The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 9/22/2009 ,. .... Meeting Date:. January 26, 2009 Meeting Type: Work Session Department: DSD Staff Contact: Gary M. Karp S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726.3777 C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 30 Minutes ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC) AMENDMENTS: SECTION 5.513-100 MASTER PLANS; SECTION 3.3-200 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION (DWP) OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND VARIOUS SECTIONS TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S (AUTHOR'S) ERRORS CREATED DURING THE ADOPTION OF THE REFORMATTED SDC. Review the proposed SDC amendments and provide feedback to staff. . AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ACTION REQUESTED: ISSUE STATEMENT: ATTACHMENTS: DISCUSSIONI FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff has divided the proposed SDC amendments into three sections for ease of review (Attachments 1-3). Each section contains an overview and commentary. Attachment I: Section 5.513-100 Master Plans Attachment 2: Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection (DPW) Overlay District Attachment 3: Various Sections to Correct Scrivener's Errors Attachment 4: Preliminary Master Plan Review Procedure Discussion Attachment 5: Responses to Written and Oral Testimony Regarding Master Plans Attachment 6: Recommendation to the City Council Attachment 7: Planning Commission Minutes: October 7, 2008/December 2,2008 The proposed Master Plan amendments address staffs concerns regarding the current Master Plan review process by: . Clearly defining the Master Plan process as one that allows long-term phasing of development proposals; . Establishing specific Preliminary and Final Master Plan application review processes; . Requiring a Preliminary Type II, rather than a Type III review procedure for smaller development proposals or those proposals which limit impacts on adjacent property and infrastructure; . Requiring the applicant to host a neighborhood meeting to inform the neighbors of the proposal prior to formal application submittal; . Assuring application completeness by requiring a Pre-Submittal Meeting prior to formal application submittal, as already required for Site Plan and land division applications; and . Redefining the categories of the Master Plan Modification process. Staff distributed a copy of the proposed Master Plan amendments for comment to private sector planners who have prepared past Master Plan applications. The proposed text in Attachment 1 includes responses to comments submitted to date. The proposed D WP Overlay District amendments address npdated Fire regulations and were proposed jointly by the City's Fire and Life Safety Department and the Springfield Utility Board, Water Department. There was no public comment or testimony on thiB topic. The proposed Scrivener's errors amendments is the second, and hopefully the last, SDC amendment on this scale based upon the SDC reformat project adopted by the Council in 2007. There was no public comment or testimony on this topic. The Planning Commission held a work session on the proposed amendments on September 19,2008, and a public hearing on October 7, 2008, which was continued to December 2, 2008. On December 2"', the Planning Commission voted 6-0, with one abstention to recommend that the City Council approve the amending Ordinance. A City Council public hearing to adopt this Ordinance is scheduled for February 17,2009. The Master Plan application review fees will need to be amended to establish a fee for the proposed Type II review application. This will be accomplished by separate resolution this Spring. It is anticipated that the proposed fee will be similar to a Preliminary Type II Site Plan or Subdivision review fee. uare t<ecelvea: Planner: GK fJ" L7 uQ "'" . . ;4 .ATrACHMENT 1 SECTION 5.13-100 MASTER PLANS 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: [stFike thiOugFij. Language proposed to be added is shown as: lanauaae added. [Section 5.13 1 gO Master Plans I 5.13 195 Purpose /I.. .^, Master Plan is a comprehensive plaA thut allO'.\'8 J3hasing Gf a specific de'lelopment area over several yeurs for public, commercial, industrial or 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 tRe Metro Pl:Jn. By addressing public service impacts and development requirements at the time of approv:]1 of Master Plan, these impacts and requirements need not be re:]ddrossed at subsequent phases ami the develoJ3er may rely en the Master Plan uppmv:]1 in implementing the de'lelopR'lent. B. The pur:pose of a Master Plan is to: 1. Provide preliminury approval fer the entire development areu in rcl::ltion to land uses, a range Gf minimum to R'laximuR'l J30tential intensities aAd densities, arrangement of uses, and the location Gf public facilities and transportation systems 'JIRen a development urea is pFOposed to be develeped in phases; 2. .