HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 11/26/2008
,---
.
.\
MEMORANDUM
.
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: December 2, 2008
"
TO:
Springfield Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Gary M. Karp, Planner III
SUBJECT:
Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments Case Number LRP 2008-00011, City of
Springfield, Applicant
ISSUE
Continuance of the public hearing held on October 7, 2008 to consider the proposed SDC amendments, which
address the following topics: Streamlining the Master Plan review process (Section 5.13-100); updating Fire
regulations in the Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District (Section 3.3-200); and addressing additional
Scrivener's errors found in various sections after adoption of the reformatted SOC.
DISCUSSION
In August, 2008, staff distributed a copy of the proposed Master Plan amendments, Attachment 4, to private sector
planners who submitted Master Plan applications in the past. Two of these planners, Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington,
submitted comments to staff regarding the proposed Master Plan amendments. The proposed Master Plan
amendments presented to the Planning Commission on October 7, 2008 contained staffs responses to the vast
majority of the issues/questions raised by Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington. This is why copies of their written
comments, while in the record, were not attached to the October 7th staff report. Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington
provided testimony at the public hearing. The Planning Commission directed staff to conduct a meeting with Mr.
Satre and Mr. Farrington to solicit additional comment on the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission
continued the public hearing until December 2, 2008.
Combined, Mr. Satre's and Mr. Farrington's comments include over 40 pages of text. For ease of review, their
written and oral comments have been combined into a format which responds to each issue/question. Attachment
1 allows the reader to briefly see each issue/question and go to the applicable section/subsection in Attachment 4
to review the revised text, which is highlighted along with a "commentary" explaining why the revision is proposed
and/or how it has been addressed.
While both Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington had concerns regarding the entire proposed Master Plan amendment,
there are two Sections that elicited the most comments: 1) SDC 5.13-120, Submittal Requirements (they thought
some of these requirements were more specific than they needed to be and/or that some of these requirements
shOUld be "conceptual"; and 2) SDC 5.13-135, Final Master Plan Modifications (where Mr. Farrington suggested
that staffs proposed 10 percent threshold should be eliminated and the current text retained). Staff met with Mr.
Satre and Mr. Farrington on November 12'" to discuss these and other issues. Attachment 4 addresses all issues
all issues previously raised and those issues discussed at that meeting.
There was no testimony regarding Attachments 5 or 6 No revisions have been made to Attachment 5. One revision
has been made to Attachment 6 to add hotels as a permitted use in the Mixed Use Commercial zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUESTED
Review the revised text and advise the City Council, by motion and signature of the attached order and
recommendation by the Planning Commission Chairperson, to approve the proposed amending Ordinance at their
public hearing on February17, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 :
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Responses to Written and Oral Testimony Regarding the Ma,ster P.1lln Prpcess
SDC Amendment Staff Report uate Received:
Recommendation to City Council Planner: GK
SDC Section 5.13-100 Master Plans - Revised
SDC Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District
Various Sections - Scrivener's Errors
Preliminary Master Plan Review Procedure Discussion
/1 ;2 (7 C<;;
"
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONY REGARDING TH~ MASTER PLAN PROCESS
Staff has addressed the highlighted responses.
Name SDC Reference/Summarv of Testimonv Staff Response
R. Satre SDC 5.13-105B.1. questioned "large scale" IJarae-5cal'" n",I""el1
reference
R. Satre SDC 5.13-1 05B.3. questioned "establish revlsedlextto"determine soecific US.esJ
specific uses"
R. Satre SDC 5/13-105B.3. Questioned "intensities" _evised-to "square footage'~
R. Satre SDC 5.13-105B.4. Questioned "impacts" evised text to define "impacts:l
R. Satre SDC 5.13-116C. "aoproval is aranted" .evised text to add "approval is effective~1
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-117 questioned "neighborhood revised text based on Corvallis reaulationS!
meetina" process
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120 questioned forms/fees new application forms will be required/the
Final Master Plan fee will be 10% of the
Preliminary Master Plan fee.
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120 suggested adding Certified fe.vised lexl as suaaeSle.Q1
Planner/Civil Enaineer
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120A.2. questioned "uses" eleted Sul5section A.2. . renuml5ered
ubsectionsJ
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120A.5. questioned "impacts" eleted Subae.ctioi1A.5.. rer:uJlJJoe[~
ubsectionsl
Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-120A.6.a.lb. suggested "300 [e..Y.i.se,Ue1(l!0~add":'30_0.Jeel]
feet"
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120B.4. questioned "unstable did not change - same text used elsewhere
soils and/or hiah water table inSDC.
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120B.4. suggested ~~ea texl..as.s.1!9llll.s.t'[gJ
"Geotechnical Enqinee(
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120C. questioned "fill l"xllo.ana l'OP~
thresholds/contour intervals"
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120D. suggested "coordinated did not change - redundant.
with SDC 5.13-120C:
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120F. questioned "with the Il~LeJeO~qVesILQOeq;!eK~
proposed desiqn option"
R. Satre SDC 5.13-120H. questioned intent of xplained intent of subsection and reas9!J
subsection/need for overall site plan or a Site Plan Review level of detail/thf.
xisting Site Plan Review process in ~Dr:
.17-100 allows as many elements as
ossible that can fit on the PreliminarY"Si!ii
Plan - the sameJs.Jrue.loLttte &elimiDiI~
~aster PlanJ
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120H. suggested making the evised text to state wfilcn aspects o~~
architectural plan conceptual ",rchitectural Plan mav be conceptual
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.1.a. questioned the need id not change, but explained WhY;~
for a parkinq plan and study arking plan and study are necessa
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.1.d. questioned the need evised text to delete exterior lighting in f~
for exterior lighting requirement ?ubsection' it's still reguired in -
13-120JI
Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.1.e. questioned "bike evised text taFq~ire llie minimum amount
parking space" f information
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.2. suggested adding ""or evised texllo add"ar use orbl
use orrif needed" ecessarv" ~
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120J. suggested deleting all ,evised text "to oelete ~:~!lliDgJw~
liqhtinq requirements xtent of shieldinq" onl
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120L.suggested deleting te.'lisedlexlla...delet~\lenlS'
"events"
Date Received: II .:J.L CXi
Planner: GK
Attachment I-I
Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-120M. questioned "...a
stateme/i't of the applicant's with
regard to the future selling or
leasin ...."
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1200.1. suggested more
s ecifici re ESEE anal sis
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-125H. questioned the
requirement to guarantee that all
ro osed develo ment will occur
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-125J. suggested deleting
"shadin , lare"
Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-130 questioned how the
preliminary decision will be
rendered/appeal period/effective
date/when the Final plan can be
submitted/same section questioned
vague language
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-131 questioned the rationale to
raise a Final Master Plan application
from aTe I to aTe II review
R. Satre SDC 5.13-132A.1. questioned "have been
revised"
P. Farrington SDC 1.13-132A2. suggested additional
Ian ua e
R. Satre SDC 5.13-132A. EXCEPTION questioned
"expiration date"
P. Farrington
R. Satre
R. Satre
R. Satre
P. Farrington
R. Satre
P. Farrington
P. Farrington
SDC 5.13-1338. suggested deleting "all
applicable documents"
SDC 5.13-133C.1. questioned "7 years"
SDC 5.13-133D. questioned Final Master
Plan notice of decision process
SDC 5.13-134 questioned when a
Subdivision and/or Site Plan Review
application can be submitted.
SDC 5.13-135A. 1. questioned "change of
scheduled hasin "
SDC 5.13-135A.3. questioned "reasonable
ro ress" and "remain available"
SDC 5.13-135A.4. questioned the 10
percent threshold
SDC 5.13-1358. questioned "potential
impacts"fother properties"
Satre/Farrin ton SDC 5.13-1358.1. uestioned zonin
Date Received:
Planner: GK
jl?Gag
Attachment 1-2
.
evised text to clarity if, wlien ana lj w.o
financial uarantee is re uired
I,
.
ro j emor sp.eclficlt
Ii i la
$ . aai g~.lIre wer no
xp a<ne
belete
evised text to aelete "minimize laerilifi
n-site conflicts and impacts.... And t
larify why/how conditions may be attach
- this process is similar to the Site Pia
eview (SDC 5.17-100) and Land Divisi
SDC 5.12-100) review processes. Th
ype II review process is found in SD
.1.130 and is not repeated in each Ian
se application review p'rocess to reduce
edundanciesl
evise te Q
r.ess
~se:a l~illo..Le?a "require revision"
5 5
.'
P. Farrington
R. Satre
R. Satre
P. Farrington
P. Farrington
SDC 5.13-1358.4. suggested "or
decreases"
SDC 5.13-1358.6. questioned review type
SDC 5.13-1358.7. suggested deleting
"realign"
SDC 5.13-1358.8. questioned the 10
percent threshold
Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-1358.12. questioned "primary
structure"/need
P. Farrington SDC 5.13-140A.1. suggested "or as
otherwise reviousl a roved".
Attachment 1-3
.
e.visea texn6 ilea suggestea langua e
Date Received: ;1 ;U; 09
Planner. GK
.<
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
SDC AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT
City of Springfield - Case Number LRP 2008-0011
REQUEST
Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments - Section 5.13-100 Master Plans; Section
3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District; and various sections to correct
Scrivener's errors created with the adoption of the reformatted SOC.
BACKGROUND
1. Proposed Master Plan amendments. The proposed amendment of Section 5.13-100 Master
Plans arises from issues occurring during and after the review of the Marcola Meadows,
RiverBend and MountainGate Master Plan applications. The proposed amendment
addresses the following issues:
a. Incomplete applications - by requiring the same Pre-Submittal Meeting review process
that currently applies to Site Plan, Subdivision and Partition applications to also apply to
Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications (see Sections 5.13-115 and 5.13-132).
b. The lack of a formal Final Master Plan review process - by establishing a specific
Preliminary Master Plan application review process (see Sections 5.13-115 through
5.13-130) and a specific Final Master Plan application review process (see Sections
5.13-131 through 5.13-134).
c. The broad purpose statement - by stating that the Master Plan specifically applies to
phasing of development over several years (see Section 5.13-105).
d. The appropriate level of review - by limiting the Master Plan process purpose to phasing,
the level of Preliminary Master Plan review can be reduced from an initial Type III/IV
procedure to an initial Type 11/111 procedure. The Final Master Plan application is
specified as a Type 1/11 procedure (see Sections 5.13-115 and 5.13-131).
e. Broad Preliminary Master Plan submittal requirements and approval criteria - by
establishing clearer Preliminary Master Plan submittal requirements and approval criteria
sections (see Sections 5.13-120 and 5.13-125).
f. Vaque requlation - by deleting the reference to "basic underlying assumptions' that had
to be addressed during the Master Plan modification process (see Sections 5.13-120
and 5.13-135).
g. Perceived lack of public involvement- by requiring the applicant to hold a Neighborhood
Meeting prior to Preliminary Master Plan submittal (see Section 5.13-117).
2. Proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District amendments. The amendment to the
Drinking Water Overlay District is primarily necessitated by the recently adopted Springfield
Fire Code which supersedes the current Uniform Fire Code. This requires amending the
appropriate Fire Code references specified in this Section. In addition to the specific Fire
Code references, there are several instances where text is added from the current Uniform
Fire Code because the Springfield Fire Code does not have any requirements equivalent to
the inspection and record-keeping requirements (see Sections 3.3-235A.7., B.7., and C.5.).
This is necessary in order to preserve the existing inspection and rmfg-~: 11:26 08
Planner: GK
Attachment 2-1
.
.
>,
,
requirement for drinking water protection. The inserted text does not represent a policy
change since these requirements in the Uniform Fire Code have been and continue to be
the standard used for drinking water protection. Also, the phrase "hazardous materials that
pose a risk to groundwater" is changed to "hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater." (See Sections 3.3-205 through 3.3-225 and 3.3-235) because while the SDC
defines hazardous materials according to Fire Code definitions, some materials that pose a
risk to groundwater (e.g., certain pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) may not currently be regulated
by this Section. This amendment is considered to be a clarification of current practice.
3. Proposed Scrivener's Errors amendments. The reformatted Springfield Development Code
(SDC) was adopted by.the Springfield City Council on September 17, 2007. The
reformatting process was a substantial undertaking that resulted in the reorganization of
hundreds of Code regulations in what were formerly 45 "Articles" into 6 Chapters. The
volume of the reorganization task resulted in some unintentional omissions; some
inaccurate references due to renumbering; and some errors in punctuation known as
Scrivener's errors. Thus, on December 3, 2007 the City Council adopted the first round of
what are called Scrivener's errors. The proposed SDC amendments in this staff report are
the second, and hopefully the last round of Scrivener's errors. The proposed amendments
do not include policy or policy implementation changes.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA FOR SDC AMENDMENTS
SDC 5.6-115 of the Springfield Development Code establishes criteria that must be met in order
to approve this request. "In reaching a decision on these actions, the Planning
Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings which demonstrate conformance
to the following: A. The Metro Plan; B. Applicable State statutes; and C. Applicable State-
wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. "
A. The Metro Plan;"
"The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan [Metro Plan] is the official long-
range general plan (public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the cities
of Eugene and Springfield. Its policies and land use designations apply only within the
area under the jurisdiction of the Plan. The Plan sets forth general planning policies and
land use allocations and serves as the basis for the coordinated development of
programs concerning the use and conservation of physical resources, furtherance of
assets, and development or redevelopment of the metropolitan area. " P. 1-1
Staff ResDonse and FindinQ:
The proposed Master Plan amendments involve proposed process changes discussed in
general in B.1., above and specifically in the proposed text in Attachment 4. The term "Master
Plan" is mentioned in the Metro Plan, but not in the context of Springfield's utilization of the
word. In the Metro Plan there is a reference to the Eugene Airport Master Plan and Local
Facility Master Plans. Springfield's use of the term "Master Plan" regards approval of phased
development for at least 7 years. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan regulations
concems an existing process. When this process as added to the SDC in 1994, that application
addressed all applicable Metro Plan policies. Therefore, there are no applicable Metro Plan
policies that apply to this proposed amendment.
Date Received: II 9-b or;;
Planner: GK
Attachment 2-2
,
.
.
The proposed Drinking Water Protection Ovenay District amendments involve changes in the
Fire Code. There are no policy implementation issues regarding this amendment. While there
are goals, findings and policies in the Metro Plan's Environmental Resources Element, the
proposed Drinking Water Protection Ovenay District amendments amend existing regulations
and regard Fire Code referencesltext only. When this process as added to the SDC in 2000,
that application addressed all applicable Metro Plan policies. Therefore, there are no applicable
Metro Plan policies that apply to this proposed amendment.
The proposed Scribner's errors amendments correct; they do not seek to add, delete or amend
the intent, purpose or meaning of any of these provisions, regulations or standards. Nothing
about the original instruction from Council during the SDC Reformat Project allowed any change
to policy implementation; nothing about the reformatting end product contained any change to
policy implementation; nothing about any of these proposed corrections changes any policies or
the implementation of policies held forth in this Code. The Springfield Development Code
implements Metro Plan policies. The proposed amendments do not rise to the Metro Plan
policy level. The proposed amendments, as with the reformatted Code, continue to implement
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan as demonstrated in the findings of
Joumal LRP 2007-00020 adopted on September 17,2007. Therefore, there are no applicable
Metro Plan policies that apply to this proposed amendment.
"B.) Applicable State statutes, "
Staff ResDonse and Findina:
As stated under criterion A., above, the proposed Master Plan amendments revise existing
procedure and the proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District amendments are
necessary due to changes in Fire Code regulations. The Scrivener's error amendments are
undertaken exclusively to correct omissions, reference citations and punctuation that resulted in
the reformatting of the Springfield Development Code. Nothing contained in any of these
proposed amendments is of sufficient magnitude, impact or effect to rise to the level of
assessment intended by the application of state statutes. Except as specified below in
response to ORS 197.610, there are no other applicable ORS that apply.
POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROCEDURES
ORS 197.610
"197.610 local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation;
exceptions; report to commission.
(1) A proposal to amend a local government acknowledged comprehensive plan or land
use regulation or to adopt a new land use regulation shall be forwarded to the Director of
the Department of land Conservation and Development at least 45 days before the first
evidentiary hearing on adoption. The proposal forwarded shall contain the text and any
supplemental information that the local government believes is necessary to inform the
director as to the effect of the proposal. The notice shall include the date set for the first
evidentiary hearing. The director shall notify persons who have requested notice that the
proposal is pending.
(2) When a local government determines that the goals do not apply to a particular
proposed amendment or new regulation, notice under subsection (1) of this section is .
Date Received: 1/ :2G 0'2
Planner: GK
Attachment 2-3
.
.
,
not required. In addition, a local government may submit an amendment or new
regulation with less than 45 days' notice if the local government determines that there
are emergency circumstances requiring expedited review. In both cases:
(a) The amendment or new regulation shall be submitted after adoption as provided in
ORS 197.615 (1) and (2); and
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.830 (2), the director or any other
person may appeal the decision to the board under ORS 197.830 to 197.845......
Staff ResDonse and Findina:
Although these amendments have no direct impact or consequential degree of impact on the
Goals, staff FedExed the 45 day notice to Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) prior to the first evidentiary hearing as required on August 22, 2008. The first
scheduled hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2008. The
Department will receive notice of Council adoption as specified in (2)(a) above.
"c. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. ..
GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT - OAR 660-015-0000(1)
GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING OAR 660-015-0000(2)
GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LAND OAR 660-015-0000(3)
GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS OAR 660-015-0000(4)
GOAL 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES
OAR 660-015-0000(5)
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY OAR 660-015-0000(6)
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS OAR 660-015-0000(8)
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OAR 660-015-0000(9)
GOAL 10: HOUSING OAR 660-015-0000(10)
GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OAR 660-015-0000(11)
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION OAR 660-015-0000(12)
GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION OAR 660-015-0000(13)
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660-015-0000(14)
GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY OAR 660-015-000(15)
Date Received:
Planner: GK
GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES OAR 660-015-000(16)
/1 :J.-6 09
Attachment 2-4
.
.
GOAL 17: COASTAL SHORELANDS OAR 660-015-000(17)
GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES OAR 660-015-000(18)
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES OAR 660-015-000(19)
Staff ResDonse and FindinQ:
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: The public hearings to consider these amendments were noticed in
the Eugene Register Guard on Monday, September 29, 2008. A public hearing on these
amendments was conducted by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 7,2008; a
public hearing on these amendments will be conducted by the City Council on Monday,
November 17, 2008. Specifically, In addition, there was a Planning Commission work session
held on September 16, 2008 and a City Council work session will be held on November 3,2008.
The proposed Master Plan amendment, specifically, SDC Section 5.13-117 adds language that
requires an applicant to schedule and hold a public meeting to explain the proposed
development to neighboring property owners prior to the public hearing process. This allows the
public to be involved in a maior development while still in its early stages and complies
with/utilizes State-wide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement.
Goal 2 land Use Planning: Although these amendments are exclusively corrections to an
existing land use document, that document was adopted in compliance with the Goals;
implements an acknowledged comprehensive plan in compliance with the Goals; and therefore
furthers the state's interest in the proper and appropriate observation of land use planning goals
and guidelines.
Goals 3-15. Except for portions of the Master Plan process and the changes to the Fire Code
references in the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, these amendments do not change
any of the provisions, standards or regulations in the recently reformatted Code. However,
nothing about these amendments rises to the level of assessment of impact or relation to the
Goals contemplated by the legislature or the Commission when post acknowledgment
provisions were adopted.
Goals 16-19. These goals do not apply because there are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or
beach and dune resources within the City's jurisdiction.
There are no State-wide Planning Goals or Administrative Rules which apply to this amendment
or which this amendment seeks to implement other than compliance with Goal 1, Citizen
Involvement, pertaining to public notice for these proposed amendments and the Master Plan
neighborhood meeting process. Notice of Planning Commission and City Council work sessions
and public hearings were printed in the Eugene Register Guard and placed on the City's web
site on September 29, 2008.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION
Staff has demonstrated consistency with criteria of approval listed in SDC Chapter 5, Section
5.6-115; with Metro Plan policies; with State statutes; and with State-wide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules where such law applies to these amendments. Staff recommends the
Planning Commission: approve the attached Order and forward the proposed amendment of
Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the SDC to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
Date ReceiVed: JI:2(; o~
Planner: GK
Attachment 2-5
.
.
/-
Date Received: / / '){; 0;
Planner: GK
A
.
.
ATTACHMENT 3
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCil
Before the Planning Commission
Of the
City of Springfield
REQUEST TO AMEND THE SPRINGFIELD]
DEVELOPMENT CODE ]
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments apply to Section 5.13.100 Master Plans;
Section 3.3.200 Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District; and various sections to correct Scrivener's
errors created with the adoption of the reformatted SDC as listed in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COUNCil
The proposed Master Plan amendments address staffs concems regarding the current Master Plan review
process by: better defining this process which allows long term phasing of development proposals; requiring an
initial Type 11 rather than a Type 111 review procedure for smaller development proposals or those proposals
which limit impacts on adjacent properties and infrastructure - the Development Services Director has the
authority to raise anv Type 11 review application to a Type 111; requiring a neighborhood meeting hosted by the
applicant to inform the neighbors of the applicant's proposal prior to formal application submittal; assuring
application completeness by requiring a Pre-Submittal Meeting prior to formal application submittal; requiring
specific Preliminary and Final Master Plan review processes; and redefining the categories of the Master Plan
Modification process. The proposed amendments to the DWP Overlay District, due to updated Fire regulations,
were proposed jointly by the City's Fire and Life Safety Department and the Springfield Utility Board. The
proposed amendment of Scrivener's errors is the second, and hopefully last, SDC amendment of this type
regarding the SDC reformatting process adopted last year.
1. The above referenced application has been accepted as complete.
2. The application was initiated and submitted in accordance with Section 5.4.105. Timely and sufficient notice
of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2.115, has been provided.
3. On September 16, 2008 the Planning Commission held a work session regarding the proposed SDC
amendments.
4. On October 7, 2008 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed amendments.
Two persons testified regarding the proposed Master Plan SDC amendments. No persons testified
regarding the proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District or Scrivener's errors amendments. The
Planning Commission continued the public hearing until December 2, 2008
5. On December 2, 2008 the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing. The Development Services
Department staff notes and recommendation together with the oral testimony and written submittals of the
persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria of SDC Section 5.6.115.
This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and Findings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve the request as
recommended herein, CASE NUMBER LRP 2008.00011, at their February 17, 2009 meeting.
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
i.Jar~ Receivea:
Planner: GK
II ;2(; ex;;
Attachment 3-1
.
.
ATTACHMENT 4
SECTION 5.13-100 MASTER PLANS - REVISED
Commentary. Current Section 5.13-100 is deleted in its entirety to make room for the
proposed amendments. However, the term "Master Plan" is currently mentioned In SDC
Sections 3.4-215 through 3.4-225 (the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District). This current
version will be placed in SDC Appendix until such time as the Glenwood Refinement
Plan and the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District are updated. Text proposed to be
deleted is shown as: {slFike th;~ugh}. Language proposed 10 be added is shown as:
lanauaae added.
[Soatian 6.13 100 Master Plans
I 6.13106 Purpose
A. I'. Master Plan is a comprehensive plan that allavlS phasing af a specific
E1evelapment area a'ler several years for public, cammercial, inElustrial ar
resiElential E1e'lelal'lment. I'. Master Plan, in this context, is sl'lecific to this CaEle
anEl is nat cansiEler-eEl ta be a mfinement plan ar any ather similar subset of the
Metro Plan. By aElElr-essing I'lublic service impacts and de'lelopment requirements
at the time at appro'Jal of Master Plan, these impacts anEl requirements neeEl not
be reaElElresseEl at subsequent phases anElthe E1evelaper may rely an the Master
Plan al'll'lraval in implementing the E1evelopment.
B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to:
1. ProviElo pr-eliminary approval far the entir-e E1e'lelal'lment ama in relation ta
lanEl uses, a mnge af minimum ta maximum potential intensities anEl
E1ensities, arr-angement of uses, anElthe location of I'lublic facilities anEl
tr-anspartation systems when a development area is proposed to be
E1evelal'leEl in I'lhases;
2. Assuro that inEliviEluall'lhases of a E1evelopment will be coordinatmj with
each other;
3. Provide the applicant an assur-ance of the City's eXl'lectatian for the o'..er-all
E1evelopment as a oosis far E1etaileEl planning and in'lestmentby the
E1evelal'ler.
C. The Planning Commission shall al'lprove the Master Plan I'lrior to City al'lwoval of a
related Subdivision ar Site Plan application; howe'Jer, the Master Plan may be
r€'lieweEl conCURrently '....ith a Zoning Map amenElment, Discr€tionary Use, Variance
am:l!or any other application or approval sought by tho applicant relateEl to tho
Master Plan.
D. Subject to prior al'll'lHlVal af a Master Plan, a separate SubElivision or Site PI<ln
application shall be al'lpr-oveEl far each phase. The Master Plan shall be the basis
for the evalu<ltion of all phases of develol'lment an any issues that it aEldresses.
Phases may be combined for consider-ation.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
// J..G o;;l
Attachment 4-1
.
.
E.
The Master Plan wocee:e: applie u'h .. .
are met. s.. en IAltlated sy an appliGantu'hen the f II' ..
. .. 0 o'Nlng Gntena
A
~ ....
B.
c.
D.
A
,...
B.
A Master Plan e:hall Gontain all of the el t
emen s prepared' I .
~eGessary to demonstrate that the re"isio . In a G ear and leglsle manner
InGllJde SlJt not se limited to the foll:'t.'i~9: ns of thiS Coae aro !:leing flJlfillea and shall
1\. The eKisting Metro Plan doe:ignation ana zone GlassifiGation.
^ .. .
, . VIGIAlty map drawn to sG[lle on [l street!:l[lse m[lp.
^ leg[ll desGription of tho pr-eperty together '''ith
leg[ll!:lolJndaries of the slJl:ljest property. .. [l m[lp dra'...,n to sGale depicting the
A topogmphy map and narmti'/e de ictiR
structuree:, e:tmete:, e:ignifiGant veget:tio ~.~rt~so;tlJe:ee: of the land, eKisting
relevant n[ltlJral aAd man made featlJF8~: ..-8 [lR s, dralR[lge W[lye: and other
^ 't
. . e:1 e plan showingloGation and tv e of [lll
aGF8age and appreKimate num!:le(:f u't I[lRd ue:es pr-epoe:ed, approKimate
AI e: or e:i:luare foot f .
pr-eperty IJses [lnd reIO'/[lRt featuree:. age 0 IJses, [ldj[lGent
B.
c.
D.
E.
_ F.. The deRsity or intensity of propoe:ed ue:es.
Uate Received: ,ij 9.(; cJ V
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-2
.
.
C. The maxim~m neight ana size of prapesea StruGtUHlS.
H. l\ publiG faGililies plan shev.-ing existing ana prepesea streets, utilities, e:aRitary
sewer, natur{ll ans pipes sterrn sr:ainage system, water e:erviGe, bike ans
pesee:lrian ways ans transit lasalians.
I. Maps ana narrative e:hawing eft sile p~bliG impr-evemente: necee:sary ta serve lhe
prepasea sevelapment ans/ar te miligale impaGte: to aSjaGent prepeFly or p~blic
facilities.
J. The Dir-eGter may req~ire assilienal infermatien neGee:e:ary ta evaluale lhe
prepoe:ea ae\'elapment, inGluaing, but net Iimitea to: aR ~S~~ analysis, geology,
soils, storrnwaler, sanitary, tree preservatian, historiGal, aFGhaeelogiGal, ans traffiG
impaGt. 1\11 r-elatea mape:, eXGluaing viGinity ana selail maps, shall be at the e:amo
SGal&.
K. Provie:ions, if any, for r-ee:ervation, sesiGalien, er use of lana for p~bliG p~rpoe:ee:,
inGI~sing, b~t not limited to: rights of way, eae:emenls, parks, open e:paGes, ana
e:Ghaol siles.
l. /\1'1 ovemll e:GReaule or aesGription of phasing; ans the sevelopment to OGG~r in
eaGh phase. If phae:ing alternalives are contemplatea, these alternativee: e:hall be
sesGribed.
M. Wher-e oft e:ite er other infFastruGture improvements are r-eq~ired, the applisant shall
speGify the timing ana methes of e:eGuring the improvement, inGluding bona, lettor
of GFOsil, joint aeposit or other seGurily satie:faGtery fer gaid imprevement
cone:truGtion.
N. Dee:ignation of respongibility for proviaing infragtruGt~re ana serviGes.
O. ^ general e:GRea~le ef annexation Gansistent wilh lhe phae:ing plan, if appliGable.
I 6.13 126 Criteria
^ Master Plan may be apprevea if the Plan Ring CommissiaA finss that the propee:al
Genforrns wilh all ef tne fallowing appre'lal Griteria. In lhe event af a GenfliGt '.vilh appro'/al
Grileria iR IRis S~bseGtion, the mare speGifiG req~iFOmente: apply.
!\.. The zORing of the property e:hall be Gonsislent wilh lhe Melre Plan aiagmm analer
appliGable Refinemenl Plan siagram, Plan DislriGt map, ana CanGept~al
De'lelepment Plan;
B. The req~ee:l, as Gonailioned, ghall Genferm Ie appliGable Springfiela Development
Case requirements, Melro Plan peliGies, Refinement Plan, Plan DistriGt, ana
CenGeptual De'Jelopment PlaR poliGies.
C. Proposea on sile and oft gite impre'lemenls, both p~bliG and privale, are s~ffjGient
te aGGommosale the pr-epoged phae:es sevelopment and any sapaGily
Date Received: /1 ;2 b 0<;;
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-3
.
.
D.
requirefl'1ents of public faoililie& lans' . .
con&truction of off &ite impro"e~enIS,ana prevls.lons ar-e maao to aSSllr-e
. In COnjllnctlon with a schealllo of the ~h .
~ ~~..
e request shall previae aaeqllate .
futllr-e phase&; glllaance fer the aesign ana cooR:lination of
Physical fealllres, inclllaingblll not limited
geologls conaitions ar-ea& "'ith SllSC ""'I'tto steep slopes with unstable soil or
and sRFubs "'al' .. epl"ll y to flooding SigRifi 1 I
," erCOllrnes shown on the "'Oll^' ~ ' . can c llstern of tmes
areas, wetlaRds, rock olltcroppings and .. .. Aap and their a&&ociated riparian
archaeological significance as may be & o:ei~ spaces a~d areas of historis and/or
7130, 35l:l.Q05 Q55 and 3QQ.235 240 sha~ c ed In Seotlon 3.3 QOO or ORS Q7.740
In State or Feder-allaw; and be pr-etected as specified in this Code or
E.
F.
!he /\pproval J\uthority may attach reasona '
;~pacts as specifi~e iR this Code to ensure ~~~tt~cessary condition& to minimize negative
. e cntena of Section 5.13 125 aRe ma ' re . e pr-epo&ed development can fully meet
, .ddltlonally, the approval may ~ontain ) , qlllre guarantees to enSllre compliance
pro'lIs~ons of Section 5.13 120 includin an~ condlllon& necessary to implement the'
compliance review and the extent to .....~iCh ~~~e~Ulet of feet and c~arlles, a schedllle of
. a& er Plan IS a&&lgnable.
[ 6.13136 Modifisations to the Master Plan and 80hedllle
Applications for phase modification a ro"al ... . .
appro'Jod Master Plan shall not be d::me'd ..hIC: are m substantial confer:mity with an
~~~~~ ~anp~h~lIbe prece&sed under the a:p~:a~~:~t:~e~ the ~an. . Modification& to the
e an. llr-es escnbed below to
A.
Jate Received:
Planner: GK
B.
Modifications that do not affect th b . .
Master Plan and which ar-e not de~ aellG umlerlYln.g ~ssumplion& of the adopted
below &hallbe processed a& a m' er~lrJed to.e~ &Imllar to Sllbsection B. or C
InlS enal deCISion by the Direct .,
or.
Modifications that are significant, bllt do n .
assllmptlons of tRe appr-eved Master Plan ot affect the baSIC llnderlying
procedure. These modifications in I d ' &hallbo processed llnder Type II
c II e a request:
By the applicant fer a change of den&it . allo' ..
allowed in the applicable zoning die:trid' cation With In the den&ity r-ange
,
By t!:le applicant for a change to th r .
of looal streets; e a Ignment of nght of way r-eqlliroments
1.
2.
3.
By the applicant or City for a GRan .
facilities; €Ie to the sizes or 10Gation of public
1/ ;26 og
Attachment 4-4
.
.
4. By the applicant for a change of scheduleEl pRasing lleyond tRe appr-eved
time limit fer tRe phased development when the pr-eposeEl change affects
the construction of schedules pulllic improvements;
6. By the City llaseEl on tRe requirement to implement newly aEloptea State or
FeEler-a1 regulations;
S. By the applicant fer a one time extension of tRe approvea time limit fer up to
three years. The time line extension vJilllle granted I3roviElea the al3l3licant
has maae reasonallle I3r-egmss in the iml3lementation of tRe Master Plan
and pulllic services ana facilities remain availallle;
7. By the applicant to alter significant natur-al resourees. wetlanas. ol3en sl3ace
areas. archaeologic anEl histofic features lleyond the scol3e of the approve a
Master Plan; or
8. By the al3l3licant fer other modifications to the al3pro'/ed Master Plan that
the Dir-ector determines to lle similar to tRe moElifications sl3ecified in this
Sullsection.
C. Modifications which affect the underlying llasic assuml3tions of the al3l3ro'/ed
Master Plan or that pr-ehibit. restrict or significantly affect its iml3lementation shalllle
processed under the Tyl3e I11I3FaCedure. anEl induEle:
1. /I. Zoning Map amenElment or Discretionary Use application initiateEllly the
applicant;
2. A request fer the re alignment or r-e designation of arterial or collector
streets initiated lly the applicant;
3. The inability of the City or the apl3licant to provide essential pulllic
infr-astructure;
4. f. reque!)t by the City llased on the r-equir-ement to iml3lement ne.....ly
adopted State or FeEleral mgulations;
6. A reque!)t by the applicant for oxtension of the time limit of the Master Plan
lleyond the approved time limit specified in Sullsection B.8.. allo'/e or the
extension permitted in Section 5.1 J 1 J5. llut in no case shall the extension
eXGeed 15 years from the original Ma!)ter Plan approval date; or
S. Other changes to tho final approved Master Plan as reEluested lly the
al3plicant that tRe Director deteFfRines to lle similar to the modifications
sl3eGified in this Sullsection.
