the :rv.u.d-
Springfield Refinement Plan Map to the same designations. '
ID. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS:
Section 7.010 of the Springfield Development Code provides that Metro Plan amendments shall .
be made in accordance with the standards contained in Chapter N of the Metro Plan and the
provisions of this code." In addition, because this application involves the amendment of
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations, it must comply with applicable
statewide land use goals. ORS 197. 175(2)(a);:Opus Development v. City of Eugene, 28 Or
LUBA 670,673 (1995). '
REFINEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS:
Section 8,030' of the Springfield Development Code requires that, in reaching a decision on
proposed refinement plan amendments, the planning commission and city council "shall adopt
findings which demonstrate coDformance with the following:
"(1) The Metro Plan;
"(2) Applicable State Statutes.
"(3) Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules."
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS:
Section'12.030 of the Springfield Dev~Iopment Code requires, that, in reaching a decision on
proposed zoning district changes, "the Planning-Commission shall adopt findings which
Page 6 - Applicant's Statement - Sports ComBlex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
. 1-1
. and the Springfi'e1d Code, as well as the statewide goals and applicable statutes, provide policies
and criteria for the evaluation, of plan amendments and zone changes. Compliance with these
measures will provide the requisite coordination and will assure an adequate factual basis for
approval of the subject amendment. The final decision will be based upon substantial evidence in
the record and supported with findings addressing applicable criteria and any issues relevant and
material to those criteria which are raised during the proceedings.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LAND.8.
This goal is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural land's and the subject
property is within an acknowledged urban growth boundary. OAR 660-15-000(3). ,
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS.
Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries. OAR 660-06-0020. The subject property
is inside an acknowledged urban growth boundary. .Goal 4 is therefore inapplicable.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND mSTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES
, Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety bfopen space, scenic, historic, and
natural resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR Ch. 660, Division 16, require'
planning jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to
(1) identify such resources:
(2) determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) identify conflicting uses:
(4) examine the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) conque~ces 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 Plan Goal 5 inventory. See Map 3,
Metropolitan Area General Plan Background Report and related materials. No threatened or
endangered species have been found or inventoried on the site. No archeological or historical
inventoried resources are located on the site. An L-COGsurvey of the site for the 1992
Metropolitan Industrial Lands Study showed that none of the site is constrained by location in a
floodway or flood plain, by severe slopes, by wetlands, by severe soils, by wetland mitigation
sites, by hydric soils, by areas identified as potentially significant riparian or upland resources, or
by location in a greenway; See worksheet for Site 7-19, Main Street and S..32nd St, in record.
The subject property has been planned and zoned for intensive urban development and use since
the Metro Plan and implementing ordinances were acknowledged in 1982. Under the Metro, Plan,
inventoried Goal 5 resources on sites designated for urban residential, industrial, and commercial
are protected by a program to, achieve the goal that limits such development by the application of
Page 8 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Cf~~lex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
"(c) meet recreational needs requirements while providing the maximum conservation
of energy both in the transportation of persons tot he facility or area and in the
recreational use itself,
"(d) minimize environmental degradation,
"( e) are available to the public at nominal cost, and
. "(f) meet needs of visitors to the state."
The proposed sports ,complex site is located on a key urban arterial close to Downtown
Springfield in one of Oregon's major urban areas. It has ready access to a principal state and local
urban arterial, Main StreetlHighway 126 and from there to the rest of the state via Highway 126,
1-105, and 1-5. Its location just south of East Main Street at 32nd puts it on the main easf.;.west
Lane Transit District bus routes. ' ,
The need for additional sports and recreational facilities is identified in the July 24, 1995
SportsPlan' prepared and adopted by the Metropolitan Sports Commission. The Plan was
adopted by the cities of Eugene and Springfield in 1995. The Commission, composed oflocal
government officials and citiizen members, advises Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene on ways.
, to improve existing facilities and to create new facilities using public-private partnerships and
other means, and on ways to unify and coordinate activities ofthemetro area's sports
organizations, venue owners and operators, and event org~ers. The SportsPlan was developed
as "a regional plan for furthering the development of amateur athletics" and includes "a vision for
the preferred future for amateur athletics as well as strategies for its re~ization."
The Plan found that participation in KidSports,a private, non-profit organization providing a wide
range of competitive sports activities for K-8 age groups, increased rapidly through the mid-
, 1990's, but has had difficulty in continuing to meet growing demand of its expansion in part
because oflack of adequate facilities.
One of the desired outcomes of the SportsPlan is to enhance the quality oflife in the region by
improving existing facilities and developing new ones. The availability of recreational activities is
identified as being important for a healthy population and for promoting important values and
qualities in the community's youth, such as life-long learning, teamwork, problem-solving, skilI-
building, a positive self-image, and greater self-esteem. Recreational activities also keep youth
busy, providing less time for inappropriate behavior, such as gang involvement. The Plan finds
that a specific weakness of the region is the increasing number of young people who are at-risk
and in need of activity to keep them occupied. The SportsPlan lists Broad Base Program's effort
to establish a sports facility in Springfield as a high priority.to meet the demand for new facilities
to meet these existing and future needs.
The need for non-school facilities has become more acute as school districts have cut recreation
and athletic programs in response to declining revenues and increasing costs. In response to ,
'property tax measures 5 and 47, the Springfield School District has cut numerous recreation and
athletic programs and has instituted or raised participation fees for students. The proposed
Page 10 - Applicant's Statement - Sports COIllj)Iex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
1-1tf
In providing opportunities for vital recreational activities, the proposed sports complex will,
provide an opportunity for a key economic activity vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
the region. The Metro Plan's economic development objectives implement LCDC's Goal 9. One
of those objectives is to
"Increase the potential for convention- and tourist-related economic activities." ED
Objective 9.
A related Metro Plan economic development policy is to
"Continue to encourage the development of convention- and tourist-related
facilities."
One of the goals of Sports Plan is to establish Eugene-Springfield as a widely-recognized location
for a select group of amateur sporting events. Amateur sports tournaments are a significant
magnet for overnight visitors and provide substantial indirect as well as direct economic benefits
to the surrounding area. A study commissioned by the City in 1992 found that a sports facility
hosting tournaments could generate at least $2 million per year in 1992 dollars in direct spending
for lodging, restaUrants and other needs. More recent studies, including one by Broad Base, have
estimated the economic benefits to be much higher, in the range of $30 million per year. Not
surprisingly, the 1995 marketing plan of the Lane County Convention and Visitors Associations
identifies attracting sporting events as a high priority for conventions and visitors to the region.
More generally, LCDC's Economic Develoment Goal requires that
"Comprehensive plans for urban areas shall: . . . '
"3. , Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suit::ible sizes, types,
locations, and ,service levels for a variety of industri~l and commercial
uses consistent with plan policies; . . ."
. "4. Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses
to those which are compatible with proposed uses."