^ssure that individuul phases of a developR'lent will be coordinated '....ith each other; 3. Provide the applicant un assurance of the City's expectation for the overall de'/elopment as a busis fer detailed planning and invostR'lent by the developer. C. The Plunning Commission shall approve the Master Plan prior to City appreval ef a related Subdivision er Site Plan applicution; he'lle'.'Or, the Mastor PklA may bo re'/iowed . concurrently with a Zoning Map amendment, Discretionary Use, 'hriance and/or any other ~pplication or apJ3roval sou!;lht by tRe applicant related to the Master Plan. D. SubjeGt to prier aJ3J3reval ef a Muster Pkm, a separate Subdi'lisien er Site PI un apJ3licatien !:hall be appro'led for each phase. The Muster Plan shall be the ba!:is for the e'laluatien of all phase!: of de'Jelopment en any issues that it addresses. Phase!: may be cOR'lbined for consideration. E. Approval sf a Master Plan is effective for up to 7 yeari>; however the approved Master Plan time limit may be extended pursuant to Section 8.1 J 1 J8, .'AeElifiGalieRs te the Master Plan and Ssheoo.le. Date Received: 0 I 2'2. 0' q Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 "" . . ;A I 6.13 110 Alllllieability The Mader Plan process applies when initiated by an applicant wheA the fellewiFlg criteria are ~~+. . ~ . A. The develepment area i5: uFlder ene ewnership; or B. If the dCl'Jelepment area has multiple ewner5:, then all ewners ef FOcerd have censoAted in writing te the Master Plan review Jlroce5:S; and C. The dcvclepment area is 5 acres er greator. C: ~l~p....ith5:tan~ing the foregaing, the Directer FRay determine tRat the JlroJlo5:ed development IS lFIaJlJlreprlate as a Ma5:ter Plan and the aJlJllicatien will not be acceJlted. I 6.13116 Review A. Master Plans are reviewed under Type III procedure, unlo5:s the Directer determine5: that the application should be reviewed as a Type IV deci5:ieFl by the City Council due to the cemplexity of the aPJllicalien. B. ^ Pre .'\PJllicdtien Report applicatiaR as specified in SectioR 5.1 1 gg is required prier te submittal of a Master PlaR aJlJllication. 16.13120 Submittal Requirements ^ Master Pbn shall centain all of the elements prepared in a clear and legible manner Flecess.Jry to demonstrate that the pro'/isions of this Code are being fulfilled aAd shall include but not be limited te the following: A. The existing Metro Plan desigmtien and zone cl.Jssificatien. B. ^ vicinity map drawn te scale on a 5:treet base map: C.' A legal descriptien of the property tegether '/lith a map dra'Nn to scale depicting the legal boundaries ef the sulljed proJlerty. C. A tepogr~ph'y map and Aarr-::ltive depicting present U5:e5: of the laml, existing structures, str-oets, slgmficant vegetation, wet/rlFlds,dr-aiFlage 'Nays and ether r-ole'lant Aatural and FT;1an made featur-os. E. A 5:ite Jllan showing locatien and type ef all land uses proposea, appr-oximate acreage ana approximate numller of units or 5:quare footage of uses, aajacent property IJses and relevant featuFOs. F. The density or intensit}' sf I3roposed uses. G. The maximum height and size of I3roposod structures. Date Received: 0' '2--"2... 0<1. Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 ~ . . "" H. t. putJlio faoilities plan showing existing and pHlposed streets. utilities, sanitary sovler, natural and piped storm drainage system, water servioe. tJike and pedestrian ways and transitlooations. I. Maps and narrative showing off site putJlio improvements neoessary to serve the proposed development and/or to mitigate impaots to adjaoent property or putJlio faoilities. J. The Director may require additional information neoe!:sary to evaluate the proposed development, iFlolw:lin9. but not limited to: an ESEE analysis. geology. soils, stormwater. sanitary. tree pr-escrv:ltion, historioal. archaeologioal, and traffio imp:lct. 1'.11 rel:lted maps. excluding vioinity and detail maps. shall be :ltthe S:lme soale. K. Pro'lisions. if any. for reservation. dedioation. or use of land for putJlio purposes. inoluding. but not limited to: rights of .....:ly. easements, parks, open spaoes. :lnd sohool sites. L. An overall sohedule or doscription of pnasing; and the develop'ment to ooour in eaoh phase. If phasing alternati'les are contemplated. tnese alternatives shall tJe desoritJed. M. '''/here off site or other infrastructure improvements are required, the applioant shall speoify the timing :md method of soouring the impro'/ement, inoluding bond. letter at oredit, joint deposit or other seourity satisfactory for said improvement construction. N. Designation of responsibility for providing infr:lstructure and serviooG. O. ,II, general sohedule of annexation oonsistent with the phasing plan, if applioable. I 6.13 126 Criteria ^ Master Plan Fnay be appro'"ed if the Planning Commission finds that the pr-oposal conforms .....ith all of the follo.....ing apl'lr-eval oriteria. In the event of a oonflict.....ith appro'.'al oriteria in this Subsection. the more speoifio requiroments apply. !