I 6.13140 ASSIlFaRSe to the t.pplieaRt
A.
.'\PPFa'/al of the Macter Plan shall acsure the applicant the right to l'lfilCeea .....ith
the development in sullGtantial confermity ....,ith the MaGter Plan. Gubject to any
modifications as may lle appro'/ea as specifies in Section 5.1 J 1 J5. Changes to
OrainanGes. policies and stanElaras aaepteEl after the Elate of al3proval of tAe
Master Plan shall net apply te tRe ae'lelopment.
Date Received: / / 2 b 08
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-5
.
.
B. Phase appr-ovals shall OCCllr threllgh the lanlllli'/ision re'/iew precess, as
specifies in Seclien 5.12100, or the Site Plan review precess, as specifies in
Sestion 5.17 100, as applicablo.
C. The Master Plan shall be the basis for the evalllatien of all phases of
se'IG/oprnent on any isslles 'Nhich it assresses. I'-ppreval of se'/elepment
phases will be grantes subjest to the terms anll consilions ef the Master Plan, bllt
subjest to the applicable De'/elopment Case provisions ans City Or-dinances an
isslles '....hich the Master Plan saes not assress.
D. ~Jotwithstansing the precesing pra'/ision, the City shall not be obligatell to provise
pllblic improvements attesting implementatien of the Master Plan if public funss
are not available.
E. The City shall not be requires to approve se'/elopment of any phase sescribes in
the Master Plan if the approval '/iolates applicable Fesersl or State statues or
asministrative rules.
F. The approved Master Plan shall be recorses at lane COllnty Deess ans Records
ans the original returnes to the City.]
Section 5.13-100 Master Plans
Subsections:
5.13-105 Puroose
5.13-110 Aoolicabilitv
5.13-115 Preliminary Master Plan - Review
5.13-116 Preliminary Master Plan - Aoolication Concurrencv
5.13-117 Preliminary Master Plan - NeiQhborhood MeetinQ
5.13-120 Preliminary Master Plan - Submittal Requirements
5.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan - Criteria
5.13-130 Preliminary Master Plan - Conditions
5.13-131 Final Master Plan - Review
5.13-132 Final Master Plan - Submittal Requirements
5.13-133 Final Master Plan - Criteria. Recordation and Effective Date
5.13-134 Final Master Plan - PhasinQ Imolementation
5.13-135 Final Master Plan - Modifications
5.13-140 Final Master Plan - Assurance to the Aoolicant and City
Disclaimers
Commentary. The additional, new commentaryltext is color coded as follows:
~ " Commentsltext by Satre/Farrington incorporated by staff in the October 1dh staff
report.
Yellow" Commentsltext by Satre/Farrington incorporated after the November 12
meeting in this staff report.
_ " Commentsltext by staff incorporated into this staff report.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-6
.
.
I 5.13-105 Purpose
Commentary. The "definition" of a Master Plan is clearer - the specific purpose is to
allow phasing of development over time.
A. A Master Plan allows phasinQ the development of a specific property over several
vears.
Commentary. The current purpose statements are revised to give them more
substance.
B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to:
):ommentaJ;X. The text "large scale" was deleted (Satre)
~. Facilitate tlie review of multl- hased" aevelopments mat are desired to :~
~eveloped for more than 3 vears and ensure that individual phases will be
coordinated with each other over the duration of the Final Master Plan~
2. Ensure that a full ranQe of public facilities and services are available or will
be provided for the proposed phased development and to plan the
extension of necessarv public infrastructure in a timely and efficient
manner:
J:;ommen~J:ll. The text "Established" was changed to "Determine" and "intensities" to
"square footage" (Satre)
Determine speCifiC land uses. a ranQe elf m'lnlinum tb maximum sQuarei
oota e of non-residential uses and a ran e of minimum to maximu .
l:lensities of residential uses the arran ement of uses and the location 0
bublic facilities and transportation systemsl
~Qm!T!.!ll!~!:Y.. The text was revised to define "impacts" (Satre)
e.
4.
5. Provide the propertv owner an opportunity for the concurrent review of
discretionarv land use decisions: and
6. Provide the property owner with the assurance needed over the 10nQ term
to plan for and execute the proposed development.
I 5.13-110 Applicabilitv
Commentary. The current SDC Master Plan review process implies there is a two-step
process, but is not specific. The proposed review process is formalized into two distinct
steps - the Preliminary Master Plan and the Final Master Plan.
Date Received: II ;2.6 og
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-7
.
.
A. Approval of a Master Plan is a two-step process that includes Preliminarv Master
Plan Approval and Final Master Plan Approval. This process applies when the
followinq criteria are met:
1. The propertv is under sinQle ownership: or if the property has multiple
owners. all owners of record consent in writinQ to the Master Plan review
process: and
Commentary. There is no change to the current 5 acre minimum, except that there may
be situations where a person owns less than 5 acres and desires more time to develop
than is currently allowed by the Site Plan Review process, which is 2 years, with up to a
one year extension. There is no change to the current maximum allowable time line of 7
years, unless an extension is requested and granted as discussed in Section 5. 13-135.
2 The property is 5 acres or qreater and the applicant desires development to
be phased over a period not to exceed 7 years. unless modified as
specified in Section 5.13.135.
EXCEPTION: The Director may allow an exception to the 5 acre minimum.
if the applicant requests phasinQ for more than 3 Years.
Commentary. Originally, the Master Plan process was adopted in the 1980's to apply to
Mountain Gate, a residential development. Most recent Master Plan applications have
involved either commercial or commerciallresidential mixed use. Subsection B. lists
proposed development options that may occur in a number of zones or mix of zones.
B. A Master Plan may include public. commercial. industrial or residential
development. or any combination thereof.
15.13-115 Preliminarv Master Plan - Review
Commentary. There is a change proposed for the level of review for a Preliminary
Master Plan. Currently, a Type 11/ procedure (Planning Commission review) is required
for all Master Plan applications. A Type /I procedure is proposed because the intent of
the Master Plan process is similar to a Site plan application, which is a Type /I review.
The difference between the two applications is that Site Plan approval is good for 2
years and the Master Plan approval is good for 7 years and the Site Plan Review
application requires more specific infonnation.
Commentary. When the Preliminary Master Plan may be raised from a Type /I to Type
11/ procedure is now specified (Satre).
A. The Preliminarv Master Plan shall be reviewed under Tvpe II procedure.
EXCEPTIONS: The Preliminarv Master Plan shall be reviewed under Tvpe III
procedure if:
1.
Durinq the Pre-Application Report process. the Director determines that the
/, 1lCosed development is:
~,.., 06
VCALC: i'~IVed:
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-8
.
.
a. Complex and/or
b. May haye potential impacts on public facilities. includina. but not
limited to ayailability and capacity. and/or other properties. includina.
but not limited to noise. and traffic: and/or
2. The applicant chooses to submit concurrent Type III procedure applications
as may be permitted in SDC 5.13-116. B.
B. Prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Master Plan application:
Commentary. The "Pre-Application Report" process is currently used to allow the
applicant to ask staff an unlimited number of questions regarding the proposed
development. No change is proposed regarding the use of this process.
1. A Pre-Application Report application. as specified in Section 5.1-120.B.. is
reauired prior to the formal submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan
application.
Commentary. A Master Plan is a complex application. Requiring the Pre-Submittal
Meeting application will allow staff to evaluate the Preliminary Master Plan application for
completeness, orior to formal submittal by the applicant and the start of the State-
mandated 120-day review time line.
2. A Pre-Submittal Meetina application. as specified in Section 5.1-120.C.. is
reauired prior to the formal submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan
application.
I 5.13-116 Preliminary Master Plan - Application Concurrency
Commentary. Currently, there is no prohibition on concurrent Metro Plan diagram
and/or text amendment applications, but past City practice has been that any required
Metro Plan diagram and/or text amendment application was approved prior to the
submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan application. The text in Subsection A., below
continues this past practice.
A. If the applicant reauires or proposes to chanae the Metro Plan diaaram and/or text.
the applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a Metro Plan diaQram and/or
text amendment prior to the submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan application.
The Metro Plan diaaram and/or text amendment may also reauire amendment of
an applicable refinement plan diaaram or Plan District Map.
B. The Preliminary Master Plan may be reviewed concurrently with other Type III
applications includina a Zonina Map amendment. Discretionary Use. Maior
Variance. or a Willamette Greenway deyelopment application.
Commentary. Currently, SDC Section 5. 13-105G. states: "The Planning Commission
shall approve the Master Plan prior to City approval of a related Subdivision or Site Plan
application. . .." This language now specifically refers to the "Final" Master Plan. There is
no change to the intent of this requirement.
Date Received: II .2, Of;;
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-9
.
.
~ommellliLf)!. The text "approval is granted" was changed to "approval is effective"
(Satre)
C. Subdivision andlor Site Plan applications that initiate the various phases of
proposed development shall not be submitted concurrently with the Preliminarv
Master Plan. These applications shall not be submitted until Final Master Plan
iioproval IS effective. as soecified in Section 5.13-133.
I 5.13-117 Preliminary Master Plan - Neighborhood Meeting
Commentary. During the Marcola Meadows Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map
amendment process, the applicant voluntarily provided notice and held a neighborhood
meeting to explain the proposed development. This undertaking helped educate
neighbors to the intent of the proposal prior to the public hearing process. This is now a
requirement for Master Plan applications because it allows the public to be involved in a
maior development while still in its early stages and complies with/utilizes State-wide
planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement.
~ommentarY.. The Neighborhood Meeting process was questioned. Additional language
was added based on Corvallis' regulations (Farrington)
I 5.13-120 Preliminary Master Plan - Submittal Reauirements
Commentary. The submittal requirements Section is updated to incorporate certain
aspects of the Site Plan Review application in order to provide more specificity to the
applicant.
CommentaDl. The basis for the detail required in these submittal requirements is found
is Section 5. 13-140A. 1.. which states: "The applicant is entitled to rely on land use
regulations in effect on the date the Master Plan application was submitted, in accordance
with ORS 227.178(3) for the 7 year approval time limit, with a single 3 year extension, or
as otherwise previously approved. " Staff needs to determine that the application of the
current standards will allow for approval of the Preliminary Master Plan application. In
addition, the terms: "Certified Planner" and "Civil Engineer' have been added to the design
team (Satre).
Date Received: /1 2b at;;
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-10
.
.
The Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications shall be prepared bva DesiQn Team
comprised. at a minimum. of a Certified Planndr. Architect. tivil EnQineel and
Landscape Architect. The applicant shall select a proiect coordinator. All related maps.
excludinQ vicinity and detail maps. shall be at the same scale. A Preliminary Master Plan
shall contain all of the elements necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable
provisions of this Code and shall include. but not be limited to:
A. General Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall submit Ii PrellmlnaJi!
f,t1aster Plan that includes affappHcabfe elementsdescnbedbelow and a narrative
oenerallv describinQ the purpose and operational characteristics of the proposed
development. The narrative shall include:
1. The existinQ Metro Plan desiQnation and zoninQ. Where the proposed
Master Plan site is within an overlay district. Plan District or Refinement
Plan the applicable additional standards shall also be addressed:
J::;_ommentanl. Previous Subsection 2. regarding "land uses" was deleted and the
remaining Subsections were renumbered (Satre).
2. The location and proposed number of residential units andlor square
footaQe of commercial. industrial andlor public uses:
3. The density or intensity of proposed uses. includinQ applicable Floor Area
Ratios WARs): and
4. The applicant shall attach:
~~qm!RentMil. The previous "250" feet" reference was changed in Subsections a. and b.
to "300 feet" (Satre/Farrington)
a. A map depictino existinQ zoninQ and land uses within MO feet of the
proposed Master Plan boundary:
b. A Vicinitv Map drawn to scale depictinQ existinQ bus stops. streets.
driveways. pedestrian connections. fire hydrants and other
transportationlfire access issues within 600 feel of the proposed
Master Plan site: and
c. A leQal description of the property within the proposed Master Plan
boundary.
B. A Site Assessment of the entire proposed Master Plan site that preciselv maps
and delineates the existino conditions on the site. Proposed modifications to
phvsical features shall be clearlv indicated. Information required for adiacent
properties may be Qeneralized to show the connections to phvsical features. A
Site Assessment shall contain the followinQ information. as applicable:
1. A full size map depictinQ the proposed Master Plan boundary too ether
with existinQ 10Uparcellines:
Date Received: II;le 08
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-11
.
.
2. The 1 OO-vear floodplain and floodwav boundaries on the proposed
Master Plan site. as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or
Letter of Map Revision:
3. The Time of Travel Zones. as specified in Section 3.3-200 and delineated
on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development
Services Department:
4. Phvsical features includina. but not limited to siQnificant clusters of trees
and shrubs. wetlands as specified in Section 4.3-117. rock outcroppinas
and watercourses shown on the Water Qualitv Limited Watercourse
(WLQW\ Map and their riparian areas on file in the Development Services
Department. In the latter case. the name. location. dimensions. direction
of flow and top of bank shall be depicted. If the proposed Master Plan
site is located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any WQLW or within
100 feet of the top of bank of any WQLW direct tributarv. a Riparian Area
Protection Report is reauired:
f;.9mml!otanl. The fof/owing text was questioned: "unstable soils and/or high water
table per Satre. Staff did not change - this language is found in current Sections 5. 12-
170F. 7. (Site Plan submittal requirements) and 5.17-1251.10 (Land Division submittal
requirements). This language has been in the SDC since 2002, with no known
complaints (Satre).
5. Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the
Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical report prepared bv a
licensed Geotechnical Enaineer shall be submitted concurrentlv if the
Soils Survey indicates the proposed Master Plan site has unstable soils
and/or a hiah water table: and
6. Existina elevations and contours.
I:~ommenfa!:l!. The fof/owing text was revised: "fill thresholds/contour intervals" per
Salre.
c.
D. A Stormwater Manaaement Plan diaaram which includes the stormwater
manaaement system for the entire proposed Master Plan site and any impacts
on adiacent properties. The plan shall contain the followina components:
Date Received: /1 'Jr; OQ;
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-12
.
.
1. Roof drainaae patterns and discharae locations;
2. Pervious and impervious area drainaae patterns:
3. The size and location of stormwater manaaement systems components.
includina but not limited to: drain lines. catch basins. dry wells andlor
detention ponds: stormwater aualitv measures: and natural drainaaewavs
to be retained andlor modified;
4. Existina and proposed elevations. site arades and contours; and
5. A stormwater manaaement system plan with supportina calculations and
documentation as specified in Section 4.3-110 shall be submitted
supportina the proposed system. The plan. calculations and
documentation shall be consistent with the EnGineerinG DesiGn Standards
and Procedures Manual.
E. A Wastewater Manaaement Plan with maps and a narrative depictina the
location and size of existinQ and proposed wastewater facilities with supportina
calculations and documentation consistent with the EnGineerinG DesiGn
Standards and Procedures Manual.
~~ommeDtan!. The following text was deleted: "with the proposed design option"
(Satre)
Utilities an Wit ma s an' a narrative e IC In e oca Ion an size 0,
existin and ro osed water electrical as and tele hone service' and th
ocation of existina and required traffic control devices, fire hYdrants. streef115'iilSl
power poles. transformers. neiQhborhood mailbox units and similar publid
facilitiesJ
Commentary. The Landscape Plan was "conceptual" in the October 7, 2008 draft. The
Landscape Plan can remain conceptual to help reduce development costs. The detailed
SDC landscape standards will be required to be addressed and met during the Site Plan
Review process.
G. A conceptual Landscape Plan with maps and a narrative illustratina proposed
landscapina for the entire proposed Master Plan site. includinQ. but not limited to:
where existina veaetation is proposed for preservation. especiallv riparian and
wetland areas and trees: installation of veaetative bufferina: street trees: aeneral
landscapina: and a percentaae ranae for the total amount of reauired open
space. broken down bv the type of open space, public and private. as applicable.
A conceptual Landscape Plan is more appropriate at the Master Plan level. A
detailed Landscape Plan will be required durina the Site Plan Review application
process reauired to implement the Final Master Plan.
Commentary. The need for an overall Site Plan and whether or not the Architectural
Plan should be made conceptual has been addressed in Subsection A., above. 1/" /' ot'"':
Date Received: /I.-<t:> -r;;
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-13
.
.
However, for the purpose of reducing applicant costs and to clarify which portions of the
Architectural Plan may be modified, the text has been revised. The detailed SOC design
standards will be required to be addressed and met during the Site Plan Review process.
(Satre/Farrington).
H. An Architectural Plan with maps. includino:
1. Buildino elevations. overall commercial. industrial or public floor area, the
number of dwellino units. buildino heioht. number of stories and the
buildino location or buildino mass of the primarY structure (as defined in
this Code):
2. Illustrative examples of applicable SDC desion standards and buildino
materials may be considered conceptual. In this case. this requirement. if
chanoed in the future. will not reouire Final Master Plan modification as
specified in Section 5.13-135: and a
3. Narrative. A narrative providino sufficient information to describe the
proposed Architectural Plan.
~.C)JJ1menJ"Q!. The need for a parking plan and/or for the level detail required is
discussed in the commentary at the beginning of this (Farrington). No revision has been
made to this Subsection.