The proposed amendments remove lands from the City's acknowledged inventories ofLMI and
HMI lands, Specifically they redesignate for nonindustrial uses approximately 13 acres ofLMI
'and approximately 15 acres ofHMI. These changes are offset by the concurrent redesignation of
22 acres of PLO lands at the former sports complex site at Gateway from PLO and CC to CI..
The proposed amendment also helps to redress an imbalance between commercial and industrial
land. The proposed amendment will move 5.41 acres from the industrial to the commercial lands
inventory. In so doing, it will add to the Metro Plan area's Goal 9 inventory of commercial lands,
which is in short supply compared to the industrial lands inventory. The oversupply of industrial
Page 12 - Applicant's Statement - SportsY~fflplex Plan and Zone Change -October, 2002
LCDC's Housing Goal requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for needed
housing as follows:
"Goal: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
"Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage
the availability of adequate numbers of housing 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."
Th~ proposed redesignations will not add or remove lands from the city's acknowledged Goal 10
inventories, so the Goal is generally inapplicable. On the other hand, the proposed change brings
key recreational resources to the center of the community in close proximity to areas of the City's
most affordable housing. In so doing, it helps to enhance and preserve existing neighborhoods
located in close proximity to transit and other community services and facilities.
,GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
This goal requires the provision of a timely, 'orderly and efficient arrangement of public faciliti~s
and services.
All urban services needed for the proposed development are available in this fully-
developed and well-served central urban area, including fire and police protection,
parks, sanitary and storm sewers, mass transit, schools, and urban arterial streets.
Water: The proposed development will receive water service from the Springfield Utility
Board. '
Sanitary Sewer: The site is served by a system of gravity pipes ranging in size from 8" to
42" in diameter., There is an existing 42-inch sanitary sewer trunk line located in South
32nd Street which has adequate capacity to serve the development. (See Exhibit J,
attached, Notice of Decision for Partition Tentative Plan, dated May 15,2002, page 10.)
Storm Sewer: There is a storm sewer trunk line in 32nd Street ranging in size from 27"
near Jasper Road to 36" at Main Street. In the City's Amended Decision for the Partition
Tentative Plan (dated June 10,2002, attached as Exhibit K), the Public Works
Department finds that: "The Public Works Engineering Division has determined that
assigning the excess capacity in the South 32nd Street stormwater drainage system to serve "
the subject site will not materially affect the City's ability to serve the remainder of the
land within the Q Street Drainage Area."
Page 14 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Complex Plan and Zone ehange - October, 2002
1-18 '
congestion to promoterrnxed use, pedestrian friendly development
where multimodal travel choices are provided.
There are also four significance tests. OAR 660-12-060(2) provides that a land use regulation
"significantly impacts a transportation facility" if it
(a)
Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility.
(b)
Changes standards implementing a functional classification system.
(c)
Allows types or levels ofland uses which would result in levels of travel or acceSs
which are inconsistent with the functional.classificatiori of a transportation facility;
or
(d)
Would reduce, the leyel of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable level
identified in the TSP." ,
The four significance tests will be referred to as 2-a to 2-d and the four mitigation measures will
be referred to as1-a to I-d.
The rule requires that the determination of significant impact be coordinated with affected state,
and local govenunents. Because the site is near the city center, no county or City of Eugene ,
'transportation facilities are affected. It is served by a state highway and the Lane Transit District,
however, and the Lane Council of Governments is the designated Metropolitan Flanning
Organization under the TPR. Thus the principal coordinating bodies are ODOT, LTD, L...;COG,
the City of Springfield, and DLCD. Coordination will be achieved by infonnal consultation,
timely notice and opportunities to comment, and relevant 'background materials such as
Transportation Impact Studies and proposed findings.
Significant Impact Analysis:
The key significant impact criterion for purposes of this proceeding is 2-d. The other triggers can
. be disposed of briefly as follows:
Trigger 2-a is inapplicable to this proceeding because the proposed changes simply change'map
designations and related classes of uses on the subject property. They do not change functional
classifications of transportation facilities as would be the case with an amendment to a'state or
local street plan.
Trigger 2-b is inapplicable because the proposed redesignations do not change standards
impiementing a functional classification system for transportation facilities, as would be the case if
Page 16 - Applicant's Statement - SportsC, oIDplex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
1-20
. "3. Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan. shall be applied on state
facilities in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
"In some cases, the level of service on a facility may be substandard. The local government
jurisdiction may find that transportation system improvements to bring perfonnance up to
standard within the planning horizon may not be feasible, and safety will not be
compromised, and broader community goals would be better served by allowing a:
substandard level of service. The limitation on the feasibility of a transportation system
improvement may arise from severe constraints including but not limited to, environmental "
, conditions, lack of public agency financial resources, or land use constraint factors. It is
not the intent ofTSI Roadway Policy,#2: Motor Vehicle Level ()f Service to require
deferral of development in such cases. The intent is to defer motor vehicle capacity
increasing transportation system improvements until existing constraints can be overcome
or develop an alternative mix of strategies (such as: land use measures, TDM, short-tenn
safetY improvements) to address the problem." September 2001 TransPlanCh. 2, Page 11.
Freliminary analysis suggests that the proposed plan/zone change will be neutral or beneficial in its
net effect on state and local transportation facilities. The reason for this is that the existing plan .
and zone designations allow uses with equival,ent or greater potenti,al,for traffic generation.
The proposed zoning will convert the 34.38 acres ofill and LMI (17.19 acres each) to 5.14 acres
of Community Commercial (CC) and 28.88 acres of Public Land (PLO). The PLO area will front
32nd to the east. The CC will front on Main and 32nd at the north end of the site.
Standard traffic manual assumptions about the traffic-generating potential ofland zoned medium-'
industrial land are misleadingly high as applied to the CC area, where uses will be limited by deed
restrictions and,. potentially, special zoning limitations which implement a recently-executed
agreement by the City of Springfield, the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, and the
current owner of the property. The agreement and conditions will impose substantial constraints
on the timing, type, and scale of uses that will be able to go into this particular CC zone. AIDong
otherthings, agreement excludes one of the highest trip generators--fast-food outlets with drive-up
windows.
On the other hand, standard traffic manual assumptions about the traffic-generating potential of
land zoned light-medium and heavy-medium industrial are misleadingly low as applied to
Springfield's Light-Medium Industrial and (LMI) and Heavy Industrial(HI) lands~especially those
on or near arterials such as East Main. Two high-trip-generating categories of uses not generally
associated with LMI zones are allowed in Springfield: home improvement superstores and high- ,
intensity recreational uses. The nature and potential impact of these uses is significant:
Home improvement s~ores: These facilities are an allowed use on lands inventoried,
planned, and zoned HI and LW. A home improvement store such as a Jerry's or Home
Depot is considere~ a light-medium industrial use use under Eugene's acknowledged land
Page 18 - Applicant's Statement - Sports <r~~plex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
With no zone change at all? one could fit both a Home Depot orLowe's home improvement store
and some major high-intensity recreational facilities on the 31-acre HI/LMI site at 320d and Main.