\. The zoning of the property shall be oonsistent with the Metro Plan diagram andlor applioable Refinement Plan diagram. Plan District map. and Com:eptual Development PiaR; B. The request. as sonditioned, E:hall oonform to applioable Springfield De'lelopment CoEle requirement!:. Metro Plan polioies. Refinement Plan, Plan DistAot. and Conoeptual Development Plan polioies. C. Proposed on site and off site improveFnents. both putJlio and pri'Jate. are suffioient to acoommodate the proposed phased de'Jelopment and any oapaoity requirements of putJlio faoilities plans; and pro'Jisions am made to assure oonstruction of off site impFO\'ements in oonjunotion with :l sohedule of the phasing. D. The request shall provide adequate guidanoe for the design and soordination of future phases; E. Physioal features, inoluding tJut not limited to steep slopes with unstable sailor geologis oonditions, areas .....ith susoeptibility to flooding, signifioant olusters of trees and shrubs. wateroourses showR on the VVQLW Map and their assooiatt9cl~~eeJlIelf: .....etlanEls, 0 I :2209 . . . Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 3 ~ . . ~ rock outcroppings am:! opon spaces ans areas of historic and!-or archaeological significance as may ee specified in Section J.J 900 or ORS 97.740 760, Ji3B.906 91313 and 390.236 240 shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Feder-allaw; ans F. Local public facilitios plans and local street plans shall not be adversely impactes by the proposod development. 11i.13 13Q CeRl:!itiens . Tho Appro'/al Authority may attach roasonaely necessary conditions to minimize negative impacts as specified in this Code to ensure that the proposes sevelopment can fully meet the criteria of Section 13.1 d 1213, ans may require guarantees to ensum Gompliance. Asditionally, the appro'/al may contain any conditiens neGessary to implement the pr-ovisions of Section 13.1 d 120 including a sGhedule of fees and charges, a schedule of Gomplkmco review and the extent to which the Master Plan is assignable. 11i.13 135 MeE!ifieatiens to the Master Plan anE! SeheE!ule AppliGations for phase modification approval '.'.,hlch are in substantial conformity '....ith an approved Master Plan shall not be deemed a modification of the pl:m. Modifications to tho Master Plan shall be precossod under the applicable procedllr.es describes below te amend the Plan: A. Modifications that de not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the adoptea Master Plan ana '""hich am not determined to bo similar to Subsection B. or C., below shall be processed as a ministerial docision by the Dir-ector. B. Modifications that are significant, but do not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the approved Master Plan, shall be processed under Type II procedure. Theso moaifications include a roquest: 1. By the applisant for a change of density allocation with in the density range allowed in the applisable zoning district; 2. By the applicant for a change to the alignment of right of way mquir.ements of local streets; 3. By the applisant or City for a change to the sizes or locatien of publis facilities; 4., By the applicant for a change of scheduled phasing beyons the approved time limit for the phased development when the proposed change affeGts the construction of scheduled public improvements; Ii. By the City basea on the requirement to implement newly adoptes Stale or Feseral roglllations; 6. By the appliGant for a one time eJ(!ension of the approves time limit for up to throe years. The time line eJ(!ension will be gmnted provided the applicant has made rem:onable progress in the implementation of the Master Plan and pUGlic servises and facilities remain available; Date Received: 0 I '). 2 oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 4 c. . . 7. By the applicant to alter !:isnificant natural resource!:, vlctland!:, open !:pace aFeas, . archaeele!jic and historic feature!: beyond the scope of the approved Master Plan; GF By the applicant for ether modification!: to th? approved Master. Pla~ that the. . DireGtor determines to !;Je similar to the moalficatlon!: !:peclfiedln thiS SubseE;tlon. Modifications which affect the unaerlyin!j !;Ja!:ic assumption!: of the appro'Jed Mae:ter Plan or that prohibit, restriGt or si!jnificantly affect its implementation shall be processed under the Type III procedure, ana include: 8. 1. ^ Zonin!j Map am~nament or Discretionary Use application initiated by the applicant; . /\ reEluest for the Fe ali!jnment or re aesi!jnation of artenal or colleGtor streets initiated by the applicant; The inability of the City or the applicant to pro'iiae e!:sential public infrae:truGture; .^. HlElUest by the City based on the reEluircment to implement newly adoptea State or Federal re!julations; !'. reEluee:t !;Jy the applisant for e-xten!:ion Elf the time limit Elf the Master Plan beyond the approved time limit specified in Subsection 8.6., abo'/e or. the extension . . permitted in SeGtion a.1::l 1 ::la, but in no case shall the extension exceed1a years from the ori€linal Mae:ter Plan approval date; or Other chan€les to the final approved Master PI3n as reEluested by the applicant that the DireGtor determines to be e:imilar to the modifications speGlfied In thiS Subsection. 2. 3. 4. 6. 6. 15.13140 .^.sSlJFanee te tile Applieant A. I\ppro\'al of the Master Plan shall ae:sure the applisant the ri!jht to proceed with .