I. A Parkino Plan and Parkino Study.
1. A ParkinQ Plan shall be submitted for all proposed development and shall
contain the followina information:
a. The location. dimensions and number of proposed parkinQ
spaces:
b. On-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation:
c. Access to streets. alleys and properties to be served. includino the
location and dimensions of existina and proposed driveways and
any existino driveways proposed to be closed:
J:;.o.rnme.n.tan!. The text was revised to require only the location and number of bicycle
spaces (Satre/Farrington).
a. The location of and number proposed bicycle spaces~
e. The amount of aross floor area applicable to the parkina
reauirements for the proposed use: and
f. The location and dimensions of off-street loadina areas. if any.
Co.mmentanl. The text "if necessary" was added (Farrington).
,.':H0 rieceived: /1 '.){, (jf)
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-14
.
.
2. A ParkinQ Study. for other than sinale familv developments. with maps
and a narrative depictina proiected parkina impacts. includina. but not
limited to: proiected peak parkina demand: an analvsis of peak demand
compared to. or use of. the proposed on-site and oft-site supplv: potential
impacts to the on-street parkina system and adiacent land uses: and
proposed mitiaation measures. If necessarVA
tommenta~. The need for an onsite lighting plan and/or for the level detail required is
discussed in the commentary at the beginning of/his Section. The text has been revised
to require the minimum information necessary. The terms "shading, glare have been
deleted (Farrington).
IJ. An On-site LiQhtina Plan depictina the location and maximum heiaht of all
~roposed exterior liaht fixtures. both free standina and attachedl
K. A Public Riaht-of-Wav/EasementlPublic Place Map depictina the reservation.
dedication. or use of the proposed Master Plan site for public purposes. includina.
but not limited to: riahts-of-wav showinQ the name and location of all existina and
proposed public and private streets within or on the boundarv of the proposed
Master Plan site. the riQht-of-wav and pavina dimensions. and the ownership and
maintenance status. if applicable. and the location. width and construction material
of all existina and proposed sidewalks: oedestrian access ways and trails:
proposed easements: existina easements: parks: open spaces. includina plazas:
transit facilities: and school sites.
j:~O_rnIRe!1Janl. The text was revised to delete "events" (Farrington).
L. A Traffic Impact Study. as specified in Section 4.2-105.AA. the scope of which
may be established bv the Public Works Director. The Traffic Impact Study shall
contain maps and a narrative depictina proiected transportation impacts.
includin but not limited to: he ex ected' number of vehicle tri s that mav'J!i3
enerated b the ro osed develo ment eak and dail an anal sis of the
impact of vehicle trips on the adjacent street system: and proposed mitiaation
measures to limit any proiected neQative impacts. MitiQatjon measures may
include improvements to the street system itself or specific proarams and
strateaies to reduce traffic impacts such as encouraaina the use of public transit.
carpools. vanpools. and other alternatives to sinale occupant vehicles.
!;;ommeotiinl. The text was revised to clarify if, when and by whom a financial
guarantee is required (Satre/Farrington).
M. A Phasina Plan. The PhasinQ Plan shall illustrate the proposed location of
buildinas. streets. utilities and landscapina. PhasinQ shall prOQress in a seauence
that provides street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates
other required public improvements such as wastewater facilities. stormwater
manaaement. electricitv and water. The Phasina Plan shall consist of maps and a
narrative with an overall schedule or description of on-loft-site phasjna includina.
but not limited to: the tvoe. location and timinQ of propOsed uses. buildina locations:
proposed public facilities includina on-loft-site streets and traffic sianals or other
traffic control devices and utilities with the desianation of construction and
Date Received: 1/ 26' os
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-15
.
.
N. Neiahborhood Meetina Summary. The applicant shall submit a summary of issues
raised at the neiahborhood meetina as specified in Section 5.13-117.
O. A COpy of all proposed and any existina coyenants. conditions. and restrictions
that may control development. if applicable.
P. Annexation. A aeneral schedule of proposed annexation consistent with the
phasina plan. if applicable.
a. The Director may reauire additional information necessary to evaluate the
proposed development. includina. but not limited to a:
t:~Qmmen.tiQ!. The text was revised to address when an ESEE analysis may be
required (Farrington).
1. ESEE analysIs as mav be needed to comply with Statewide PlanninaGOci1"'5]
Natural Resources for site attributes that may. not be on an adopted Cit~
InventorvJ
2. Wetland delineation approved by the Oreaon Department of State Lands
shall be submitted concurrently with the Preliminarv Master Plan application.
where there is a wetland on the proposed Master Plan site: and
3. Historical and/or archaeoloaical studies.
R. Any concurrent land use applications as specified in Subsections 5.13-1168.
15.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan - Criteria
Commentary. The Preliminary Master Plan approval criteria are clearer. For example,
criterion 5. 13-125 B. currently states: "The request, as conditioned, shall conform to
applicable Springfield Development Code requirements." This is too broad because it
refers to any SDC requirement. The following Subsections now connect specific aspects
of the proposed Preliminary Master Plan criteria to the applicable SDC Chapter and/or
Sections. The SDC defines "Approval Authority" as the Director, Hearings Official,
fJale R~l5m~~; CO"!!,istc;!; OC; ~ City Council.
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-16
.
.
A Preliminary Master Plan shall be approved. or approved with conditions. if the Approval
Authority finds that the proposal conforms with all of the applicable approval criteria.
Commentary. The current "Metro Plan diagram" reference is deleted because either the
applicant has recently applied for and obtained a Metro Plan diagram and/or text
amendment. and/or the "correct" designation is already in place. Therefore, there should
be no need to revisit Metro Plan policy as oart of the Master Plan review orocess.
A. Plan/Zone consistency. The existina or proposed zonina shall be consistent with
the Metro Plan diaaram and/or applicable text. In addition. the Preliminary Master
Plan shall be in compliance with applicable City Refinement Plan. Conceptual
Development Plan or Plan District standards. policies andlor diaaram and maps.
Commentary. This criterion specifically refers to "all applicable standards of the zoning
district" which include building height, setbacks, specific design standards. etc.
B. Zonina district standards. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be in compliance with
applicable standards of the specific zonina district and/or overlay district.
Commentary. This criterion specifically refers to the required Traffic Impact Analysis
from a transportation system capacity aspect in relation to proposed phases, in addition
to the transportation standards contained in SDC Chapter 4.
C. Transportation system capacity. With the addition of traffic from the proposed
development. there is either sufficient capacity in the City's existina transportation
system to accommodate the development proposed in all future phases or there
will be adeauate capacity by the time each phase of development is completed.
Adopted State and/or local mobility standards. as applicable. shall be used to
determine transportation system capacity. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also
comply with any conditions of approval from a Metro Plan diaaram andlor text
amendment reaardina transportation and all applicable transportation standards
specified in SDC Chapter 4.
Commentary. This criterion refers to current parking standards in SDC Chapter 4
Development Standards that apply to specific transportation issues.
D. Parkina. Parkina areas have been desianed to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid
conaestion: provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the property and to
nearby transit stops and public areas. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also
comply with all applicable vehicular and bicycle parkina standards specified in SDC
Chapter 4.
Commentary. This criterion refers to current ingress-egress standards in SDC Chapter
4 Development Standards that apply to specific transportation issues.
E. Inaress-earess. Inaress-earess points have been desianed to: facilitate traffic
safety and avoid conaestion: provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the
property and to adiacent residential areas. transit stops. neiahborhood activity
centers. and commercial. industrial and public areas: and minimize driveways on
arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable City and
Date Received: /I:JC oS'
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-17
.
.
State reaulations. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with all
applicable inaress/earess standards specified in SDC Chapter 4.
Commentary. This criterion refers to current standards in SDC Chapters 4 and 5 that
apply to specific utility issues.
F. Availability of public utilities. Existina public utilities. includina but not limited to.
water. electricity, wastewater facilities, and stormwater manaaement facilities
either have sufficient capacity to support the propOsed development in all future
phases adeauately. or there will be adeauate capacity available by the time each
phase of development is completed. The Public Works Director or appropriate
utility provider shall determine capacity issues. The Preliminary Master Plan shall
also comply with applicable utility standards specified in SDC Chapters 4 and 5.
Commentary. This criterion refers to current standards in SDC Chapter 4 Development
Standards that apply to specific physical feature issues.
G. Protection of physical features. Physical features. includina but not limited to
slopes 15 percent or areater with unstable soil or aeoloQic conditions, areas with
susceptibility to floodina, sianificant clusters of trees and shrubs. watercourses
shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses IWQLWl Map and their
associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppinas and open spaces and areas
of historic and/or archaeoloaical sianificance as may be soecified in Section 3.3-
900 or ORS 97.740-760. 358.905-955 and 390.235-240 shall be protected as
specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. The Preliminary Master Plan shall
also comply with applicable physical feature protection standards specified in SDC
Chapter 4.
Commentary. This criterion addresses a specific phasing issue that arose during the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan review process.
Commentarj,. The text was revised to address why a Phasing Plan would be required
(Farrington).
H. Pnaslna Plan. I he Pnaslna Plan snall'-demonslratelfiaflhe construction of
. e uired ublic facilities shall occur in a 10 ical se uence either in con'unction Wltfi
r rior to each hase or that there are a ro riate financial uarantees ~as
s ecified in Subsection 5.13-120M. loensure the. hased ublic facilities
nstruction will occurl
Commentary. Compatibifity and mitigation criteria are specifically addressed. The text
of Subsection J. "MitiGation of off-site imoacts. Potential off-site imoacts includinG, but
not limited to noise, shadinG, Glare, utifitv caoacitv and traffic, have been identified and
mitiGated. " was deleted because it is redundant. (Farrington).
I. Adiacent use protection. The proposed Preliminary Master Plan contains desian,
elements includina. but not limited to landscapina/screenina, parkinaltraffic
manaaement. and multi-modal transportation that limit and/or mitiQate identified
conflicts between the site and adiacent uses.
5.13-130 Prelimina
wate Received: ~
Planner: GK
Master Plan - Conditions
o
Attachment 4-18
.
.
Commentary. This text is similar to text in other SDC Sections.
l:;..QIDmentao.\. The text was revised to detete text "minimize identified on-site confticts
and impacts on surrounding areas raised during the pubtic hearing process as identified
by staff or this Code." (Satre/Farrington)
Irlie ApprovalAutlionty may attaCh conalt1ons as may be reasonaOly necessary to the
relimina Master Plan in order to ensure com liance with the a roval criteria i
Section 513-125 and with all other a Iicable rovisions of this Code. All condition
hall be satisfied prior to Final Master Plan approval. Certain conditions may reauire aij
adeauate financial auaranteein a form acceptable talhe..Citv to.ensure compliance!
15.13-131 Final Master Plan - Review
Commentary. Currently, there is no formalized "Final" Master Plan process; it's implied
by past practice. This Section estabtishes the "Final" Master ptan review process.
c.arnmenta!1l. The text was revised to require a Type /I Final Master Plan review only if
the Preliminary Master Plan was raised to and reviewed under Type /It procedure
(Farrington)
A.
B. A Pre-Submittal Meetina application. as specified in Section 5.1-120.C.. is reauired
prior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan application.
I 5.13-132 Final Master Plan - Submittal Reauirements
Commentary. Currently there is no time line for Final Master Plan submittal. The one
year time line is the same as the current Partition Plat submittal time line. Additionally,
there is a time line extension similar to the current Partition Plat submittal process
because of the complexity of most Master Plan applications. The Final Master Plan
submittal packet is also described.
C..Qmmlmla!1l. The text was revised to add these additional comments
(Satre/Farrington).
A. Wrthin one year of Preliminary Master Plan Approval. the applicant shall submit the
Final Master Plan. The Final Master Plan shall illustrate the location of proposed
buildinas. streets. utilities. parkina and landscape areas. The Final Master Plan
shall incorporate all Approval Authority conditions of approval. The Final Master
Plan application shall include:
1. A narrative that lists the conditions of approval. explains how each condition
is met and references the applicable Preliminary Master Plan maps.
diaarams or plan sheets that teauire revisior\
Date Received: II :2(; OS
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-19
.
.
2. The soecific maps, diaQrams, plan sheets or other documents have been
revised lirialoTdemonstrate 'cimformanee, with the PreliminarY MasterPlan
,5pproval and
3. Anv other information that may be required by the Director.
EXCEPTION: The applicant may request an extension of the Final Master Plan
submittal for u to one additional ear, The a Iicant shall submit the re uest 0
he"eXtenslo in writin to the Director no later than a s' /-Ior tci"the ex-il-atio
bf the Preliminarv Master Plan efTe6tIve.-aate. The applicant shall explain why the
request is necessary and demonstrate how the Final Master Plan application will be
submitted within the requested extension time line. The Director may Qrant or
amend the extension request upon determininQ that the applicant is makinQ
prOQress on the Final Master Plan application.
Commentary. Requiring the Pre-Submittal Meeting application will allow staff to
evaluate the Final Master Plan application for completeness, prior to formal submittal by
the applicant.
B. A Pre-Submittal MeetinQ application, as specified in Section 5.1-120.C.. is required
prior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan application.
I 5.13-133 Final Master Plan Criteria. Recordation and Effective Date
Commentary. There are two criteria for Final Master Plan approval.
A. Criteria. The Approval Authority shall Qrant Final Master Plan approval upon findinQ
that:
1. The Final Master Plan substantially conforms to the provisions of the
Preliminarv Master Plan approval: and
2. All approval conditions have been met or can be Quaranteed to be met.
Commentary. Staff is aware of the cost and difficulty of recording the Final Master Plan
as the regulations are currently written. The recordation of a Memorandum of Final
Master Plan approval will reduce costs to the applicant.
tommentanl. The text was revised to read "all other applicable documents" as a
clarification. There may be times when a deed restriction or other separate conditioned
documents are required to be recorded at the same time as the Memorandum of Final
Master Plan approval (Farrington).
B.
Recordation. The applicant shall record a Memorandum of Final Master Plan
Approval in a format approved by the City Attomey and any other required
documents at Lane Coun Deeds and Records and retum a recorded co of the
Memorandum of Final Master Plan A roval nd an oiher a Iicable document to
the Development Services Department.
C.
Effective Date,
/1 ;:2f, (] 0
..;aie rteceived:
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-20
.
.
Commentan!. The text was revised to clarify "effective date", not "approval date" (Satre)
1. Final Master Plan approval is effective on the date of recordation ~
Memorandum of EinafMaslerpranA"'DiJr'CiV<.ll the effective date. for not
more than 7 years, unless modified as specified in Section 5.13-135.
Commentary. Currently, there is no language regarding an "end time" for Final Master
Plan approval.
2. The Final Master Plan remains in effect until the oermitted development has
been constructed or the plan is modified. superseded or expires.
c.ommentar.v. The text was revised to state that notice of the Final Master Plan effective
date will be mailed to the applicant (Satre).
D. Once the Final Master Plan effective date is established. all persons and parties.
and their successors. heirs or assiQns, who have or will have any interest in the
real property within the Final Master Plan boundary. shall be bound by the terms
and conditions of approval of the Final Master Plan and the provisions of this
Section. Notice of the Finai Master Plan effecTIVe date will be mailed t6- the
applicantl
15.13-134 Final Master Plan - PhasinQ Implementation
~ommenta!:Y. This Subsection clarifies when a Site Plan Review or Subdivision
application can be submitted to implement Master Plan phasing (Satre).
No Subdivision andlor Site Plan Review applications (pliaslnQ Implementatlort\
Shall be submitted until the Memorandum of Final Master Plan has been recorded
leffective date l and returned to the City~
A.
b.
Commentary. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application is currently required for all
Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications. This is not another layer of staff review.
However, it is necessary to determine Master Plan compliance and which Master Plan
conditions of approval apply to a particular development phase. Not all approval
conditions may apply to a particular phase.
C. I he approved Final Master Plan ana all applicatile conaltions of approval shall tiEl
addressed for each Subdivision andlor Site Plan Review application (phasinq
(mplementationl as part of application completeness durina the Pre-Submittal
Meetina application process. soecified in Section 5.1-120.cl
I 5.13-135 Final Master Plan - Modifications
Commentary. This Section specifically states that modifications are made to the "Final"
Master Plan. The current review categories remain, but the level of review is changed
from Type II/III to the proposed Type 1/11 because the "basic underlyingassumptionsj"
Date ReceiYed: j;J.{; 09
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-21
.
.
category has been deleted. Additionally, the permitted Master Plan amendments are now
limited to those listed below in order to reduce the number of modification applications. If
an applicant requests a modification of an item that is not listed, then a new Master Plan
application would be required. Finally, Subsection D. is added to list those modifications
for which no planning review is required.
Commentary. Also see the discussion under Section 5.13-140.
A proposed Final Master Plan modification, or a proposed modification to a Master Plan
approved prior to the effective date of this reaulation, shall be processed under the
applicable procedures described below:
A. The followina modifications to a Final Master Plan shall be processed under Type I
procedure. These modifications include a reauest:
Commentary. As part of this additional review, staff is reevaluating all of the current and
proposed Final Master Plan modification categories.
CQmmentaQl. The text has been revised because it affects only the timing of a
particular a phase that does not involve the construction of public improvements
(Farrington) (see also B.8., below.
1.
2. By the City based on the reauirement to implement newly adopted State or
Federal reaulations: or
!::J~!l1mentil.n!. The text has been revised to read: "as determined by the Director to
clarify "reasonable progress" and "to serve the site" clarifies "public services and public
facilities." (Satre).
3.