Because of the narrowed range of uses permitted on the proposed 5.S-acre commercial site and
the wider-than-normal range ofuses permitted on the existing 28.S-acre LMIIHMI area, the
forthcoming Transportation Impact Analysis is expected to show that the proposed plan and zone'
changes will have either a null effect or a net beneficial effect on transportation facilities serving
, '
the site.
GOAL 13 -ENERGY CONSERVATION.
The Energy Goal is a general planning goal and provides little guidance for site-specific map
changes. However, the availability ofa centrally-located ur~an center for commucity sports
activities promotes general plan objectives favoring redevelopment (in this case, of a former mill
site) and revitalization of centrally-located neighborhoods and sites. Any future development will
be subject to applicable energy efficiency requirements established by building coqes.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION.
The subject site is within the Metro Area UGB, within the city limits of Springfield, and within the
fully -developed and served urbanized area of the commucity. The proposed redesignation is
intended to facilitate efficient reuse of the site for urban uses, thereby facilitating the compact
urban growth form which is the subject of the LCDC's Urbanization Goal.
GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY
This goal is inapplicable because the subject site is not within the boundaries of the greenway.
GOALS 16-19- COASTAL GOALS
These goals are inapplicable.
METRO PLAN CONSISTENCY
In generat, the proposed project is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies and objectives
for the same reasons that it is consistent with the corresponding goals that those policies and
objectives are designed to ,implement. It does not render the Metro Plan internally inconsistent
because it doesn't result in net reductions in acknowledged inventori~s when paired with
concurrent approval of redesignation of the Gateway site for industrial uses of the kind for which
the City has the most pressing need.
Page 20 - Applicant's Statement - Sports Com.plex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
1-24"
The proposed amendments reposition the Arlie property for development of much needed
recreational facilities that will provide opportunities for amateur athletics, including a wide range
of competitive sports activities for school-aged children in the metropolitan area. In so doing, the
amendments will also help meet key economic development objectives vital to the prosperity of the
, regIon.
, The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Springfield
Development Code, including those required for Metro Plan amendments, refinement plan
amendments and zoning map' amendments. The amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan
Text and Diagram and with applicable Refinement Plans, special area studies and functional plans.
Allen L. Johnso
Johnson & Sherton,P.C.
Special Counsel for Applicant
Page 22 - Applicant's Statement ., Sports Complex Plan and Zone Change - October, 2002
, 1~6
LOT PARCEL 2 OF BLOCK 1
PNTi BEARING DISTANCE NORTHING EASTING STATION
1122 11775.473 9168.729 0.000
S 89049'47" E 531. 000
1121 11773.895 9699.726 531.000
S 00010'13" W 84.'000
1120 11689.895 9699.477 615.000
S 89049'47" E 270.942
1119 11689.090 9970.418 885.942
S 00009'46" W 446.,000
1118 11243.092 9969.150 1331.942
N 89049'47" W 271.001
1117 11243.897 9698.151 1602.943
S 00010'13" W 42.000
1116 11201. 898 9698.026 1644.943
N 89049'47" W 531. 000
1115 11203.476 9167.029 2175.943
N 00010'13" E 572.000
1122 11775.473 9168.729 2747.943
Closure Error Distance> 0.000
Total Distance> 2747.943
LOT AREA: 424585.3 SQ FT OR 9.75 ACRES
1-28
LOT PARENT OF BLOCK 1
PNT# BEARING Dr STANCE NORTHING EASTING STATION
1123 12024.758 9169.469 0.000
S 89043'58" E 801. 900
1124 12021.019 9971.361 801.900
S 00009'46" W 1886.999
1113 10134.028 9966.000 2688.899
N 84020'30" W 805.840
1112 10213.480 9164.086 3494.738
N 00010'13" E 1811.286
1123 12024.758 9169.469 5306.025
Closure Error Distance> 0.000
Total Distance> 5306.025
LOT AREA: 1483048.7 SQ FT OR 34.05 ACRES
BLOCK 1 TOTAL AREA: 2966097.4 SQ FT -OR 68.09 ACRES
1-30
. '.. ....... .
.pq.... ............ .... ... .............. .......:.i .. .. ..... ...... . ...
I. ....j....' . ... .......1-31~.....IIITRI:i.J~.
1 ~OO",~--...OI
'; , ., ~
fL
ll)
00
3\ 2 4
',.:~'!- ,
H
<ri
Cl
Z
C\l
rt')
.
'It
,;
"
"
Cl
Q:
~
If')
,;.....
10
r<)
500
35.86 AC.
..-;:'~~;'.""
U"
SITE'
..\
.....
lD .
; ~
"
r--,
SEE 1-. .'
MAP
34EH
uI 1 .~
.
<I ~
.. I
~ .
.
~ J?::..s-a.7'1of
:z: I
17 -02 - 31-3-4
-
4S
::
:!:l <:t
..- --- "-" , , rr')
,., ,'--' ----.. '), .
---- -- ~---'-.../--
_ ~. ,- S&).J$'~- 81'-:'
'r~?~ . ~~- '- ,L n
~,,~R:n~, ~;-=
,IEXHlBIT ,C'. ' ~-ee Ma p\~:~. 02.,0
1 j
I
I
,~
ffHfffiB
Main S! .
c'
CIJ
N
(Xl
, -
:T
CIJ
-
PLO
PLO
400 0 400 800 Feet
; j
Proposed Plan Designations
File No. 2002-03-0063 '
1-35
m g 0
co' a. -I
'co 0 a.
~ "
/-
S. 28th St
----...
C")
CO
010
cO
.- I
cC")
00
N'
N
-00
CL> 0 .
CJ)N
o .
0.0
eZ
Cl.CL>
LL
. r-
C'?
I
..-
.....
'Q)
Q)
'u.
o
o
CO
o
o
-q-
o
-~ . ~
=
~
S
f!
~
e
=
"'"4
~
e
o;r
-. ) .....;'1'
.~~ .~ -.
ft.ft
, ,11:-'
'; ~._.
".' -
,j !-.....
:1 I:~
:~ I"~'
-I i.~:
':1, ' J,
. , . .
~", I--:'~ '__'h
! rUl
=-> (
, . "1' \ II "
q tl i! 'l I
1 , . I I r I "..
~f,.{"',)r:,",~ ","" ,. . , .
L."".;.._..,"""..........~...................."".,,;.;,..;....
J, ....u.....................
~~
.....~.:.-;
'"',
...:....:....~.~..................,',...
Uem
.....,.wIII,T"........~~~
; ..~
, ,
Notice of Decision - Limited Land Use - Partition-Tentative Plan
Date of letter: May 15, 2002
lournal Number: 2002-02-0044
Owner! Applicants:
Arlie & Company
722 Country Club Road
Eugene, Oregon 9740 I
Design Consultants:
. Jim Colton
Ford-Ness-Fassbender
P.O. Box 22735
Eugene, OR 97402
.Explanation of the Nature of the Application
The applicant is proposing to partition Map Number 17-02-31, Tax Lot 500, into three parcels. Tax Lot
500 is approximately 34.26 acres.