~e . development in substantial conformity '....ith the Mae:ter Plan, e:ubject to ~ny modi cations as may be approved ae: !:pecifiee in SeGtion 8.1::l 1 ::la. CRan!je!: to Ordlnanses, poliCies and e:tandards aaoptea after the date of approval of the Ma!:ter Plan shall net apply to the eevelopment. . Phase appro'/als shall occur throu!jh the land division revie...... pr?cess, .as sJ:jecified in SeGtion 5.12 10Q, or the Site Plan review prosess, as !:peclfiea In SeGtlen a.17 100, as applicable. B. c. D. The Master Plan shall !;Je the !;Jasis for the e'/aluatien of all phases of aevelepment en any issues '.vhicR it acJcJresses. ApJ:jmval of eevelopment phases will.be !jFanted subjeGt to the terms aneconaitions of the Master Plan, !;Jut subJeGt to the appllsa!;Jle Development CecJe provisions ancJ City OrcJinances on iswes '....hich the Master Plan does not adcJres5. NotwithstancJin!j the prececJins provision, the City shall not !;Je obli!jatecJ to provicJe pu!;Jlic impFO'Jements a#eGtinS implementation of the Master Plan if pu!;Jlic funcJs are not availa!;Jle. Date ReceIved: 0 I h oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 5 . . E. The City shall not be required to approve development of any phase desGribed in the Master Plan if the apl'lrG'/al violates al'lpliGable Federal sr State statues or administrative fIJle&.- F. The al'lpro'/ed Macter Plan chall be reGarded at Lane County Deeds and ReGcr-ds and the orisinal r-eturneEl to the City.] Subsections: 5.13-105 5.13-110 5.13-115 5.13-116 5.13-117 5.13-120 5.13-125 5.13-130 5.13-131 5.13-132 5.13-133 5.13-134 5.13-135 5.13-140 Section 5.13-100 Master Plans Purpose Applicability Preliminary Master Plan - Review Preliminary Master Plan - Application Concurrencv Preliminary Master Plan - NeiQhborhood MeetinQ Preliminary Master Plan - Submittal Requirements Preliminary Master Plan - Criteria Preliminary Master Plan - Conditions Final Master Plan - Review Final Master Plan - Submittal Requirements Final Master Plan - Criteria. Recordation and Effective Date Final Master Plan - PhasinQ Implementation Final Master Plan - Modifications Final Master Plan - Assurance to the Applicant and City Disclaimers 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 phasino the development of a specific propertv over several vears. Comme"ntary. The current purpose statements are revised to give them more substance. B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to: 1. 2. 3. Facilitate the review of multi-phased developments that are desired to be developed for more than 3 vears and ensure that individual phases will be coordinated with each other over the duration of the Final Master Plan: Ensure that a full ranoe of public facilities and services are available or will be provided for the proposed phased development and to plan the extension of necessary public infrastructure in a timelv and efficient manner: Determine soecific land uses. a ranoe of minimum to maximum souare footaoe of non-residential uses and a ranoe of minimum to maximum densities of residential uses. the arranoement of uses. and the location of public facilities and transoortation svstems; Date Received: (J I J-.).. oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 6 . . 4. Identify. durinQ the public review process. potential impacts. includinQ but not limited to noise. shadinQ. Qlare. utility capacity and traffic and consider alternatives for mitiqatinQ these impacts to affected properties and/or public facilities; 5. Provide the property'owner an opportunity for the concurrent review of discretionary 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. 15.13-110 Applicability Commentary. The current SOC 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. A. Approval of a Master Plan is a two-step process that includes Preliminary Master Plan Approval and Final Master Plan Approval. This process applies when the followinq criteria are met: 1. The property 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 Mountaif)Gate, a residential development. Most recent Master Plan applications have involved either commercial or commercial/residential 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. I 5.13-115 Preliminary Master Plan - Review Commentary. There is a change proposed for the level of review for a Preliminary Master Plan. Currently, a Type /II 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. TtmM~~een 0/ f) 2 ~ . . . . Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 7 . . 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 information. A. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be reviewed under Type II procedure. EXCEPTIONS: The Preliminary Master Plan shall be reviewed under Type III procedure if: 1. The Director determines durinQ the Pre-Application Report process that a Type II procedure is not acceptable based on the proposed size of the Master Plan site; and/or the availability/capacity of public facilities: and/or impacts to adiacent properties includinQ 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 5.13-116.8. 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 5.1-120.8.. is required prior to the formal submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan application. Commentary. A Master Plan is a multifaceted 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 Meetinq application. as specified in Section 5.1-120.C.. is required 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 concUfTent 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 orior to the submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan application. The text in Subsection A., below continues this past practice. A. If the applicant requires or proposes to'chanQe the Metro Plan diaQram 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 diaqram and/or text amendment may also require amendment of an applicable refinement plan diaQram or Plan District Map. 8. 