. revised text, however, the 10 percent threshold remains and those
categories that require the 10 percent standard in Subsection B., below will be processed
as a Type I procedure (Staff/Farrington).
Commentary. This Subsection is based upon current text and adds specific thresholds
in certain situations. The level of review is reduced to a Type /I or Type 11/ procedure to
be consistent with the level of review for the Preliminary Master Plan application.
,.Jone ,-{eceived: I/:J.h (j ~
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-22
.
.
Comm~. This Subsection is revised to address question "potential impacts"/"other
properties (text deleted) and PC comments regarding "complexity" as unclear language
(Farrington/Planning Commission.
B. The followinQ modifications to the Final Master Plan shall be processed under Tvpe
II procedure. unless the Director determines that the proposed modification should
be reviewed as a Tvpe III procedure for reasons includinQ. but not limited to the
izeofthe Ma rPlan site' or The --iitential im a on ad' acent ro rties and/OP.
nfra tructure These modifications include a re uest:
Commentary. The text has been revised to address the "density allocation" issue
(Satre/Farrington).
1. Bv the applicant if a proposed permitted non-residential use for example. a
church or a school. affects the approved Final Master Plan residential
density:
Cj)mrn~r:Y. The text was revised to delete the term "building footprints". This
Subsection addresses the 10 percent threshold that has been discussed above because
this topic may have an impact on neighboring properties (Satre/Farrington).
3. Bv the applicant for increases or decreases in the amount of approved or
required parkinQ bv a factor of 10 percent or Qreater. The applicant shall
provide a new parkinQ analvsis related to the proposal:
4. Bv the applicant for a ZoninQ Map amendment or Discretionary Use
application:
i::Omme.ntanl. The text was not revised because it addresses the 10 percent threshold
that has been discussed above because this topic may require a new Traffic Impact
analysis which may reveal potential impacts on neighboring properties (Farrington).
5. Bv the applicant for proposals that would increase the number of PM peak-
hour vehicular trips bv 10 percent or Qreater. except in cases where a trip
caP has been imposed on development of the property. Where such a trip
cap is in effect. a modification of the land use decision that imposed the trip
cap shall be required. In all cases. the applicant shall provide a Traffic
Impact Analvsis supportinQ the proposal:
Comm.~. This Subsection was not included in the 10/07 draft and is based on
current street modification language, but utilizes the 10 percent threshold that has been
discussed above. The term "realign" has been deleted (Farrington).
6. I::lvthe a Ilcan! to altertfie lacemenfoflntenor streets 0 10 rcent or
j:lreater from their approved location. as 10nQ as the modification maintain
the connectivity established by the approved F.:inal Maste[ eanl
Date Received: II :J.b' Ofi
Planner; GK
Attachment 4-23
.
.
7. Bv the City or the aoolicant when essential oublic infrastructure cannot be
orovided:
t:.ommentinl. This Subsection has been added to address a previous comment on
phasing under Type I procedure, above (Farrington).
8. Bv the aoolicant \0 modifY'ihetVIasterPlan ohaslnq sctieOUlefor a specifi~
Phase'of develoDmen1 when the orooosed chanqe affects the construction
of scheduled oublic imorovements:
9. Bv the aoolicant for extension of the Final Master Plan time limit beyond the
maximum aooroved time limit of 7 years or the extension permitted in
Subsection B.3.. above. In no case shall the extension exceed 15 years
from the date of Final Master Plan aooroval as soecified in Subsection 5.13-
133.C. An extension request shall be filed in writinq with the Director at
least 60 days orior to the exoiration of the initial 7 year oeriod or any
subseauentlv aooroved extensions. The time line extension will be qranted
orovided the aoolicant has made reasonable oroqress in the
imolementation of the Final Master Plan and oublic services and facilities
remain available:
10. Bv the aoolicant for a chanae to the aooroved Final Master Plan boundary.
C. Prooosed Final Master Plan modifications other than those described in
Subsections A. and B.. above. shall reauire the submittal of a new Preliminary
Master Plan aoolication.
D. The followina modifications to the Final Master Plan do not reauire subseauent land
use review and are allowed uoon issuance of a buildina oermit. if reauired:
1. Buildina interior imorovements:
2. Exterior imorovements associated with existinq buildinas that do not involve
a chanae in floor area. subiect to all aoolicable base zone develooment and
desian standards and relevant conditions of aooroval as aooroved in the
Final Master Plan:
3. Installation of new mechanical or electrical eauioment. or modification of
existina eauioment. subiect to all aoolicable base zone develooment and
desian standards and relevant conditions of aooroval as aooroved in the
Final Master Plan:
4. Routine maintenance of existinq buildinas. facilities and landscaoina: and/or
E. A Pre-Submittal Meetina aoolication. as soecified in Section 5.1-120.C.. is reauired
orior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan modification aoolication.
Commentary. Criteria are established for modifications.
F. For all Final Master Plan modification aoolications described in Subsections A and
B above the a licant shall demonstrate com Iiance with the followin :
uate Received: I 0
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-24
.
.
1. Any applicable Preliminary Master Plan criteria of approval specified in
Section 5.13-125; and
2. Any other applicable standard of this Code that may be required to iustify
the proposed modification.
Commentary. This Subsection adds specific situations where additional Planning
review of Final Master Plan modifications is not necessary.
G. The Master Plan procedures in Appendix 3 of this Code reQardinQ Master Plan
Modifications andlor new Master Plans shall apply to properties within the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan District. Section 3.4-200. until these reQulations are
updated.
I 5.13-140 Final Master Plan - Assurance to the Applicant and City Disclaimers
Commentary. The specific intent of this assurance is to protect the applicant from "new"
development standards for the first 7 year time line granted upon Final Master Plan
approval and one 3 year extension for a total of 10 years. Final Master Plan time line
extensions that are more than 10 years, and up to the 15 year maximum would be under
regulations in effect at the time of submittal of this additional time line extension.
A. Assurances to the applicant:
COffilllilntaQ!. The text has been revised to add "or as otherwise previously approved"
to assure applicants of previously approved Master Plans that their approvals are vested
for the timelines established as approved.
Commentary. A question arose regarding the appropriate review regulations for existing
Master Plan applications approved prior to the adoption of this proposed amendment
regarding Section 5. 13-135 Modifications. The current text has no specific criteria but
refers to "basic underlying assumptions", which was deleted because it is vague. Staff
has proposed specific criteria of approval in Section 5. 13-135F1. and 2.:. "Any applicable
Preliminary Master Plan criteria of approval specified in Section 5. 13-125; and Any other
applicable standard of this Code that may be required to justify the proposed
modification. " Staff contends that the portion of Section 5. 13-135 that lists the categories
of Final Master Plan have had the review procedure reduced from a Type /I and III to a
Type I and /I and have been made clearer by adding 10 percent thresholds, in some
cases, but do not substantially differ from those listed in the current text. In addition, the
proposed specific review criteria are the clarification of a common practice - addressing
the Preliminary Master Plan criteria of approval and any applicable SOC standards.
(Farrington).
1. The applicant is entitled to rely on standards and criteria in effect on the
date the Master Plan application was submitted. in accordance with ORS
227. 178(3)(a) for the 7 year approval time limit. with a sinQle 3 year
extension. br as otherwise.previouslv aporoved.
EXCEPTION: Any time line extension proposed for more than a combined
total of 10 years shall comply with land use reQulations in effect at the time
Date Received: JI;;l h 66
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-25
.
.
of the time line extension application submittal specified in Subsection 5.13-
135.C.10.
2. The applicant shall have the riaht to proceed with development as lona as it
is in substantial compliance with the Final Master Plan and other reauired
approvals and permits. subiect to any modifications as may be approved as
specified in Section 5.13-135.
Commentary. These Subsections appear in other Sections of the current SOC.
B. City Disclaimers:
1. The City shall not be reauired to approve development of any phase
described in the Final Master Plan if the approval violates applicable
Federal or State statues or administrative rules.
2. The City shall not be obliaated to provide public improvements affectina
implementation of the Final Master Plan if public funds are not available.
Commentary. Currently. SDC Section 3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Plan District utilizes the
Master Plan if an applicant desires to modify development standards. The Glenwood
Refinement Plan Update Project is now underway and will include a review of the Plan District
development standard and the process for modifying those standards. These standards will
remain in effect to be utilized in the Plan District until such time the Plan District is amended.
These standards will be placed in SDC Appendix 3 and will be deleted upon the adoption of any
amendment of the Plan District.
Appendix 3
For use with SDC Section 3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Plan District until amended
Section 5.13-100 Master Plans
Subsections:
5.13-105
5.13-110
5.13-115
5.13-120
5.13-125
5.13-130
5.13-135
5.13-140
Puroose
Aoolicabilitv
Review
Submittal Reauirements
Criteria
Conditions
Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule
Assurance to the Aoolicant
[ 5.13-105
Puroose
A. A Master Plan is a comorehensive plan that allows phasino of a specific
. ad development area over several years for public. commercial. industrial or
Date Recelv :
Planner: GK /1.:2 -6 (J~
Attachment 4-26
.
.
residential development. A Master Plan. in this context. is specific to this Code
and is not considered to be a refinement plan or any other similar subset of the
Metro Plan. By addressinQ public service impacts and development reQuirements
at the time of approval of Master Plan. these impacts and reQuirements need not
be readdressed at subseQuent phases and the developer may rely on the Master
Plan approval in implementinQ the development.
B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to:
1. Provide preliminary approval for the entire development area in relation to
land uses. a ranQe of minimum to maximum potential intensities and
densities. arranQement of uses. and the location of public facilities and
transportation systems when a development area is proposed to be
developed in phases;
2. Assure that individual phases of a development will be coordinated with
each other:
3. Provide the applicant an assurance of the City's expectation for the
overall development as a basis for detailed planninQ and investment by
the developer.
C. The PlanninQ Commission shall approve the Master Plan prior to City approval of
a related Subdivision or Site Plan application; however. the Master Plan may be
reviewed concurrently with a ZoninQ Map amendment. Discretionary Use.
Variance andlor any other application or approval SOUQht by the applicant related
to the Master Plan.
D. Subiect to prior approval of a Master Plan. a separate Subdivision or Site Plan
application shall be approved for each phase. The Master Plan shall be the basis
for the evaluation of all phases of development on any issues that it addresses.
Phases may be combined for consideration.
E. Approval of a Master Plan is effective for UP to 7 years: however the approved
Master Plan time limit may be extended pursuant to Section 5.13-135.
Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule.
15.13-110
Applicabilitv
The Master Plan process applies when initiated by an applicant when the followinQ
criteria are met:
A. The development area is under 1 ownership; or
Date Received: /1:26' 0'8
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-27
, .
.
.
B. If the development area has multiple owners. then all owners of record have
consented in writina to the Master Plan review process: and
C. The development area is 5 acres or areater:
D. Notwithstandina the foreaoina. the Director may determine that the proposed
development is inappropriate as a Master Plan and the application will not be
accepted.
15.13-115
Review
A. Master Plans are reviewed under Type III procedure. unless the Director
determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type IV decision by the
City Council due to the complexity of the application.
B. A Pre-Application Report application as specified in Section 5.1-100 is reauired
prior to submittal of a Master Plan application.
15.13-120
Submittal Reauirements
A Master Plan shall contain all of the elements prepared in a clear and leaible manner
necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this Code are beina fulfilled and shall
include but not be limited to the followina:
A. The existina Metro Plan desianation and zone classification.
B. A vicinity map drawn to scale on a street base map.
C. A leaal description of the property toaether with a map drawn to scale depictina
the leaal boundaries of the subiect property.
D. A topoaraphy map and narrative depictina present uses of the land. existina
structures. streets. sianificant veaetation. wetlands. drainaae ways and other
relevant natural and man-made features.
E. A site plan showina location and type of all land uses proposed. approximate
acreaQe and approximate number of units or sauare footaae of uses. adiacent
property uses and relevant features.
F. The density or intensity of proposed uses.
G. The maximum heiaht and size of proposed structures.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
/1 :Jt og
Attachment 4-28
.
.
H. A public facilities plan showinQ existinQ and proposed streets, utilities. sanitarv
sewer. natural and piped storm drainaQe svstem. water service. bike and
pedestrian wavs and transit locations.
I. Maps and narrative showinQ off-site public improvements necessarv to serve the
proposed development and/or to mitiQate impacts to adiacent propertv or public
facilities.
J. The Director mav require additional information necessarv to evaluate the
proposed development. includinQ, but not limited to: an ESEE analvsis. QeoloQV.
soils. stormwater. sanitarv. tree preservation. historical. archaeoloQical. and
traffic impact. All related maps. excludinQ vicinitv and detail maps. shall be at the
same scale.
K. Provisions. if anv. for reservation, dedication. or use of land for public purposes,
includinQ. but not limited to: riQhts-of-wav. easements, parks, open spaces. and
school sites.
L. An overall schedule or description of phasinQ: and the development to occur in
each phase. If phasinQ alternatives are contemplated. these alternatives shall be
described.
M. Where off-site or other infrastructure improvements are required. the applicant
shall specify the timinQ and method of securinQ the improvement. includinQ bond.
letter of credit. ioint deposit or other securitv satisfactory for said improvement
construction.
N. DesiQnation of responsibilitv for providinQ infrastructure and services.
O. A Qeneral schedule of annexation consistent with the phasinQ plan. if applicable.
15.13-125
Criteria
A Master Plan mav be approved if the PlanninQ Commission finds that the proposal
conforms with all of the followinQ approval criteria. In the event of a conflict with approval
criteria in this Subsection. the more specific requirements applv:
A. The zoninQ of the propertv shall be consistent with the Metro Plan diaQram
and/or applicable Refinement Plan diaQram. Plan District map, and Conceptual
Development Plan:
B. The request, as conditioned, shall conform to applicable SprinQfield Development
Code requirements, Metro Plan policies, Refinement Plan, Plan District, and
Conceptual Development Plan policies:
Date Received: 11:26"0'<3
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-29
. .
.
.
C. Proposed on-site and off-site improvements. both public and private. are
sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity
reauirements of public facilities plans: and provisions are made to assure .
construction of off-site improvements in coni unction with a schedule of the
phasina:
D. The reauest shall provide adeauate auidance for the desian and coordination of
future phases:
E. Physical features. includina. but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or
aeoloaic conditions: areas with susceptibility of f1oodina: sianificant clusters of
trees and shrubs: watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated
riparian areas: other riparian areas and wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117:
rock outcroppinas: open spaces: and areas of historic and/or archaeoloaical
siqnificance. as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760.
358.905-955 and 390.235-240. shall be protected as specified in this Code or in
State or Federal law:
F. Local public facilities plans and local street plans shall not be adversely impacted
by the proposed development.
15.13-130
Conditions
The Approval Authority may attach reasonably necessarY conditions to minimize
neaative impacts as specified in this Code to ensure that the proposed development can
fully meet the criteria of Section 5.13-125. and may reauire auarantees to ensure
compliance. Additionally. the approval may contain any conditions necessarY to
implement the provisions of Section 5.13-120 includina a schedule of fees and charaes.
a schedule of compliance review and the extent to which the Master Plan is assianable.
15.13-135
Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule
Applications for phase modification approval which are in substantial conformity with an
approved Master Plan shall not be deemed a modification of the plan. Modifications to
the Master Plan shall be processed under the applicable procedures described below to
amend the Plan:
A. Modifications that do not affect the basic underlyina assumptions of the adopted
Master Plan and which are not determined to be similar to Subsection B. or C..
below shall be processed as a ministerial decision by the Director.
B. Modifications that are sianificant. but do not affect the basic underlyina
assumptions of the approved Master Plan. shall be processed under Type II
procedure. These modifications include a reauest:
Date Received: / I U O~
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-30
. .
.
.
1. By the applicant for a chanoe of density allocation with in the density
ranoe allowed in the applicable zonino district:
2. By the applicant for a chanoe to the alionment of rioht-of-way
reauirements of local streets:
3. By the applicant or City for a chanae to the sizes or location of public
facilities:
4. By the applicant for a chanae of scheduled phasina beyond the approved
time limit for the phased development when the proposed chanae affects
the construction of scheduled public improvements:
5. By the Citv based on the reauirement to implement newlv adopted State
or Federal reaulations:
6. Bv the applicant for a 1-time extension of the approved time limit for UP to
3 years. The time line extension will be aranted provided the applicant
has made reasonable proaress in the implementation of the Master Plan
and public services and facilities remain available:
7. By the applicant to alter sianificant natural resources. wetlands. open
space areas. archaeoloaic and historic features beyond the scope of the
approved Master Plan: or
8. By the applicant for other modifications to the approved Master Plan that
the Director determines to be similar to the modifications specified in this
Subsection.
C. Modifications which affect the underlyina basic assumptions of the approved
Master Plan or that prohibit. restrict or sianificantly affect its implementation shall
be processed under the Type III procedure. and include:
1. A Zonino Map amendment or Discretionarv Use application initiated by
the applicant:
2. A reauest for the re-alianment or re-desianation of arterial or collector
streets initiated by the applicant:
3. The inability of the City or the applicant to proYide essential public
infrastructure:
4. A reauest by the City based on the reauirement to implement newly
adopted State or Federal reaulations:
Date Received: /1 ;)609
Planner. GK
Attachment 4-31
. .
.
.
5.
A reguest by the applicant for extension of the time limit of the Master
Plan beyond the approved time limit specified in Subsection B.6.. above
or the extension permitted in Section 5.13-135. but in no case shall the
extension exceed 15 years from the original Master Plan approval date:
or
6.