This Tentative Partition Plan is the first application in a series' of subsequent requests which will affect
: the subject property, which is ultimately proposed for the following uses:
Q A cOl"Dmercial development fronting Main Street (McKenzie Highway) and Soudi 32nd Street (on
. proposed 5.1 O-acre Parcel I); .
. Q A regional sports facility to be developed by Broad Base, Inc. fronting on South 32nd Street (on
proposed 9.75-acre Parcel 2); and.
Q A community park inc;luding KIDSPORTS facilities as well as 5 outdoor soccer fields (on proposed
19.20-acre Parcel 3). .
The City will be reviewingsubsequent development applications as they are submitted, including a Mid-
Springfield. Refinement Plan Amendment, Zone Changes, Site Plan Review applications for each parcel,as
well as associated Tree Felling Permits, Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Applications, and
other relevant applications as deemed necessary under the requirements of the Springfield Development
Code (SDC).
This Notice of Decision concerns only the Tentative Partition application submitted by the applicant,
Arlie & Company. on February 15, 2002, and deemed complete on February 28, 2002. The applicant has
submitted a conceptual plan which provides an example of how the site could ultimately be developed,
however, no approval for the conceptual plan is granted t1iroughthis Tentative Partition Plan approval.
The parties involved in the development of the subject property, including the City of Springfield, Arlie &
Company, Broad Base, Inc., Emerald" KIDSPORTS, Inc., and Willamalane Park and Recreation DistriCt,
have been negotiating an Agreement (Sports Center Agreement) outlining the responsibilities of each
party to develop the parcels, which is in fi,:al draft form.
EXHIBIT J
1-41
Arlie will give title to broad base sports, write off the loss, broad base won't have the money to improve the
street, there probably non profit so who pays for that .
Then Arlie & Co,. sales or gives the remainder to the City or Willamalane Park Distria who is tax exempt and no
money for the street again.
That land comes out of the tax base and the City loses again.
Arlie & Co. is big business don't let them walk on you people, let them foot the bill for this. After all we all know
they just sold property to Peace Health to the tune of approx. 33 million dolla~ and I think. they bought it for
approx. 15 million. That's almost double in my book. Arlie. can afford the street improvements.
I spoke with both coundlors Fitch and Dave Ralston about my concern back in January and was assured that '
there would be no out of pocket expense to property owners on the street Please ~ake sure that's the way it
comes out
At 115 feet of frontage, to approx. $200.00 per foot to improve that's 23.000 dollars~ That's just for my part
. Can you afford that? When we don't need it, we have a good street & sidewalk for the kids;
Arlie &. Co. wanted to buy 22 acres in gateway from the City & said if the City sold it to them, the City would
have the money to improve 32nd St Well Arlie gets out of paying- ag-ain.
I am in favor of progress but not at the expense of myself or others so big business can feather their own nest
They want it let them pay for it
. Thanks,
Guy V. Freeman"
Staff Response: , .
Mr. Freeman's cqncerns involve the cost of Street improvements and the responsibility for parties to
share in the expense of paying for the Street improvements. .
A Condition of Approval of this Tentative Partitioll Plan is that Arlie & Company sign an Improvement
Agreement for the full frontage of the 34.26 acre site which abuts South 32nd Street. Improvement
Agreements follow the property through transfer of ownership. If for any reason, the sale of the site is.
not completed or developed for its intended use by the parties involved, an Improvement Agreement
.. will ensure that South 32nd Street is improved to City standards, regardless of property ownership, at
the time of development.. .
According to the City's Economic Development Manager, the east side of South 32nd Street will also be
improved, as the configuration of the existing sidewalk would not drain effectively with the new road
elevations. Further, if this property develops according to the proposed Sports Center Agreement,
property owners on the east side of South 32nd Street south of Parcel I to the railroad crossing will
not be assessed for the road improvements.
In accordance with the Sports Center Agreement, Arlie & Company will remain the owner of the 5.10-
acre proposed Parcel I, which abuts Main and South 32nd Streets. The parcel has approximately 802
feet of frontage on Main Street, and approximately 330 feet'qf frontage along South 32nd Street. Arlie &
1-43
3
Mr. Henricks concerns are addressed by number as follows according to his comments:
I) Access. The applicant has not indicated a location for a proposed access to Main Street (McKenzie
Highway) for Parcel I. However, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintains
jurisdiction over McKenzie Highway, and has indicated that in accordance with ODOT access
management standards, where alternative,. reasonable access exists to another street, the alternative
street shall be used. ODOT has indicated that Parcel I will not be granted access to Main Stre~t, .
and further, the City Transportation Division has found that the subject site has sufficient frontage .
along South 32nd Street to accommodate a shared driveway t;>etween Parcels I and 2. Additionally,
the City has noted that future access to Main Street for Parcel I is at the sole discretion of ODOT, .
and approval of this Tentative Plan has been conditioned to reflect this stipulation. .
The applicant has not applied for an access permit, but presumably will do so at the time of Site Plan
: Review, when a complete site design is submitted for review. For now, no access to Main Street for
Parcell is granted as part of this Tentative Partition application, and none will be granted unless
ODOT approves access as part of another application.
2) And 3)
Setbacks! Separation from Log Decks, and Fencing along common property lines.
Setbacks and separation from Willamette Industries'existing log decks is a concern that will be
reviewed at the - time of Site Plan Review. The Springfield Development Code (SDq contains
provisions for buffering and separation of uses where industrial abuts properties zoned for other
less intensive uses, and these standards will be applied at Site Plan Review. Willamette Industries
will receive notiCe of subsequent applications for development and will have the opportunity to
provide written comment on them.
It has been indicated verbally by Willamalane Parks and Recreation District that they are agreeable
to installation of fencing along the westerly boundary of Parcel 3, which is the location of the
proposed soccer fields. Again, the issues surrounding fencing will be addressed at the time of Site
Plan Review. .
4) Noise. SDC 31.060 contains the standards for screening and buffering for all new uses. . The
parties involved in the development of the site intend to apply for a zone change for proposed
Parcels 2 and 3 to Public Land and Open Space (PLO). While currently the site in. zoned LMl and.
HI, and the Tentative Partition must be reviewed according to the standards for the industrial.
zoning districts, the parties intend to develop the parcels according to the standards of the PLO
zoning district. Within the PLO zoning district there are standards for fencing to protect the new
use from existing incompatible uses, such.as heavy industrial. The appropriate type of screening and
protection necessary for the applicant to employ will be determined upon Site Plan Review,. and will
be reviewed according to the screening standards contained in SDC 31.160.
In summary, Willamette Industries' concerns regarding access are at the sole discretion of ODOT.