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 development application. Uate Received: Planner: GK 01 22. oq ATTACHMENT 1 - 8 .- . . Commentary. Currently, sac Section 5. 13-105C. 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. C. Subdivision andlor Site Plan applications that initiate the various phases of proposed development shall not be submitted concurrently with the Preliminary Master Plan. These applications shall not be submitted until Final Master Plan approval is effective. as specified in Section 5.13-133. I 5.13-117 Preliminary Master Plan - Neiqhborhood MeetinQ Commentary. During the Marcola Meadows Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendment process, the applicant voluntarily provided notice and helda 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. To provide the opportunity for early citizen involvement in the Master Plan review process. the applicant shall provide notice and invite citizen participation by initiatinq a Neiqhborhood Meetina. The meetina shall be scheduled after receipt of staff's response to the Pre-Application Report application reauired in Subsection 5.13-1178.1.. and prior to the formal submittal of a Preliminary Master Plan application. The meetina is not intended to produce complete consensus on all applications. It is intended to encouraae applicants to be aood neiahbors. The applicant shall be responsible for schedulina and oroanizina the meetina. arranaina the meetina place. notice and all related costs. City staff will attend the neiahborhood meetinq in an advisory capacity to answer auestions. The notice shall provide a brief description of the proposal and shall be mailed to those property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed development. The meetina may be held in any public or private buildina capable of accommodatinq the proceedina. The buildinq selected should be in the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant shall submit a summary of the Questions raised and responses made at this meetinQ with the Preliminary Master Plan application as required in Subsection 5.13-120N. I 5.13-120 Preliminary Master Plan - Submittal Requirements 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. The basis for the d~tail 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. The Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications shall be prepared by a professional Desiqn Team. The applicant shall select a proiect coordinator. All related maps. excludina 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: iJal& Received: Planner: GK 01 J..')..0Cj ATTACHMENT 1 - 9 . . A. General Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall submit a Preliminarv Master Plan that includes all applicable elements described below and a narrative qenerallv 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: 2. The location and proposed number of residential units and/or square footaqe of commercial. industrial and/or public uses: 3. The density or intensity of proposed uses. includinq applicable Floor Area Ratios WARs): and 4. The applicant shall attach: a. A map depictinq existinq zoninq and land uses within 300 feet of the proposed Master Plan boundary: b. . A Vicinity Map drawn to scale depictinq existinq bus stops. streets. driveways. pedestrian connections, fire hYdrants and other transportation/fire access issues within 300 feet 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 precisely maps and delineates the existinq conditions on the site. Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. Information required for adiacent properties may be aeneralized to show the connections to physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the followinq information, as applicable: 1. A full size map depictina the proposed Master Plan boundary toqether with existinq lot/parcel lines: 2. The 1 DO-year floodplain and floodway 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. Physical features includinq, but not limited to siqnificant clusters of trees and shrubs. wetlands as specified in Section 4.3-117, rock outcroppinqs and watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (lNLQW) Map and their riparian areas on file in the Development Services Department. In the '-'<,,~ ."<,,I..;i>i\t"'U: 0 I :). L of} Planner; GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 10 . . latter case. the name. location. dimensions. direction of flow and top of bank shall be depicted. Ifthe 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 tributary. a Riparian Area Protection Report is reauired: 5. Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Enaineer shall be submitted concurrently 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. C. A Gradina Plan which includes: existina and proposed elevations and where 2 or more feet of fill or aradina is anticipated for portions of or the entire proposed Master Plan site. On hillsides. the plan shalf show pad sites and their relationship to the public riaht-of-way with existina contours at 1-foot intervals and percent of slope. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more. contours may be shown at 5-foot intervals. D. A Stormwater Manaaement Plan diaaram which includes the stormwater manaaement svstem for the entire proposed Master Plan site and any impacts on adiacent properties. The plan shall contain the followina components: 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 and/or detention ponds; stormwater auality measures; and natural drainaaeways to be retained and/or modified: 4. Existina and proposed elevations. sne arades and contours: and 5. Astormwater 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 existina and proposed wastewater facilities with supportina calculations and documentation consistent with the EnGineerinG DesiGn Standards and Procedures Manual. F. A Utilities Plan with maps and a narrative depictina the location and size of existina and proposed water. electrical. aas and telephone service: and the location of existina and Date Received: oJ:2::2- oCJ . Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 11 . . required traffic control devices. fire hvdrants. street IiQhts. power poles. transformers. neiQhborhood mailbox units and similar public facilities. Commentary. The Landscape Plan can remain conceptual to help reduce development costs. The detailed SOC 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 illustratinQ proposed landscapinQ for the entire proposed Master Plan site. includinQ. but not limited to: where existinQ veQetation is proposed for preservation. especially riparian and wetland areas and trees: installation of veQetative bufferinQ: street trees: QenerallandscapinQ: and a percentaQe ranQe for the total amount of required open space: broken down by 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 durino the Site Plan Review application process required 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. 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. H. An Architectural Plan with maps. includinQ: 1. BuildinQ elevations. overall commercial, industrial or public floor area. the number of dwellino units. buildinQ heiQht. number of stories and the buildinQ location or buildinQ mass of the primarv structure (as defined in this Code): 2. Illustrative examples of applicable SDC desiQn standards and buildino materials may be considered conceptual. In this case. this requirement. if chanQed in the future. will not require Final Master Plan modification as specified in Section 5.13- 135: and a . 3. Narrative. A narrative providinQ sufficient information to describe the proposed Architectural Plan. I. A ParkinQ Plan and ParkinQ Study. 1. A Parkino Plan shall be submitted for all proposed development and shall contain the followinQ 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. includinQ the location and dimensions of existino and proposed driveways and any existinQ driveways proposed to be closed: d. The location of and number proposed bicycle spaces: ~u,'-' ~,d(;eived: 0 I '),:l. oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 -12 . . e. The amount of aross floor area applicable to the parkinQ reauirements for the proposed use: and f. The location and dimensions of off-street 10adinQ areas. if anv. 2. A Parkina Studv. for other than sinale familv developments. with maps and a narrative depictina proiected parkinQ impacts. includinQ. but not limited to: proiected peak parkinQ demand: an analvsis of peak demand compared to. or use of. the proposed on-site and off-site supplv: potential impacts to the on-street 'parkina svstem and adiacent land uses: and proposed mitiaation measures. if necessary, J. An On-site Liahtina Plan depictina the location and maximum heiaht of all proposed, exterior IiQht fixtures. both free standina and attached, K. A Public Riaht-of-Wav/EasementlPublic Place Map depictinQ the reservation. dedication. or use of the proposed Master Plan site for public purposes. includinQ. but not limited to: riahts-of-wav showina the name and location of all existina and proposed public and private streets within or on the boundary of the proposed Master Plan site. the riaht-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: pedestrian access wavs and trails: proposed easements: existina ease'ments: parks: open spaces. includina plazas: transit facilities: and school sites. L. ATraffic Impact Studv. as specified in Section 4.2-105.A.4. the scope of which mav be established bv the Public Works Director. The Traffic Impact Studvshall contain maps and a narrative depictina proiected transportation impacts. includina. but not limited to: the expected number of vehicle trips that may be aenerated bv the proposed development (peak and dailv): an analvsis of the impact of vehicle trips on the adiacent street svstem: 'and proposed mitiaation measures to limit anv proiected neaative impacts, Mitiaation measures mav include improvements to the street svstem itself or specific proarams and strateQies to reduce traffic impacts such as encouraainQ the use of public transit. carpools. vanpools. and other