Other changes to the final approved Master Plan as reguested by the
applicant that the Director determines to be similar to the modifications
specified in this Subsection.
15.13-140
Assurance to the Applicant
A. Approval of the Master Plan shall assure the applicant the right to proceed with
the development in substantial conformity with the Master Plan. subiect to any
modifications as may be approved as specified in Section 5.13-135. Changes to
Ordinances. policies and standards adopted after the date of approval of the
Master Plan shall not apply to the development.
B. Phase approvals shall occur through the land division review process. as
specified in Section 5.12-100. or the Site Plan review process. as specified in
Section 5.17-100. as applicable.
C. The Master Plan shall be the basis for the evaluation of all phases of
development on any issues which it addresses. Approval of development phases
will be granted subiect to the terms and conditions of the Master Plan. but subiect
to the applicable Development Code provisions and City Ordinances on issues
which the Master Plan does not address.
D. Notwithstanding the precedino provision. the Citv shall not be oblioated to
provide public improvements affecting implementation of the Master Plan if public
funds are not available.
E. The City shall not be reguired to approve development of any phase described in
the Master Plan if the approval violates applicable Federal or State statues or
administrative rules.
F. The approved Master Plan shall be recorded at Lane County Deeds and Records
and the original returned to the City.
Date Received: J/:;26 (j~
Planner: GK
Attachment 4-32
. . "
.
.
ATTACHMENT 5
SDC SECTION 3.3-200 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commentary.. The amendment to the Drinking Water Overlay District is primarily
necessitated by the recently adopted Springfield Fire Code which supersedes the current
Uniform Fire Code. This requires amending the appropriate Fire Code references specified
in this Section. In addition to the specific Fire Code references, there are several instances
where text is added from the current Uniform Fire Code because the Springfield Fire Code
does not have any requirements equivalent to the inspection and record-keeping
requirements (see Sections 3.3-235A. 7., B.7., and C.5.).. This is necessary in order to
preserve the existing inspection and record-keeping requirement for drinking water
protection. The inserted text does not represent a policy change since these requirements in
the Uniform Fire Code have been and continue to be the standard used for drinking water
protection. Also, the phrase "hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater" is
changed to "hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater. n (See Sections
3.3-205 through 3.3-225 and 3.3-235) because while the SDC defines hazardous materials
according to Fire Code definitions, some materials that pose a risk to groundwater (e.g.,
certain pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) may not currently be regulated by this Section. This
amendment is considered to be a clarification of current practice. Only those specific
Sections being amended are listed below.
Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District
I 3.3-205 Purpose
A. The Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District is established to protect
aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination.
This Section establishes procedures and standards for the physical use of
hazardous or other materials harmful to groundwater within TOTl by new and
existing land uses requiring development approval. The provisions of this Section
are designed to:
1. Protect the City's drinking water supply which is obtained from
groundwater resources from impacts by facilities that store, handle, treat,
use, produce, or otherwise have on premises substances that pose a
hazard to groundwater quality; and
2. Provide standards for hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater within the TOTl.
B. In order to accomplish this purpose, the DWP Overlay District includes methods
and provisions to:
1. Restrict or prohibit the use of hazardous or other materials which are
potential groundwater contaminants;
2. Set standards for the storage, use, handling, treatment, and production of
hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater within
TOTl; and
Date Received: II;).b 08
Planner: GK
Attachment 5-1
. , . .
.
.
3. Review new or expanded uses of hazardous or other materials that pose
a risk to groundwater.
I 3.3-220 Time of Travel Zones
A. The DWP Overlay District includes 4 TOTZ: 0-1 year; 1-5 years; 5-10 years; and
10-20 years. The locations of the TOTZ for each wellhead are shown on Drinking
Water Protection Area Maps on file with the City's Development Services, Public
Works, and Fire and Life Safety Departments; and Springfield Utility Board (SUB)
and Rainbow Water District (RWD).
B. The areas within specified wellhead TOTZ are those drinking water protection
areas certified by the Oregon Health Division, under the Oregon Administrative
Rules that apply to Oregon's EPA-approved Drinking Water Protection Program,
in Oregon Health Division Delineation Certification #0002R, March 18, 1999.
C. In determining the location of a property within a TOTZ, the following criteria
apply:
1. The Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation maps shall be
used as a base map with the addition of TOTZ boundaries.
2. That portion of a tax lot that lies within a TOTZ is governed by the
restrictions applicable to that TOTZ.
3. Tax lots having parts lying within more than one TOTZ are governed by
the standards of the more restrictive TOTZ.
EXCEPTION: The Director may waive the requirement that the more
restrictive standards apply when all of the following apply:
a. Storage, use, handling, treatment, and/or production of hazardous
or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater will not take
place within the portion of the tax lot having the more restrictive
TOTZ standards; and
b. Storage, use, handling, treatment, and/or production of hazardous
or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater will not take
place within 50 feet of the portion of the tax lot having more
restrictive TOTZ standards; and
c. The tax lot is 20,000 square feet or larger.
4. A property owner may request the TOTZ be modified by submitting a
Zone Change application to the City. Any request for modification of the
TOTZ shall be accompanied by certification of the TOTZ as proposed to
be modified by the Oregon Health Division, under the Administrative
Rules that apply to Oregon's EPA-approved Drinking Water Protection
Program.
Date Received: / / :;; 6 6 <6
. Planner: GK
Attachment 5-2
, . , .
.
.
I 3.3-225 Review
A. A DWP Overlay District Development Application is required when the criteria of
both Subsections A.1. and 2., below are met:
1. A site is affected by one of the following:
a. There is a change of land use, occupancy or tenancy of a
property, including, but not limited to: a change from vacant to
occupied; or
b. During the Building Permit process; or
c. In conjunction with any development application, including, but not
limited to: Site Plan review and Minimum Development Standards.
2. The action in Subsection A.1., above will:
a. Affect the storage, use, and/or production of hazardous or other
materials that pose a risk to groundwater; or
b. Increase the quantity of hazardous or other materials that pose a
risk to groundwater that are stored, used and/or produced.
B. Prior to the submittal of a DWP Overlay District Development Application, an
exemption request may be submitted to the Director as specified in Section 3.3-
230B.1.
C. DWP Overlay District applications shall be reviewed under Type I procedures.
D. Prior to undertaking an activity covered by Section 3.3-225 A., the owner or
tenant shall submit a DWP Overlay District Application to the City for review and
approval. Applications shall include the following information:
1. A Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and a Material Safety Data
Sheet for any or all materials entered in the Statement unless exempted
under Section 3.3-230. Hazardous material weights shall be converted to
volume measurement for purposes of determining amounts - 10 pounds
shall be considered equal to one gallon as specified in [Uniform FiFe Code
8001.15.1] SorinQfield Fire Code 2703.1.2.;
. 2. A list of the chemicals to be monitored through the analysis of
groundwater samples and a monitoring schedule if ground water
monitoring is anticipated to be required;
3. A detailed description of the activities conducted at the facility that involve
the storage, handling, treatment, use or production of hazardous
materials in quantities greater than the maximum allowable amounts as
stated in Section 3.3-235 A.;
[;;0:,'2. q~ceived:
Planner: GK
/( % O~
Attachment 5-3
.
.
4. A description of the primary and any secondary containment devices
proposed, and, if applicable, clearly identified as to whether the devices
will drain to the storm or sanitary sewer;
5. A proposed Hazardous Material Management Plan for the facility that
indicates procedures to be followed to prevent, control, collect and
dispose of any unauthorized release of a hazardous material;
6. A description of the procedures for inspection and maintenance of
containment devices and emergency equipment;
7. A description of the plan for disposition of unused hazardous materials or
hazardous material waste products over the maximum allowable amounts
including the type of transportation, and proposed routes.
E. For those development proposals requiring Site Plan Review (Section 5.17-100)
or Minimum Development Standards review (Section 5.15-100), applications may
be submitted concurrently.
F. The Director shall review the application and make a decision based on the
standards contained in Section 3.3-235, after consulting with the Building Official,
Fire Marshall, Public Works Director, and the managers of SUB and RWD, as
appropriate.
I 3.3-235 Standards for Hazardous Materials within Time of Travel Zones
Applications shall comply with the following standards. Where the following standards are more
restrictive than the standards of the [UnifeFm] Sorinofield Fire Code, the following standards
apply:
A. 0 -1 year TOTZ Standards.
1. Within the 0-1 year TOTZ, hazardous materials that pose a risk to
groundwater may be stored in aggregate quantities of no more than 500
gallons if in original containers not exceeding 5 gallons" in size. Within
that aggregated 50Q-gallon inventory, no more than 150 gallons of
hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater may be on the
premises in opened containers for handling, treatment, use production, or
dispensing on site. Hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater
are allowed only upon compliance with containment and safety standards
specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City.
"A waiver of the 5-gallon maximum size may be given by the Director if
the applicant can demonstrate that a larger size container would pose
less risk to the aquifer.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
2. Unless exempted, all hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater shall be stored in areas with approved secondary
containment in place ((blRiferFR Fire Cede /\rtiGles 2 8RElIlQQJ.1.J.3]
1/ Jb 60Sorinofield Fire Code 2702.1 and 2704.2.2).
,
Attachment 5-4
.
.
3. All new uses of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) are
prohibited.
4. Any change in type of use or an increase in maximum daily inventory
quantity of any DNAPL shall be considered a new use and prohibited.
5. The following certain types of new facilities or changes in use and/or
storage of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater
are prohibited:
a. Underground hazardous material storage facilities;
b. Hazardous material product pipelines used to transport the
hazardous material off of the tax lot where it is produced or used;
c. Injection wells
EXCEPTION: Dry wells for roof drainage;
d. Solid waste landfills and transfer stations;
e. Fill materials containing hazardous materials;
f. Land uses and new facilities that will use, store, treat, handle,
and/or produce DNAPLs.
6. Requirements found in [(Uniform Fire CGse !\llllen8ix II E 3.2.e]
Sprinqfield Fire Code 2704.2.2.5) for a monitoring program and [if!
B003.1.3.3 for] monitoring methods to detect hazardous materials in the
secondary containment system shall be met for all amounts of hazardous
or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater unless exempted.
7. The followinq requirements [founs in Uniform Fire CGse I\lllleRsix II E
SectiGn 3.2.7] for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly
in-house inspection and maintenance of containment and emergency
equipment for all amounts of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk
to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures
for inspectinq safety and monitorinq and emerqency equipment. The
applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure
acceptable to the Director for inspectinq the facility for events or practices
which could lead to unauthorized discharqes or hazardous materials. An
inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in coniunction with
routine inspections. The check sheet shall provide for the date. time. and
location of inspection: note problems and dates and times of corrective
actions taken: and include the name of the inspector and the
countersiqnature of the desiqnated safety manaqer for the facility.
8. Application of fertilizers containing nitrates are restricted to no more than
the amount recommended by the Lane County, Oregon State University
Extension Service for turf grass and are prohibited within 100 feet of a
wellhead. In no event shall a single application exceed one half pound per
. ...to;. f<6CtiIVed: /1;J.h OG
Planner; GK
Attachment 5-5
.
.
1,000 square feet of area per single application or a total yearly
application of 5 pounds nitrogen fertilizer per 1,000 square feet.
B. 1-5, year TOTZ Standards.
1. The storage, handling, treatment, use, application, or production or
otherwise keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous
materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not
containing DNAPLs are allowed only upon compliance with containment
and safety standards specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by
the City.
2. Unless exempted, all hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater shall be stored in areas with approved secondary
containment in place [(UnifsFIl1 Fire Csae .'\rtisles 2 ana 8003.1.3.3
Sorinofield Fire Code 2702.1 and 2704.2.2).
3. All new use of DNAPLs are prohibited.
4. Any change in the type of use or an increase in maximum daily inventory
quantity of any DNAPL is considered a new use and is prohibited.
5. The following certain types of facilities or changes in chemical use and/or
storage of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater
are prohibited:
a. Hazardous material product pipelines used to transport the
hazardous material off of the tax lot where it is produced or used;
b. Injection wells.
EXCEPTION: Dry wells for roof drainage;
c. Solid waste landfills and transfer stations;
d. Fill materials containing hazardous materials;
e. Land uses and new facilities that will use, store, treat handle,
and/or produce DNAPLs.
6. Requirements found in [UnifoFm Fir-e Csae .'\ppenaix II ~ 3.2.6 for a
monitoring program ana in 8093.1.3.3 for] Sorinofield Fire Code
2704.2.2.5 for a monitorino orooram and monitoring methods to detect
hazardous or other materials in the secondary containment system shall
be met for all amounts of hazardous materials that pose a risk to
groundwater unless exempted.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
7. The followino requirements [founa in Uniform Fire Coae .'\ppendix II ~
SeGtioR 3.2.7] for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly
'I )n-house inspection and maintenance of containment and emergency
/1 :2 b 6 tequipment for all amounts of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk
Attachment 5-6
.
.
to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures
for inspectinq safety and monitorinq and emerqencv equipment. The
applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure
acceptable to the Director for inspectinq the facilitv for events or practices
which could lead to unauthorized discharqes or hazardous materials. An
inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in coniunction with
routine inspections. The check sheet shall provide for the date. time. and
location of inspection: note problems and dates and times of corrective
actions taken: and include the name of the inspector and the
countersiqnature of the desiqnated safety manaqer for the facilitv.
C. 5-10 year TOTZ Standards.
1. The storage, handling, treatment, use, production or otherwise keeping
on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a
risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs is
allowed upon compliance with containment and safety standards
specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City
2. All hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be
stored in areas with approved secondary containment in place ([Unifarm
Fire Cm:le /\rticles :1 ansllQQJ.1.J.J] Sprinqfield Fire Code 2702.1 and
2704.2.2).
3. All new use of DNAPLs are prohibited.
4. Any change in type of use or an increase in the maximum daily inventory
quantity of any DNAPL is considered a new use and is prohibited.
5. The followinq requirements [fauns in Unifarm FiFe Case /\J:lpemlix II E
SeGtion J.:!.7] for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly
in-house inspection and maintenance of containment and emergency
equipment for all amounts of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk
to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures
for inspectinq safetv and monitorinq and emerqencv equipment. The
applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure
acceptable to the Director for inspectinq the facilitv for events or practices
which could lead to unauthorized discharqes or hazardous materials. An
inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in coniunction with
routine inspections. The check sheet shall provide for the date. time. and
location of inspection: note problems and dates and times of corrective
actions taken: and include the name of the inspector and the
countersiqnature of the desiqnated safetv manaqerfor the facilitv.
D. 10-20 year TOTZ Standards. The storage, handling, treatment, use, production
or keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose
a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities is allowed only upon compliance
with containment and safety standards specified by the most recent Fire Code
adopted by the City.
,~ ,''';C''''licu: /1 J.( 06
Planner: GK
Attachment 5-7
.
.
Date Received: /1 ::26 0 g
Planner: GK
. . . .
.
.
ATTACHMENT 6
VARIOUS SECTIONS - SCRIVENER'S ERRORS
OVERVIEW
The reformatted Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted by the Springfield City
Council on September 17, 2007. The reformatting process was a substantial undertaking that
resulted in the reorganization of hundreds of Code regulations in what were formerly 45
"Articles' into 6 Chapters. The volume of the reorganization task resulted in some unintentional
omissions; some inaccurate references due to renumbering; and some errors in punctuation
known as Scrivener's errors. Thus, on December 3, 2007 the City Council adopted the first
round of what are called Scrivener's errors. The items listed below are the second, and
hopefully the last round of Scrivener's errors. The proposed amendments do not include policy
or policy implementation changes.
ADDITIONAL SCRIVENER'S ERRORS PART 2
Commentary. Proposed chanaes are hiahliahted. Revised text is underlined. {Doletad text is
l'Iithin bmckats, viith "strike aut'7
I 3.2-210 Schedule Of Use Categories
Commentary. "Day Care Center" was previously changed to "Child Care Center" to be
consistent with State regulations, but the "old SDC" listing for the use on collector and local
streets was inadvertently omitted. This is the only use in this Section that is being amended.
Zoning Districts
Use Categoriesl Uses LDR MDR HDR
Residential Uses
Child Care Center-13 or more children (abuttinq a collector Q S. ~.
or local streell (Section 4.7-125\
Commentary. Several footnotes are amended due to inadvertently deleted "old SDC" text
when creating the table and/or for clarity. The footnotes to the base zone development
standards are the only portion of this Section that is being amended.
I 3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards
(3)
6.000 square feet in area for one duplex in the LDR District. This standard prohibits the division of
the lot/parcel to create separate ownership for each duplex dwelling unit.
10,000 square feet in area for one duplex in the LDR District as specified in this Section and
Section 4.7-140. This standard [i& required te] allow~ for the future the division of the lot/parcel to
create separate ownership for each half of the duplex [dweIliR!juRit].
The 45 percent coveraqe standard applies to covered structures onlv. On lots/parcels with more
than 15 percent slope or above an elevation of 670 feet, the maximum impervious surface inclusive
of structures, patios, and driveways, shall not exceed 35 percent, unless specified in Section 3,3-
500.
In the MDR and HDR Districts, the buildinq heiqht mav be increased to 50 feet as specified in
Subsection 3.2-240D.3.c.