.Concerns regarding fencing and buffering can be addressed at the Site Plan-Review level.
Criteria of Approval- Partition Tentative
SDC 34.050 states, "The director shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the request based
. upon the following criteria:
1-45
5
SDC 32.120( I )(b) states, "The developer shall be responsible for the design, installation and cost of
utility lines and facilities to the satisfaction of the utility provider."
Water
SDC 32.120 states, "Each development area shall be provided with a water system having sufficiently
sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development. Fire hydrants and mains
shall be installed by the developer as required by the Fire Marshall. and the utility provider."
The Water Service Center of Springfield Utility Board provided the following comments regarding Water
service for the proposed partition area:
"I.. The proposed development is within 'the Springfield city limits and will receive water
service from .the Springfield Utility Board (SUB).
."(
2. All new water system facilities and modifications to water system facilities both inside
and adjacent to the proposed development shall be placed in street right-or-way at a
location and depth of bury that meets the standards of the SUB Water Division.
Development of this property may require the replacement of the existing waterline in
S 32nd Street in order to meet fire service requirements. In accordance with SUB
policy, the developer(s) of the subject property may be required to fund some portion
of the waterline replacement. .
Replacement of this waterline will include extension of the Waterline west from S 32nd
Street to a new Main St. crossing at 30th Street. The Springfield Utility Board Water.
Division requests that a PUE be provided along the south side of Main Street for this
purpose.
. 3. All water facility materials shall be to a .standard that must meet SUB Water Division
specifications. . . .
4. All workmanship shall be performed to meet or exceed SUB Water Division
construction standards.
5. Size of waterline and other facilities, including water meters, must meet the needs of the
SUB Water Division and the long-range. needs of the City. These needs include, but are
not limited to, meter location and access, sizes of water distribution and transmission
lines, pumping facilities, and communication lines.
6. Please ask the developer to contact SUB Water Division for detailed information on the.
materials and construction standards, detailed costs for installing SUB water facilities,
and a schedule of construction. Construction expenses may be reduced with good
planning of required water facilities, good timing of facilities installation, and joint trench
opportunities.
. 7. . All water meters will be placed in public right-of-way at a location identified by the
developer. Each I,ot or parcel must have its own water servic~.
1-47
7
Public Utility Easements
SDC 32. J 20(5) states, "An applicant proposing a development shall make arrangements with the City
and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the
development. The standard width for public utility easements adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7
feet. . The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 10 feet unless otherwise
specified by the utility provider or the City Engineer..." .
As discussed under "Water" previously in this report, SUB is requesting a I O-foot PUE along the
northerly property line of Parcel I to accommodate an expansion of the water main in Main Street.
According to SUB, other existing and proposed PUEs shown on the Tentative Partition Plan. are.
sufficient at this time. for their service.
The applicant has stated that there is an existing PUE located in the westerly side of the South 32nd
Street right of way, along the easterly property line of the subject site, which is dedicated to the City of
Springfield. The City's Public Works Department has found that this 10-foot PUE is solely for the.
existing 42-inch sanitary sewer trunk line. The Public Works Department is requiring that the applicant
execute an additional7-foot PUE along the full frontage of proposed Parcels I, 2,.and 3 along South 32nd
Street, in order to accommodate installation of other necessary utilities and infrastructure.
Findings: .
II. SDC 32.120(5) states, <i\n applicant proposing a development shall make arrangements. with the City and .
each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development The
standard width for Public Utility Easements adjacent to street nghts of way shall be 7 feet. . The minimum
width for all other public utility easements shall be I 0 feet unless otherwise spedfied by the utility provider or
. .
the City Engineer." . .
12. SUB is requesting that a I O-foot PUE be provided where proposed Parcel I abuts Main Street along the
northerly property line of proposed Parcel I, to accommodate a future water main improvement project
13. SDC 34.030(8) requires that the location, widths, .and purpose of aU existing and proposed easements are
shown on the Tentative Partition Plan. .
14. There is an existing sanitary sewer easement along South 32nd Street which abuts the easterly property lines
of Proposed Parcels. I, 2, and 3, however, Public Works has determined that due to the depth and size of
the trunk line, this easement is solely for the 42-inchsewer trunk line.
15. Upon She Plan Review, there will be an analysis of access, as well as necessary infrastruaure including but
not limited to utilities, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve the ,development
Conditions: .
4. In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), which provides that the utility provider can require a IO-foot PUE where
necessary to. serve the development, the applicant shall dedicate a I O~foot PUE along the full frontage of
,/ proposed Parcel. I which fronts on Main Street, to accommodate a future water main improvement project
5. In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), the applicant shall dedicate a 7-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcels I, 2, and 3, along South 32nd Street .
6. In accordan~e with SDC 34.030(8), the applicant shall dearly show the existing sewer easement, proposed
PUEs, and any necessary private utilities and private utility easements on the Final Plat; coordination through
the City Public Works Department on the easement plan shall be completed prior to submittal of the final
Plat' .
Sanitary Sewer
1-49
9
adjacent properties be included on the Tentative Partition Plan. The Public Works Department has
noted that the applicant has not submitted a drainage plan with detailed calculations. However, because
the exact location, amount of impervious surface, and size of structures on the property is unknown at
this time, the on-site drainage plan can be submitted at the time of Site Plan Review.
The Public Works Department has noted that the applicant has not submitted an adequate drainage plan
which addresses how storm water over flow and sheet flow from adjacent properties will be managed
for each individual parcel. At the time of Site Plan Review, the applicant must submit an adequate
drainage plan with appropriate calculations. The City Public Works Department has indicated that there
. is adequate capacity in the storm sewer trunk line in South 32nd Street to serve the development.
findings: ,
20. SDC 32.1 10(1) states, 'The approval authority shall grant development approval only when adequate
provisions for storm water run-off to the City storm' water drainage system have been made as determined
by the City Engineer."
21. SDC 34.030(3) requires that the applicant submit a drainage plan as part of the Tentative Partition Plan.
22. The ad df partitioning land does not create any impervious surface, nor does it alter aiW drainage patterns
or create the need for additional infrastruaure to accommodate drainage.. .
23. The applicant has not submitted a detailed drainage plan for each individual parcel, however, the Public
Works Department has noted that the on-site drainage system can be designed and reviewed for suffidency
at the time of Site Plan Review. .
24. The Public Works Department finds there is suffident capacity in the existing storm sewer to serve the
future development
25. The Public Works Department finds that because the existing storm. sewer line in South 32nd Street is a
trunk line; service must be made through offset outside drop manholes.
26. The Public Works Department has stipulated that multiple connections to storm sewer trunk lines are not .
permitted.
Conditions:
10. Upon submittal ora Site Plan Review application, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage plan, which
demonstrates capacity in the City's storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed development, and
how each parcel will be conneaed to the system, in accordance with 32.11 O( I). ,
II. Where joint use of drainage fadlities will be incorporated, the applicant shall execute joint use access and
maintenance agreements for each shared facility.
Storm Water Quality Measures
SDC 32.110 requires that an applicant of any development where new pavement area exceeds 5,000
square feet must provide storm water quality measures.
findings:
27. The proposed Tentative Partition Plan does not involve construction of new impervious surface.. At the time
of Site Plan Review, storm water quality measures will be required to serve the development, where the new
impervious surface proposed exceeds 5,000 square feet
1-51
11
28. SDC 34.070(I)(b) states, 'Whenever a proposed partition will increase traffic on the City street system and
that partition has unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved public street, that street frontage
shall be fully improved to City standards." .
29. Main Street (McKenzie Highway) is a State Highway (Highway 126b) under the jurisdiction of the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT). Main Street is improved with sidewalks, curb, gutter, and street
trees.
30. South 32nd Street is improved with a sidewalk on the east side of the roadway, but lacks adequate paving,
curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and planter striPs, which are required for a minor arterial street
according to SDC 32.020(4)(b). "
31. In the draft Agreement, Arlie & Company is responsible for the improvements along the frontage of
proposed Parcel I along South 32nd Street "
32. The right of way for South 32nd Street abutting the site is 35 feet frorri centerline, and varies,from 30-35
feet abutting the east side of the centerline. According to the standards in SDC 32.32.020((3), the
minimum right of way for a minor arterial is 70 feet
Access to Proposed Parcels 1.2. and 3:
The applicant has not indicated the location of access points to serve the proposed partition area on the
Tentative Partition Plan, but has. illustrated a 30 foot-shared access and maintenance easement and
agreement along the southerly property line of Parcel 2. The Transportation Division is recommending
that access to Parcels 2 and 3 be aligned with Oregon and Virginia Avenues, which are two of the
eXisting streets that intersect with South 32nd Street.
Aligning new access points with existing streets is consistent with City policy for ensuring safe ingress,
egress, and circulation, and implements the provisions of SDC 32.080(4)(a), which states, "In order to.
minimize traffic conflicts...intersettions involving curb return driveways and streets, whether public or
private, shall be directly opposed, unless a Traffic Impact Study indicates that an offset intersection
benefits public safety to a greater degree."
Inaccc:irdance with SDC 32.080(1)(a), each parcel is entitled to an approved a"ccess to a public street.
However, as stipulated in SDC 32.080(1)(b), "Joint use of driveways at a property line shall be required
whenever necessary to reduce the number of access p~ints to streets." Construction of joint use
driveways shall be preceded by recording of joint use access and maintenance easements." The
Transportation Division is requiring that the applicant execute a shared access between proposed
Parcels I and 2, centered on the common property line for both parcels. At this time, this. shared
access will be the sole access to Parcel I, unless a private approach permit is granted from ODOT for
access to Main Street for Parcel I at a later date. The applicant can contact Gary McKenney,
Transportation Planning. Engineer, at 726-4S85~if there are qu.estions regarding these
requirements.
. . "
Regarding access to Main Street (McKenzie Highway) for proposed Parcel I, the Transportation Division
has deferred to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), which provided the following
comments on the Tentative Partition, as ODOT maintains jurisdiction over the roadway:
I. "Prior to partition, the parcel 17-02-31-00 TL 500 has frontage on both ORE Hwy 126B
(Main St.) and South 32nd Street. OAR 734 Div 51 (Access Management"Rule) considers
south 32nd St. as "alternative reasonable access" to the pre-partitioned parcel. The
'proposed partition as shown on the submitted tentative partition plat creates three
discreet parcels. Parcel I has frontage on both ORE Hwy 126B (Main St.) and South
1-53
13
Conditions:
12. In order to ensure that safety, drculation, and the requirements .of SDC Article 32 are accommodated,
access to South 32nd Street shall be limited to the following locations:
Q A shared driveway to serve proposed Parcels I and 2, centered on the common property line; and
Q . A shared driveway to serve Parcels 2 and 3 centered opposite the center line of Oregon Street
The applicant shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow .
shared driveway access as described in I) and 2) above. These easements shall be at least 24 feet wide
and extend at least /.00 feet to the west of the easterly property line which fronts on South 32nd street
13. In accordance with SDC 32.080(4), any access granted to Parcel 3 from South 32nd Street in the future shall
be aligned with Virginia Avenue, in order to enhance the circulation and safety of the development area, as
well as to accommodate the future transportation needs of the surrounding urbanizable area. .
.14. In order to facilitate connectivity between adjacent parcels, in accordance with SDC 32.040, the applicant
shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow north-south
pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access across the parcel boundaries between Parcels I and 2, and Parcels
2 and 3. These easements shall be located not less than 100 feet west of the easterly property line along
South 32nd Street, and recorded with Lane County Deeds and Records prior to submittal of the Final Plat
15. In accordance with SDC 34.070, the applicant shall sign an improvement agreementfor paving, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, planter strips, and street trees, along the full frontage 'of the applicant's
property along South 32nd Street . .
16. In accordance with SDC 32.070, the applicant shall maintain a vision clearance triangle of 10 feet along all
property lines.
Consideration of Natural Features
The Metro Plan, the draft Natural Resource Special Study, the Local Wetlands Inventory Map, the
National Wetlands Inventory Map, the Hydric Soils Map, the Drinking Water Protection Overlay
District Map. and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted.
Findings:
40. The Local and National Wedands Inventory Maps have been consulted, and there are no inventoried
. wetlands on the subjea site.
41. The Hydric Soils Map has been consulted, and there an~ no known hydric soils on the site.
42. The Historic Landmark Sites reference has been consulted, and there are no known historic resources on the
site.
43. SDC Article 38 requires that an applicant shall apply for a Tree Felling Permit if more than 5 trees greater
than 2 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) are to be felled in calendar year.
44. Springfield has several wellhead protection areas. One hundred percent of Springfield's drinking water
comes from wells. In every instance, care shall be taken to prevent groundwater contamination.
45. The Springfield Wellhead Protection Overlay Map was consulted in review of this application, and a portion
of the development area is within the boundaries of the 10-20 year Time of Travel Zone (fOTZ) of the
Maia Well. In accordance with the standards of SDC article 17, the applicant may be required concurrent
with Site Plan Review, to submit a Drinking Water Protection Overly Distria Application for review by the
City. . .
46. The application complies with criterion I, as the Tentative Partition Plan,as conditioned herein, and
conforms with the provisions of the SDC pertaining to: Lot size' and dimensions, the efficient provision of
public facilities and services, street improvements and consideration of natural features.
1-55
15
3. The applicant shall coordinate with SUB and the City Fire. Marshall regarding funding of the design, and
construction of the waterline, if the development is determined to require it
4. In accorda-nce with SDC 32./20(5), which provides that the utility provider can require a 10-foot PUE where
necessary to serve the development, the applicant shall dedicate a 10-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcel I which fronts on Main Street, to accommodate a future water main improvement project
5. In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), the applicant shall dedicate a 7-foot PUE along the full frontage of
proposed Parcels I, 2, and 3, along South 32nd Street .