(1)
(2)
(14\
:...J~I"t:.oU~
Planner: GK
II ;.(; (] S
Attachment 6-1
, . . .
.
.
I 3.2-235 Residential Manufactured Dwellings
Commentary. The text added was inadvertently deleted during the SDC Reformat Project.
The siting of manufactured dwellings in Low and Medium Density Residential Districts is permitted
subject to the provisions of this Section:
A. Manufactured Home - as a permitted use in manufactured home subdivisions,
manufactured dwelling parks and alllots/parcels zoned and designated Low and
Medium Density Residential provided that units placed on individuallots/parcels
outside of existina platted manufactured home subdivisions shall be Tvpe 1
classification and all densitv standards are satisfied. A Type 2 manufactured home
may be sited in manufactured dwellina parks. interior lots of existina platted
manufactured home subdivisions and in multi-family developments.
Commentary. This CI Section requires amendment because the Master Plan is required. The
Master Plan currently in SDC Sections 3.4-215 through 3.4-225 (the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
District) will be addressed during the Glenwood Refinement Plan amendment process. No
amendment is required for Section 3.2-630 (Mixed Use).
I 3.2-440 CI District - Conceptual Development Plans and Master Plans
A Conceptual Development Plan is required for all new CI Districts over 50 acres in size
approved after July 6, 2004, unless a Site Plan or Master Plan is proposed for the entire CI
District. A Master Plan [is r-eqllired] may be submitted when phased developments exceeding
[lwe] J years in duration are proposed. A Master Plan shall comply with any applicable
approved Conceptual Development Plan or upon approval of a Master Plan or Site Plan for the
entire CI District, the Master Plan or Site Plan may supplant and take precedence over an
approved Conceptual Development Plan. Master Plan approval for a CI District site shall be as
specified in Section 5.13-100.
Hotels were inadvertently omitted from the MUC use list. The intent to allow
hotels as a MUC use has been established by the following text in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
District, specifically, Subsection 3.4-260B.4.c. under view protection: "Restaurants, outdoor
cafes, housing, public gathering places and hotels shall be oriented to available views,
especially views of the Willamette River, wherever possible. "
I 3.2-610
Schedule of Use Categories
The following uses are permitted in the districts as indicated, subject to the provisions,
additional restrictions and exceptions specified in this Code. Uses not specifically listed may be
approved as specified in Section 5.11-100.
Up" = PERMITTED USE subject to the standards of this Code.
"S" = SPECIAL DESIGN STANDARDS subject to speciallocational and siting standards to be
met prior to being deemed a permitted use (Section 4.7-100).
Date Received: /1 J b (J 0
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-2
. . ...
.
.
"0" = DISCRETIONARY USE subject to review and analysis under Type III procedure (Section
5.9-100) at the Planning Commission or Hearings Official level.
"N" = NOT PERMITTED
SITE PLAN REVIEW SHALL BE REQUIRED for all development proposals within all mixed
use districts unless exempted elsewhere in this Code.
Districts
Cate orieslUses MUC MUE MUR
Transient Accommodations
Bed and breakfast facilities Section 4.7-120 P N S
Emer enc shelter facilities N N P
Youth hostels P N N
Commentary. SDC Section 3.2-310 (under recreational facilities) lists non-alcoholic nightclubs
as a special use; Section 4. 7-205 limits where this use may be located. Section 3.2-610 (under
recreational facilities) lists this use and should have the same reference. This is the only use
under Recreational Facilities in this Section that is being amended.
I 3.2-610
Schedule of Use Categories
Districts
Cateaories/Uses MUC MUE MUR
Recreational Facilities:
Non Alcoholic NiQht Club {Section 4.7-205\ fP1S P N
I 3.2-715 Base Zone Development Standards
Commentary. The Downtown Refinement Plan was amended in 2006. Specific setback
regulations in {he Downtown Exception area were revised, but the SDC was never amended.
The following base zone development standards are established. The base zone development
standards of this Section and any other additional provisions, restrictions or exceptions specified
in this Code shall apply.
Develo ment Standard
Minimum Lot/ arcel Size
PLO Zonin District Re uirement
Lot/parcel Coverage and
Planting Standard
None
Parking, driveways and structures shall not exceed 65 percent of the
development area. At least 25 percent of the development area shall
be landscaped. EXCEPTION: In the Downtown Exception Area. there
shall be no minimum lot coveraae standards and no minimum planted
area exce t for arkin lots 6.
2 3 and4
15 feet 6
20 feet 6
5 feet
Landsca ed Setbacks 1
Street Setback
Residential Pro ert Line
Parkin and Drivewa
,j"'lb Received' /I 26' og
Planner. GK .
Attachment 6-3
.
.
Maximum Building Height None, unless abutting a residential district
(51
PLO District abuts When a PLO District abuts a residential district, the maximum building
Residential District height shall be defined as the height standard of the applicable
residential district for a distance of 50 feet measured from the
boundary of the adjacent residential zoning district. Beyond the 50
foot measurement, there is no buildina heiaht limitation.
(1) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above grade
structure, except a fence, shall be built upon or over that easement.
(2) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro
Plan (including TransPlan), or the City's Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are based on
future right-of-way locations. Dedication of needed right-of-way shall be required prior to the
issuance of any building permit that increases parking or gross floor area.
(3) Structural extensions may extend into any 5 foot or larger setback area by not more than 2
feet.
(4) In the Downtown Exception Area, there are no minimum setbacks for administrative offices
and other public uses listed under Section 3.2-710.
(5) Incidental equipment may exceed the height standards.
16\ In the Downtown Exception Area. there shall be no minimum planted area except for parkina
lots as specified elsewhere in this Code.
3.3-815 Schedule of Use Categories when there is an Underlying Residential,
Commercial, or Industrial District
Commentary. Development in the Urban Fringe -10 Overlay zone is limited. The proposed
amendments revises references to permitted development listed in Section 3.3-825. These are
the only uses in this Section that are being amended.
Use Cate 0
Expansion or replacement of lawful uses permitted in the
underlying commercial or industrial district (Section 3.3-
825 W F.
Expansion or replacement of lawful Discretionary Uses in
the underl in zonin district Section 3.3-825 W F.
New Permitted and Specific Development Standards in
the underlying zoning district within existing structures
Section 3.3-825 W F.
Underl in Zonin District
Residential Commercial Industrial
N P* P*
N
D*
D*
N
P*
P*
I 3.3-825 Additional Provisions
Commentary. Development in the Urban Fringe -10 Overlay zone is limited. The proposed
amendments to Section 3.3-815 were required due to the deletion of duplicative language in
current Subsection G. Therefore, Subsection H. becomes the "new" Subsection G. These are
the only items in this Section that are being amended.
[C. ~lew permitted uses and expansions of J)ermilted uses in commercial and indlJstrial
districts shall demonstrate that the IJse will not generate singly, or in the aggr-egate,
additional need for key IJrban services.]
Date Received: 1/ at, 0 ~
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-4
. . .. ~
.
.
[H] G. R.V. parks and campgrounds shall be located on land classified Public land and Open
Space (PlO) and be subject to the specific development standards specified Section
4.7-220.
I 3.3-910 Applicability
Commentary. The Thurston Grange was inadvertently omitted from the Historic Landmark
Inventory list.
B. On the adopted Historic landmark Inventory within the City or its urbanizing areas,
including the following individually designated Historic landmarks:
Historic Site! Structure Address
Stevens and Perkins Buildina 330 Main Street
I.O.O.F. Building 346 Main Street
Pacific Power & Liqht Buildinq 590 Main Street
Southern Pacific Railroad Decot 101 South A Street
Brattain I Hadley House 1260 Main Street
Stewart House 214 Pioneer Pkwy. West
Douqlas House 3362 Osaqe Street
Thurston Granae 66Ul Street and Thurston Rd.
Commentary. The barbed wire standards apply in the residential, commercial and industrial
zoning districts, except as specified in notation (8).
Table 4.4-1
Base Height by Zoning District
Yard Tvpe Residential Commercial Industrial PLO MS
Front Yard (1) 6' (2) 6' 6'/8' /3\ 6' 6'
Street Side Yard /4\ 6' 6' 6'/8' /3\ 6' 6'
Rear Yard 6' 6' 6'/8' /3\ 6' 6'
Height Exceptions 8'/10' (5) 8' 8' (6) 8' NIA
Vision Clearance 2)1,' 2)1,' 2)1,' 2 y,' 2~'
Area /7\
Barbedl Razor YiID YiID YiID Y/N (8) N
Wirel Electric
(1) The fence shall be located behind the front yard setback in all districts unless allowed in (2).
(2) Fences may be allowed within the front yard setback as follows:
(a) 4' high unslatted chain link -this standard does not apply to multi-family developments.
(b) 3' high sight obscuring fence.
(3) In the Campus Industrial District the base height standard is 6'. In all other industrial districts, the
base height standard is 8'.
(4) In the residential districts, a fence may be located along the property line. In all other districts, the
fence shall be located behind the street yard setback.
(5) Situations where the base fence height may be exceeded:
(a) 8' in residential, commercial and the PLO Districts for public utility facilities, school yards and
playgrounds, provided that the fence is located behind the front yard and street side yard
landscaped area and outside of the vision clearance area. Residential districts abutting these
facilities, railroad tracks or residential property side and rear yards abutting streets with 4 or
more travel lanes, may have fences of 8' along common property lines and right-of-way.
l. ;.'li{; Received: II ;;. b 0'8
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-5
, ~ . .
.
.
(b) 10' for residential properties abutting commercial or industrial districts along common
property lines, and around permitted storage areas in residential districts. Yards of single-
family homes shall not constitute permitted storage areas.
(c) In residential districts, any fence located within a required setback, and which exceeds the
allowable fence height for that setback by more than 20 percent, shall be reviewed under
Discretionary Use procedure for fences as specified in Section 5.9-100.
(6) Special standards in the Campus Industrial District:
(a) No fencing shall be permitted within 35' of a CI District perimeter or 20 feet of any
development area perimeter or within interior lots/parcels of development areas.
EXCEPTION: 3' maximum height decorative fencing or masonry walls may be permitted as
screening devices around parking lots.
(b) Chain link fences shall be permitted only when combined with plantings of evergreen shrubs
or climbing vines that will completely cover the fence(s) within 5 years of installation (as
certified by a landscape architect or licensed nursery operator).
(c) Painted fences shall match the building color scheme of the development area.
(7) No fence shall exceed the 2W height limitation within the vision clearance area as specified in
Section 4.2-130.
(8) Barbed wire, razor wire or electrified fencing shall be permitted atop a six foot chain link fence. The
total height of the fence and barbed wire shall not exceed 8'. These materials shall not extend into
the vertical plane of adjoining public sidewalks. Barbed wire or razor wire only fences are
prohibited. Electrified fencing shall be posted with warning signs every 24 feet.
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) In the PLO District in the Downtown Exception Area and in the MUC, MUE and MUR
Districts, no barbed razor wire or electrified fences shall be permitted.
(b) In the residential districts, barb-wire and electrified fencing on lots/parcels less than 20,000
square feet, and razor wire on any lot/parcel, regardless of size, shall be reviewed under
Discretionary Use procedure as specified in Section 5.9-100, using the criteria specified in
Subsection C., below.
Commentary. The term "drainage" should be "stormwater" and the text added to Subsection 6.
is for clarity.
14.3-110
Stormwater Management
E. A development is required to employ [drainage] stormwater management practices
approved by the Public Works Director and consistent the Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual, which minimize the amount and rate of surface
water run-off into receiving streams. The following [drainage] stormwater management
practices may be required in order to relieve demand on the City's piped drainage
system and to alleviate future costs of treating the piped discharge; to promote water
quality, to preserve groundwater and the vegetation and rivers it supports, and to reduce
peak storm flows:
1. Temporary ponding of water;
2. Permanent storage basins;
3. Minimizing impervious surfaces;
4. Emphasizing natural water percolation and natural drainageways;
Date Received: II :;2[ (J e
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-6
. .
.
.
5. Preventing water flowing from the street in an uncontrolled fashion;
6. Stabilizing natural drainageways as necessary below drainage and culvert
discharge points for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge without channel
erosion. as permitted/allowed bv Citv. State and Federal reaulations;
7. On-site filtration or skimming of run-off, which will enter natural drainageways to
maintain water quality; and
8. On-site constructed wetlands.
Commentary. The SDC does not exempt solar collectors from the building height limit. If a
developer wants to go solar we require them to submit a Minor Variance application, which is a
disincentive for energy conservation. The proposed text allows rooftop solar collectors as
"incidental equipment". The definition of "Incidental Equipment" in Chapter 6 is also amended.
14.7-105
Accessory Structures
This Subsection regulates structures that are incidental to allowed residential uses to prevent
them from becoming the predominant element of the site.
A. Accessory Structure Groups. Accessory structures are divided into 3 groups based on
their characteristics. Accessory structures may be attached or separate from primary
structures.
1. Group A. This group includes buildings and covered structures for example,
garages, bedrooms or living rooms, including bathrooms that are not an
accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 5.5-100, art studios, gazebos,
carports, greenhouses, storage buildings, boathouses, covered decks and
recreational structures. Agricultural structures as defined in this Code are
deemed Group A accessory structures if located on lots/parcels less than 2 acres
in size.
2. Group 8. (Architectural extensions) This group includes uncovered, generally
horizontal structures for example, decks, stairways, in ground or above. ground
swimming pools, tennis courts, and hot tubs.
3. Group C. (Incidental equipment) This group includes generally vertical structures
for example, flag-poles, trellises and other garden structures, play structures,
radio antennas, satellite receiving dishes and lampposts. This aroup also
includes rooftop solar collectors. Fences are addressed in Section 4.4-115.
Commentary. The amendment specifies that duplexes are permitted only on comer
/ots/parcels in the LOR District. This is the only item in this Section that is being amended.
Oat. ['.}~dveti: II 2(; OS
Plan",-,. GK
Attachment 6-7
'.. . .
.
.
14.7-140 Duplexes
A. A duplex mav be on located on corner lots/parcels of 6.000 SQuare feet in the LDR
District. unless as mav be permitted below. A corner duplex or duplex lotlparcel in any
residential district may be partitioned for the purpose of allowing independent ownership
of each dwelling unit, if each of the two resulting lots/parcels meets the size standards
specified in Section 3.2-215. Duplexes or duplex lots/parcels eligible for this type of
partition shall meet the partition standards of Section 5.12-100 and the following:
14.7-180
Mixed Use Districts
A. Specific development standards for the MUC District shall be the same as those
specified in Section 3.2-310 as an OS" use and listed in applicable Subsections of
Section 4.7-100, and the following:
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Drive-through uses may conflict with safe and convenient movement of
pedestrians and bicycles within MUC Districts. A drive-through use, for the
purposes of this Section, is defined as a business activity involving buying or
selling goods or provision of services wherever one of the parties conducts the
activity from within a motor vehicle. Facilities usually associated with a drive-
through usually involve queuing lines, service windows, service islands, and
service bays for vehicular use. Drive-through uses are therefore not permitted in
MUC Districts unless the use is incidental to a primary site use, and when
designed in conformance with the following standards:
a. The drive-through use shall be limited to service windows which are part
of a primary use structure, and no more than 2 queuing lanes.
b. Drive-up facilities shall be designed so that circulation and drive-up
windows are not adjacent to sidewalks or between buildings and the
street, to the maximum extent practicable.
2. Parking Lots and Parking Structures, Public and Private.
a. In MUC Districts, surface parking lots abutting public streets shall include
perimeter landscaping and shade trees as specified in Sections 3.2-315
and 4.4-100.
b. Parking structures located within 20 feet of pedestrian facilities, including,
but not limited to: public or private streets, pedestrian accessways,
greenways, transit stations, shelters, or plazas, shall provide a
pedestrian-scale environment on the fayade facing the pedestrian facility.
One or more of the following techniques may be used:
Date Received:
Planner: GK
I / '){.,
00
Attachment 6-8
. . 04.
.
.
i. Provide retail or office uses on the ground floor of the parking
structure facing the pedestrian facility;
ii. Provide architectural features that enhance the ground floor of a
parking structure adjacent to the pedestrian facility, for example,
building articulation, awnings, canopies, building ornamentation
and art; andlor
iii. Provide pedestrian amenities in the transition area between the
parking structure and pedestrian facility, including landscaping,
trellises, seating areas, kiosks, water features with a sitting area,
plazas, outdoor eating areas, and drinking fountains.
Sf;", .1.1 1..:.1\ rTJ
Hotels in the MUG District require siting standards.
.:~ :-~
Jii~1f~~IJ'l'I'lil:11"]I'~- .7~;-ll.'-. -. ~-r -- :~-'-':;'"
-;.-';',., .,,,, -., "" .. 'r>".:~, ." ,~...... - ,; '1' . !.t"
'fii[-11J[1:'~Ji flJ.I LIT....!Ci1 \'f, '1 -,-
r~\~J,l\'I'.!l"f! Ir:~.:' 1:0\ ~
",..0,- ,II'" ".... _" ".".' .'. it' .",.
ili.r1t-Ll~ IJiI"'L L'
-'''j'
~'J {' I
'......, .W '_'~~ " .-
.,
.
:-1.1
" ,
II
'.
.," ,
J
14.7-190 Professional Offices
Commentary. The MUG District is added to the list. The intent was to include all primary
commercial districts. This is the only item in this Section that is being amended.