6. In accordance with SDC 34.030(8), the applicant shall dearly show the existing sewer easement, proposed
PUEs, and any necessary private utilities and private utility easements on the Final Plat; coordination through
the City Public Works Department on the easement plan shall be completed prior to submittal of the Final
Plat
7. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval from the City Public Works Department for the utility
plan prior to submittal of the Final Plat If other easements are required upon review of the utility plan, the.
applicant shall provide additional private and public easements in the" location and width necessary to
accommodate the development proposal.
8. The applicant shall design the sewer system so that sanitary sewer service for Parcel 2 connects to the
existing service for Parcel I with a wye and deanout .
9. In accordance with Springfield Public Works spedfications, all connections to the sewer trunk lines shall be
made by offset outside drop manholes. .
10. Upon submittal of a Site Plan Review application, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage plan, which
. demonstrates capacity in the City's storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed development, and
how each parcel will be conneaed to the system, in accordance with 32.11 O( I). "
II. Where joint use of drainage fadlities will be incorporated, the applicant shall execute joint use access and
maintenance agreements for each shared fadlity.
12. In order to ensure that safety, drculation, and the requirements of SDC Artide 32 are accommodated,
access to South 32nd Street shall be limited to the following locations: .
. Q A shared driveway to serve proposed Parcels J and 2, centered on the common property line; and
. Q A shared driveway to serve Parcels 2 and 3 centered opposite the center line of Oregon Street
The applicant shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow
shared driveway access as described in J) and 2) above. These easements shall be at least 24 feet wide
and extend adeast 100 feet to the west of the eas~erly property line which fronts on South 32nd Street
13. In accordance with SDC 32.080(4), any access granted to Parcel 3 from South 32nd Street in the future shall
be aligned with Virginia Avenue, in order to enhance the circulation and safety of the development area, as
well as to accommodate the future transportation needs of the surrounding urbanizable area. .
14. In order to facilitate connectivity between adjacent parcels, in accordance with SDC 32.040, the applicant
shall execute and record a 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easement to allow north-south
pedestrian,. bicyde, and vehicular access across the parcel boundaries between Parcels I and 2, and Parcels
2 and 3. These easements shall be located not less than 100 feet west of the easterly property Jinealong
South 32nd Street, and recorded with Lane County Deeds and Records prior to submittal of the Final Plat
15. In accordance with SDC 34.070, the applicant shall sign an improvement agreement for paving, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, planter strips, and street trees, along the full frontage of the applicant's
property along South 32nd Street
16. In accordance with SDC 32.070, the applicant shall maintain a vision dearance triangle of 10 feet along all
property lines.
. 17. The applicant, at the time of Site Plan Review, shall ensure that the future development complies with the
standards in SDC Artide 17, Drinking Water Overlay Distria for development within the 10 to 20-year Time
1-57
17
, .
ALldusT fJ, 2~"'2
. 1" = 200
----
~ HlGHIlo\'I" ~IN &TlilUTJ
I 17JlO'
PARCEl.. I
_....4,..." Z;ll1U
F'ARCBl. 2
PARCI!L. 3
--~~--
-----------------------
EXHfSfr A
1 59
. .......
~
./1. i
I J
I
L____
I
I
I
I I
I !
I
I I
I
I
L__~
.r--
I
I
I I.
Ii:. ..
~ "'I
:il iI .
~ g~ ..
- ,
': I
~~I .
. ~~
.r--
I
I r
j I ..
~--
r-
Ifl
I:
I
I
ki: CCi ,~
r-:--
I
r kantl~""
~.
"; c9~.rdina~ion'th~~ugh th~:qtyPublic Works Departme~t on the.ea~~ment plan.shall bE! completed
':. prior ~o submittal of the Final.Plat. ':;"'. . . '.. . '.
. 7. The applicant shall coordinate and receive' approval from the City Public Works Department fpr the
:1 .' utility pl~n. prior to sub.mittal of t~e: .Final ~lat. If other ~emen.ts.are .r~quired upon reyiew of the
(. utility plan, the applicant shall provide additional private and . public easements in the:.location and
width necessary to accommodate the development proposal.., . . . .
e. The applicant shall plan, and show on the Final Pla~ necessary easements for, the proposed public
sanitary sewer service to each parcel, as well as to . alloY{ extension of service. to the westerly .
property' line. Connection to the public sanitary system is limited to one new tap to the sanitary
I: s.ewer trunk line through .a drop manhole,' in accordance with Springfield.P~blic .Works
specifications. .
:~. The applicant shall submit a c;onceptual drainage plan, and show on the Plat 'any necessary easements
to 'accommodate the plan, which demonstrates capacity in the City's storm sewer system to
accommodate proposed development, including handling of storm water overflow for each
individual parcel and sheet flow from adjacent properties, as well as .how each pat:'cel will be.
connected to the system, in a:ccori:la!1~ewith SDC 32;1 I OC I):" :. .
1.0. Where joint use of drainage facilities will be incorporated, the applicant shall execute joint use
access and m~intenance agreements for each shared facility. '. .
61. In order. to ensure that safety, circulation, . and the. requirements .of SDC Article 32 are
:: . accommodated, access to South 32nd Street shall be Iirriitecfto the fo.llowiliglOcations:
./
. '" ~ "
a) A shared driveway to serve proposed Parcels I and 2; and . ..
.): . b) A s~ared driveway ~o serve Parcels 2 and 3 ce~tered opposite the ce!1ter line of Oregon Street.
. ..', .... ',:' .' '. :,"' .~.. . '~'. :::.. . ",. ...~"'" ", :". ,". ~':. .....:... .'~ ~ .. :,~ ,,:. '.:":'.. "1':," . '.:' . ..... ".
~ . The' applicant shall eXecute. .ahd..record. tWo .24-fdot. wid~ j9int :use. access. and. maintenance
easements to allow shared ~riveway access as described. in a) and b) above. Each of 1:f1ese
.' e?-SementS shall exi:endat.least I 00 f~t.t6 the west .of the "easterlyproperty line whiCh fronts on
South '32ri~ Street.;." "" .' . .",:' ... . . .. ._ . ...~....
~"'~ '- .
, . . . -,:~.-"
12. In accordance with SDC 32.080(4), access to Parcel 3 frol!1 SoutQ 32nd Street, if permitted bi the
.1 City! shall .be aligned with Virginia Avenue; in order'to. enhance the circulation and safety' of the
c: development area, as well as to accommodate the future. transportation. nee~s of the. surrounding
. .. urbanizable area. .... . . :
1,3..ln order to facilitate connectivity between adjacent parcels, in aq:ordance with SDC '32.040, the
; applicant shall execute and record two 24-foot wide joint use access and maintenance easements.~
i all.ow' north.;southpedestrian. .bicycle;'andvehicular access; across "Lhe'.parcel boundaries~etween
I Parcels I and 2, and Parcels 2 and 3. These easements shall be .Iocated not less than 100 feet west
r. .of the easterly property line along South 32nd Street, and be recorded with Lane County Deeds .and
~ Records prior to sub'mittal of the Final Plat. At the time of Site Plan. Review, a relocation of these .