A. Professional offices in residential districts are permitted when:
1. The lotslparcels are adjacent to CC, MUC or MRC Districts; and
2. The majority of the square footage of the structure on the lot/parcel is not more
than 100 feet from CC. MUC or MRC Districts. Where public-right-of-way
separates the residential district from the commercial district, the right-of-way
width is not counted in the measurement.
15.1-120 Pre-Development Meetings
Commentary. This Section reflects amendments to the Master Plan review process in
Section 5. 13-100. The Pre-Application Report has been and still is required during the
Master Plan Review process. The Pre-Submittal Meeting is now required for the
Master Plan Review process in order to guarantee a complete application at the
initiation of/he State mandated 120 day review time-line. These are the only items in
this Section that are being amended.
Pre-Development Options. The City has established three pre-development processes to assist
prospective applicants through the application review process:
Dto((. ,~eceived: II ;2..6' 0<0
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-9
'. .
.
.
B. Pre-Application Report. The purpose of the Pre-Application Report is to give a prospective
applicant the opportunity to discuss an entire development proposal with City Staff. This
meeting is recommended for large and/or complex proposals to avoid unanticipated costs
or delay during the formal application process.
EXCEPTION: The Pre-Application Report is required for a Master Plan application as
specified in Section 5.13-115.
C. The Pre-Submittal Meeting. The purpose of the Pre-Submittal Meeting is to provide an
opportunity for the property owner, applicant and the development team to meet with City
staff to determine that an application is complete for processing prior to formal submittal to
the City. A complete application will facilitate the review process. The Pre-Submittal
Meeting will examine key elements of the application, including but not limited to:
transportation, stormwater management, wastewater facilities, and landscaping. The Pre-
Submittal Meeting is mandatory for all Site Plan Review, Subdivision" [aRd] Partition and
Master Plan applications. The Pre-Submittal Meeting is required even if the meetings
specified in Subsections A. and B. have been utilized. Applications shall be reviewed by
the Director within 30 days of receipt to determine if they meet the requirements specified
in Section 5.4-105 and are complete.
I 5.3-115 Appeals of the Director's or Hearings Official's Type II Decision
Commentary. In Subsection C., who is required to receive the notice of decision is now clearer
and consistent with State regulations.
C. Notice. The Director shall provide notice of the public hearing to the property owner,
applicant, if different, the appellant and all persons [previously neliced] who submitted
comments or reauested notice of the decision as part of the process leading to the
Director's or Hearings Official's decision. The notice of the appeal hearing shall be as
specified in Section 5.2-115.
I 5.14-110 Review
Commentary. The term "Pre-Application Conference" in Subsection A was changed to
"Development Issues Meeting" in 2005, but this reference was not revised at that time.
A. A [pre Applicalion Conference] Development Issues Meetina is encouraged prior to a
formal Melro Plan amendment application.
I 5.15-120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
Commentary. Subsection H is amended to be consistent with the "old SDC" by adding
references to under grounding utilities (4.3-125) and to water service and fire protection (4.3-
130).
H. The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3-105,4.3-110"
[aRd] 4.3-120.4.3-125 and 4.3-130 and comply with Ihe Springfield Building Safety Codes,
where applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3-140.
Date Received: II 'J.{; OC6
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-10
, . ..
.
.
I 5.15-125 Timelines and Conditions
Commentary. Two references are proposed to be changed requiring this Section to be
relettered.
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection [9,]
5.15-120 within 90 days of the Director's approval as follows:
A. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan within 30 days of the Director's approval that states the
starting date of all required improvements demonstrating compliance with all approval
conditions required to meet the standards specified in Subsection [D., bele'N] 5.15-120.
Submittal of a Final Plot Plan shall include the following additional material, where
applicable:
1. The original recorded Improvement Agreement.
2. Any required ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit.
EXCEPTION: If the ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit cannot be obtained by
the time line specified in Subsection A., above, the Director may defer the submittal
of this document until the start of construction date specified in Subsection [AA-J:J]
~., below.
3. A copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
[a] ft. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 45 days of the
Director's approval of the Final Plot Plan.
[Il] C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 90 days of the MDS
decision. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written request for a
time line extension as specified in Subsection [8] Q., below.
[8] Q. The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction time line
specified in Subsection [AA-J:J] C., above due to situations including but not limited to,
required permits from the City or other agencies, weather conditions, and the unavailability
of asphalt or street trees. If the time extension is allowed, security shall be provided as
specified in Section 5.17-150. The time line extension shall not exceed 90 days.
[G] g. If the time line established in Subsection [AA-J:J] C., above is not met and the applicant has
not requested an extension as specified in Subsection Q., above, then the Director shall
declare the application null and void if the property is occupied and the property owner
shall be considered in violation of this Code.
[9] E. If the time line established in Subsection [AA-J:J] C., above is not met and the applicant has
requested an extension as specified in Subsection D., above and that time line as not
been met, then the Director may require that the improvements be installed as specified in
Subsection 5.17-150.
Oat- c"oceived: /I;;l.(; 09
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-11
'" .'
.
.
15.16-120 Submittal Requirements
Commentary. Duplicative language regarding submittal requirements for Property Line
Adjustments in Subsection 8.3., is deleted. The remaining Subsections are renumbered
accordingly. Consent language is found in reformatted Section 5.4-1058.2., which applies to all
applications, but is lot listed in this document.
B. The following additional information shall be submitted with the Preliminary Survey:
1. A brief narrative explaining reason for the proposed Property Line Adjustment
and the existing use of the lots/parcels.
2. A copy of the current deeds for the lots/parcels.
[3. If the applicant is Rot the property owner, written permission from all property
owners is r-equired.]
[4] ~. A draft of the Property Line Adjustment deeds. For serial Property Line
Adjustments that are reviewed under Type II procedure, separate deeds shall be
prepared for each adjustment.
[6] ~. For serial Property Line Adjustments reviewed under Type II procedure, the
following shall be submitted:
a. A written explanation of the sequencing of adjustments; and
b. A diagram identifying each adjustment, in sequence, cross referenced to
the Property line Adjustment deeds required in Subsection 4., above.
1 5.20-120 Submittal Requirements
Commentary. The text proposed to be deleted in Subsection 5.j. is duplicative. Virtually the
same text is found in reformatted Subsection C. 1.
C. The application shall include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
A legal description of the public rights-of-way, easement or Plat to be vacated
prepared by an Oregon Licensed land Surveyor or other professional approved by
the Director;
The reason for the Vacation;
The proposed use of the property after Vacation;
For citizen initiated Vacations of public rights-of-way or Partition and Subdivision
Plats, the petition of affected property owners;
A map prepared by an Oregon Licensed land Surveyor or other professional
approved by the Director of the area proposed to be vacated. The map shall
show:
a. The date, north arrow, and standard scale;
II Jb Ot(;
Attachment 6-12
. . ...
.
.
b. The Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the affected properties and
adjacent properties;
c. A Vicinity Map on the Site Plan (Vicinity Map does not need to be to
scale);
d. All adjacent streets including street name, alleys, and accessways, and
right-of-way and paving widths;
e. All dimensions of existing public utility easements and any other areas
restricting use of the parcels, for example: conservation areas, slope
easements, access easements;
1. Existing dimensions and square footage of the lots/parcels involved;
g. Proposed dimensions and square footage of the lots/parcels involved
(applies to Vacations of undeveloped Subdivision Plats and right-of-way
Vacations);
h. For public easement and right-of-way Vacations, clearly show dimensions
of entire easement or right-of-way on or adjacent to the subject
lots/parcels. Also clearly show dimensions of that portion proposed for
Vacation, including square footage; and
i. For right-of-way Vacations, demonstrate compliance with the boundary
requirements of ORS 271.080 et seq.
ij. The legal descriJltion of the easement, right of way or Plat, or JleRion
ther-eof, WOJloe;ed ta be vacated.]
Commentary. The propased new Section and text explains a part of the current vacation
process. Vacated right-of-way has a/ways assumed the zoning of the abutting property.
[ 5.20-140 Zonina of Vacated Right-of-Way
Vacated riaht-af-way is incarporated inta the abuttina praperty. typically to the centerline.
Hawever. in cases where on Iv one abuttina property dedicated riaht-ot-way. all the vacated
riaht-at-wav wauld be incorporated into that prapertv. In anv case. the vacated right-af-wav
acauires the zonina af the abuttina propertv. with aut the need ot a separate Zonina Map
amendment.
CHAPTER 6 DEFINITIONS
Commentary. The Downtown Exception Area was modified during the Downtown Refinement
Plan approval process in 2006. The SDC was not amended at that time.
Downtown Exception Area. An area defined by the Willamette River on the west, [-W] ~th Street
on the east, the alley between nerth B and north C Streets on the narth, and a line north of the
Southem Pacific Railroad tracks an the sauth.
Date F
Planner. ~"
/1 :;.(; o(!i
Attachment 6-13
I. ..
.
.
Commentary. The sac does not exempt solar collectors from the building height limit. If a
developer wants to go solar we require them to submit a Minor Variance application, which is a
disincentive for energy conservation. The proposed text allows rooftop solar collectors and also
small satellite dishes as "incidental equipment". See also the amendment of Subsection 4.7-
105C, above.
Incidental Equipment Rooftop or pole mounted structures that cast insubstantial shadows or
have minimal visual impact, including, but not limited to: antennas, chimneys solar collectors.
small satellite dishes and flagpoles, but excluding [solar collectors and] larQe satellite dishes
(See also Accessory Structure).
Commentary. The terms "major or minor" partition no longer apply. This definition is now
consistent with ORS 92.010(9).
Partition Plat A final map and other writing containing all the descriptions, locations,
specifications, provisions and information concerning a [major or minor] partition.
Date Received: / I ? 6 0 C;;
Planner: GK
Attachment 6-14
... ....
.
.
ATTACHMENT 7
PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE DISCUSSION
Backclround.
At the Planning Commission work session on the proposed SDC amendments held on
September 16, 2008 staff was asked to prepare a discussion regarding the level of review of the
Preliminary Master Plan application. The current initial review procedure is Type III. Under this
procedure, the Director has the discretion to raise the application to a Type IV review. Staff
proposes an initial Type II review procedure for the reasons cited below. Under this procedure,
the Director has the discretion to raise the application to a Type III review, an option that
currently applies to all Type II SDC applications.
Justification for the initial Tvpe II Review Procedure.
The proposed text (Section 5.13-116A.) states that if a Metro Plan amendment is required (Type
IV Review), that application must be processed prior to the submittal of a Master Plan
application. During the review process for the Metro Plan amendment, in order to comply with
applicable State-wide Planning Goals, Metro Plan policies and Oregon Revised Statutes, staff
evaluates the big picture items such as whether there are public facilities available to serve the
property, transportation capacity issues, etc. Then, once the plan designation and zoning are in
compliance, an applicant is entitled to submit a development application to the City. However, if
a Metro Plan amendment is not required, then those issues have already been addressed. The
primary development applications, Site Plan Review and land division are Type II applications,
which the Director can raise to a Type III review procedure.
The purpose of the Master Plan is to allow for phased development to occur for at least 7 years,
with the possibility of time line extensions. The Site Plan Review process also allows for phased
development. However the Site Plan approval is applicable for a period of two years, with the
possibility of a one year extension. Aside from the approval timeline, the other major difference
between the Site Plan Review and Master Plan applications is that in the case of the Master
Plan, the SDC standards in effect at the time of the Preliminary Master Plan application
submittal apply during the life of the Master Plan.
The City has processed 6 Master Plan applications since these regulations were added to the
SDC in 1994. All of these applications were processed under the Type III or in some cases,
Type IV review procedure. However, Peace Health Riverbend and Marcola Meadows both
required Metro Plan amendments. Both these and MountainGate all impacted adjacent
residential properties and if these applications were to be processed under the proposed
amended regulations, the Director would raise the level of review from Type II to Type III, due to
impacts on adjacent properties, complexity, etc.
Additionally, in proposed Section 5.13-110, the submittal of Master Plan applications for 3-5
acres would be allowed because staff became aware of the need of a non-profit to require a
longer approval timeline than the 2 years permitted under the Site Plan Review process to
accomplish their development goals. In this case, the current 5 acre minimum development
area would not allow this non-profit to utilize the Master Plan Review process. Whether a Type
II or Type III review procedure would be required is unknown at this time.
Finally, in addition for the potential for additional Master Plan applications due to the proposed
reduced development areas, there may be cases where the development area may be within an
D~ . . ,cU; //;2(; Or;;
P/......._.. GK
Attachment 7-1
.... .'
.
.
entirely commercial or industrial zoned area and the proposed development may have limited
impact on the adjacent properties, utilities, etc. These applications would be reviewed under the
initial Type II procedure.
Review of the TVDe J - TVDe IV Review Procedure Process.
SDC 1.2-120 states: "All applications required by the Springfield Development Code are
decided by using Type I, /I, 11/, and IV review procedures. The procedure "type" assigned to
each application governs the decision-making process for that application.
Type I Decisions. These staff decisions are made without public notice and or a public hearing.
A mailed notice of decision is sent to the applicant.
Type" Decisions. These staff decisions are made after public notice, but without a public
hearing, unless there is an appeal.
.
Mailed notice is sent to the applicant and all property owners within 300 feet of the
proposal and applicable neighborhood associations. Notice is posted on the affected
property. .
Any noticed property owner or person may present written comments to the City which
addresses the relevant criteria of approval. The comments must be received by the City
within 14 calendar days from the date on the notice to give the commenter "standing" for
an appeal.
A preliminary decision is made based on the information presented and conditions may
be imposed. A mailed notice of preliminary decision is sent to the property owner and all
parties who responded to the public notice.
Any person with standing and the applicant may appeal the decision to the Planning
Commission or the Hearings Official.
Some Type /I decisions, for example, Site Plan Review and land divisions (Partitions and
Subdivisions), require a separate application for final approval.
.
.
.
Type 11/ Decisions. Planning Commission (city limits) or Hearings Official (urban services area)
quasi-judicial decisions are made after public notice and a public hearing.
. Mailed notice is sent to the applicant and all property owners within 300 feet of the
proposal and applicable neighborhood associations. Newspaper notice is published.
Notice is posted on the affected property.
. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official is responsible for implementing the Metro
Plan, the Springfield Development Code and other applicable planning documents
through the review and approval of discretionary applications for land development, or
when the Director elevates a Type /I review to a Type 11/ review. At the public hearing,
any property owner or person may present oral or written comments which address the
relevant criteria and standards. When granting approval of an application, the Planning
Commission or Hearings Official may attach conditions beyond those necessary for
compliance with the Springfield Development Code.
Date Received: J I t). {;, 0 ~
Planner: GK
Attachment 7-2
~. .....
.
.
o A mailed notice of decision is sent to al1 those who participated in the public hearing. Any
person with standing and the applicant may appeal the Planning Commission decision to
the City Council or the Hearings Official decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Type IV Decisions. City Council legislative decisions are made after public notice and a
recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council (2 public hearings).
Mailed notice is sent to the applicant and al1 property owners within 300 feet of the
proposal and applicable neighborhood associations. Newspaper notice is published.
Notice is posted on the affected property.
o At the Planning Commission public hearing, interested persons may present evidence
and testimony relevant to the proposal. The Planning Commission will make findings for
each of the applicable criteria and make a recommendation to the City Council.
At the City Council public hearing, the staff will review the Planning Commission's
recommendation and provide other pertinent information for the City Council's
consideration. Interested persons will be given the opportunity to present testimony and
information relevant to the proposal. The City Council will make findings for each of the
applicable criteria and in doing so may uphold, modify or reverse a finding of the
Planning Commission. When granting approval of an application, the City Council may
attach conditions beyond those necessary for compliance with the Springfield
Development Code. The City Council's decision will become effective by passage of an
ordinance or resolution.
o A mailed notice of decision is sent to all those who participated in the public hearing. Any
person with standing and the applicant may appeal the City Council decision to the Land
Use Board of Appeals. .
In summary, the notice requirement for both the Type II and Type III review procedures are the
same. Under the Type II review procedure, those who submit written comments have standing,
are noticed of the decision and can appeal the decision. Under the Type III review procedure,
those who submit written comments as well as testify at the hearing have standing, are noticed
of the decision and can appeal the decision. The appeal of the Type II procedure goes to the
Planning Commission. The appeal of the Type III procedure goes to the City Council.
Fees.
The fee structure for the various Master Plan applications within the city limits is as follows:
Preliminary Master Plan Approval Type III
Master Plan Amendment Type I
Master Plan Amendment Type II
Master Plan Amendment Type III
Final Master Plan Approval
$18,814+634/acre*
$ 2,631
$ 5,297
$ 9,672
The fee is 10 percent of the paid Preliminary
Master Plan approval fee.
* Currently, there is no differentiation between a Type II or Type III Preliminary Master Plan
approval review process.
The Preliminary Site Plan Review application fee is $4,222 plus an additional fee base~~~
proposed square feet of impervious surface. . [ ~jved: Ot?,
Pl~...._.. GK
Attachment 7-3
..... ...
.
.
Question: Should there be a reduced Preliminary Master Plan application fee for a Type II
application? If the Planning Commission opts for a Type II Preliminary Master Plan application
fee, it would require City Council approval by separate resolution.
Recommendation/Action Reauested.
Discuss this item and recommend to staff to either: keep the Type II process as the initial review
as proposed; or keep the existing Type III review process.
Date Received:
Planner: GK
/1 Qb 09
Attachment 7-4