. cross easements may be .approved by the City; p~ovide9, the City Traffic Engineer finds that
. relocation will facilitate safe and efficient ingress, egress, an9 cross access in accordance with the .
provisions of SDC Articles 3 I and 32. . .
/4. In accordance with SQC 34.070, the applicant shall sign an improvement agreement for 'paving,
'.; ~urbs. gutte~s, sidewalks, street lights, planter strips, ~n~.~e~t tr~es,..along ~e full frontage of the
app!i?~t's prope~ along ~?u.th 32~ Street. ..'-., .': . .:<:' .0.:. . . :.: . ....:: . .:;:.
. :' '. . .'. .... .... " .. '" ,.' ....:..;..: . . . .. .. ~ .' . .'. .;
D~layed Con.diiioi1S; -wfiich' are"required to be' f~lfilled as part. of.o "future .SitePlal Review
application submit~~l:
.' .
1-'61
Amended Decision: Jo. No. 2002-02-0044, June J 0, 2002
Parze 2 of 4
Your Right to Appeal
If you wish to appeal this Type II Umited Land Use Tentative Partition ~Ian Amended Dedsi<?n, your
application must comply with SDC Article IS, APPEALS. Appeals must be submitted on a City form and.
a fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City at the time of submittal. The fee will.be returned to the
. '. . r . '"
. appellant if the Planning Commission approve$ the appeal appliCation.
. .
In accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for a 10 day appeal period and Oregon R.ules of Civil
Procedures, Rule I o (c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00'
p.m. on June 24,2002.
Questions
Please call Susanna julber, Planner II, in the Development Services Department if you have 'any
questions regarding this process, 726-3~52.
. ,
;'. .
"
.i
.' ..
'. ....
'.
'. .
1-63
"
, 1'- ....
DKS Associates
November 19,2002
Page 2 of 5
Table 1: Sports Complex Alternative Site Descriptions
Gateway Site
Sports Way
Central Site
32nd Avenue and Main Street
Existing
Zoning
6.0 ac.
15.7 ac.
Space
21.7 ac.
Commercial
(PLO) Public Land/Open
17.19 ac. (HI) Heavy Industrial
17.19 ac. (LMI) Light Medium
Industrial
34.38 ac. Total
Total
Proposed
Zoning
21.7 ac. (CI) Campus Industrial District 5.14 ac. Commercial
(includes 35% landscape or . 29.24 ac. (PLO) Public Land/Open
open space requirement - net Space
developable land is 14.11 .
acres)
Proposed
Development
. Use
No specific proposal at this time
5.14 ac. Mixed-use Retail
19.4 ac. Outdoor Recreation Fields
.9.84 ac. Indoor Sports Complex (six
full-sized courts, facilities for
gymnastics, indoor running, hockey,
fitness, and administrative offices,
dressing rooms, showers, and related
facilities.
Main Street(State Highway 126), 32nd
Street
Site Access
Routes
Beltline Road, International Way,
Interstate 5 via Beltline Road
interchange.
Trip Generation Comparison
The affected zoning districts have a range of permitted land llses. These were reviewed to identify
potential trip activity with and without the re-designation of a zoning district based on the City of
Springfield's development code (Articles 18,20,21 and 23), and the trip generation rates for similar
uses based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation research. Potential site land
uses for both Existing and Amended Plan Designations were determined by City of Springfield staff
for our use in this analysis. It is noted that, for the Central site, warehouse commercial is allowable
under both LMI and HI zoning. A 12-acre warehouse commercial site was assumed, allocated evenly
between the LMI and HI zoned parcels.
The analysis summarized in Table 2 includes assumptions about the intensity of uses based on the
permitted use analysis, published ITE data and trip generation estimates developed for uses for which
data was not rea~ily available (i.e. Outdoor Sports Facility). Specific development applications will
need to be re-eval uated to assess the trip generation.
The net result of the proposed re-designation was as follows:
· Gateway Site - There is a net red uction of roughly 475 evening peak hour trips witb the re-
designation that excludes commercial uses,
· Central Site - There is a net gain of rou~hly 200 peak hOllr trips, most significantly because
of the addition of commercial zoning along Main Street.
I Per documentation and telephone discussions with Gary McKenney, P E., Transportation Planning Engineer, City of Springfield.
1-65
DKS Associates
November 19,2002
Page 4 of 5
Scope of Potential Impacts
The net reduction in trips associated with the rezoning of the Gateway Site appears to exclude that
location from further impact analysis. The removal of the Community Commercial designation
creates a net reduction in the trip generation potential relative to the current zoning, and the travel
demands will be less than those forecasted in the latest TSP. .
The Central Site is shown to have a net gain in vehicle trips with the zone change, assuming a
"reasonable worst case" development plan under the Existing Plan Designation (LMI/HMI) and
"reasonable worst case" development under the Amended Plan Designation (CC/LlvWPLO). Since
the' amended plan designation is anticipated to generate a greater number of evening peak hour trips
than under existing zoning, it is likely that some form of mitigation would be required. Previous
transportation studies have shown that one or more study area intersections do not have any excess
capacity available for additional trips on the street network.
Mitigation
Previous traffic studies of the Central Site have shown that long-range peak hour operating conditions
along Main Street will exceed acceptable Levels of Service even with current comprehensive plan
designations. No additional capacity solutions were identified that would mitigate those conditions to
the minimum level accepted by the state or city.
An alternative mitigation approach would constrain the number of peak hour vehicle trips added to
the system such that the re-designation has no net additional trips relative to the, current planned uses.
The mitigation could be a "trip cap" on the PLO designated portion of the site. A "trip cap" would
limit development on the PLO portion of the site to the difference between the trip generation under
Existing zoning and the trip generation under Amended zoning. This "trip cap" would limit evening
peak hour trip generation to and from the site to 305 trips. This number is derived by subtracting the
trips associated with the CC and Recreation Center uses from the number of trips allowed assuming
"reasonable worst case" under Existing zoning:
Table 3: Possible Trip Cap Mitigation for Central Site
Description Vehicle Trips during Weekday Peak Hour
Allowed under current plan designation 1,007
Community Commercial -428
LMIIRecreational Center . -274
Remaining Trips to be Allocated 305
An iinplementation plan would need to be developed in order to determine how such a trip cap would
be implemented and enforced.
If a trip cap is determined to be an acceptable alternative, the Central site would then result in a net
even trip generation and would therefore meet the Transportation Planning Rule requirement that
there no further degradation (beyond what is allowable under existing zoning) of study intersections.
1-67