alternatives to sinqle occupant vehicles, M. A Phasinq Plan. The Phasinq Plan shall illustrate the proposed location of buildinqs. streets. utilities and landscapina, Phasina shall proqress in a sequence that provides street connectivitv between the various phases and accommodates other required public improvements such as wastewater facilities. stormwater manaQement. electricitv and water. The Phasinq Plan shall consist of maps and a narrative with an overall schedule or description of on-Ioff-site phasinq includinq, but not limited to: the tvpe. location and timinq of proposed uses. buildinq locations: proposed public facilities includina on-Ioff-site streets and traffic sianals or other traffic control devices and utilities with the desiQnation of construction and maintenance responsibilitv: estimated start/completion dates with a prOPosed tvpe of financial auarantee. includina but not limited to a bond. letter of credit. ioint deposit or other securitv in a form acceptable to the Citv. submitted bv the propertv owner. a future buver andlor a developer. to ensure planned infrastructure improvements will occur with each phase. if necessary. or when required bv the Citv. affected local aQencv or the State (the formal submittal of a required quarantee tvpicallv occurs durinQ Date Received: 0 I 'J. 1.. 0'1 Planner: ~K ATTACHMENT 1 - 13 .- . . the Final Master Plan review process and/or development implementation); a statement of the applicant's intentions with reqard to the future sellinq or leasinq (if known at the time of Preliminarv Master Plan submittal) of all or portions of the proposed development (where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall also include the applicant's intentions whether the applicant or others will construct the homes): and the relationship of pedestrian and bicvcle connectivitv and open space requirements to the proposed phasinq. N. . Neiqhborhood Meetinq Summary. The applicant shall submit a summary of issues raised at the neiqhborhood meetinq as specified in Section 5.13-117. O. A copv of all proposed and anv existinq covenants. conditions, and restrictions that mav control development. if applicable. P. Annexation. A qeneral schedule of proposed annexation consistent with the phasinq plan. if applicable. a. The Director mav require additional information necessary to evaluate the proposed development. includinq. but not limited to a: 1. ESEE analvsis, as mav be needed to complv with Statewide Planninq Goal 5. Natural Resources for site attributes that mav not be on an adopted Citv inventory: 2. Wetland delineation approved bv the Oreqon Department of State lands shall be submitted concurrentlvwith thePreliminarv Master Plan application. where there is a wetland on the proDOsed Master Plan site; and 3. Historical and/or archaeoloqical studies. R. Anv concurrent land use applications as specified in Subsections 5.13-1168. I 5.13-125 Preliminarv 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 fol/owing 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, Planning Commission or the City Council. A Preliminarv Master Plan shall be approved. or approved with conditions. if the Approval Authoritv 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 part of the Master Plan review process. A. Plan/Zone consistencv. The existinq or proposed zoninq shall be consistent with the Metro Plan diaqram and/or applicable text. In addition. the Preliminarv Master Plan shall be in ,..",.." ..,,,,I.\;lIVeu: 0 / :2)... oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 -14 .- . . compliance with applicable City Refinement Plan. Conceptual Development Plan or Plan District standards. policies and/or diaqram 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. Zoninq district standards. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the specific zoninq 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 existinq transportation system to accommodate the development proposed in all future phases or there will be adequate. 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 diaqram and/or text amendment reqardinq 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. Parkinq. Parkinq areas have been desiqned to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid conqestion: 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 parkinq standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. Commentary. This criterion refers to current ingress-egress standards inSDC Chapter 4 Development Standards that apply to specific transportation issues. E~ Inqress-eqress. Inqress-eqress points have been desiqned to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid conqestion: provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the property and to adiacent residential areas. transit stops. neiqhborhood 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 State requlations. The Preliminary. Master Plan shall also comply with all applicable inqress/eqress 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. Existinq public utilities. includinq but not limited to. water. electricity. wastewater facilities. and stormwater manaqement facilities either have sufficient capacity to support the proposed development in all future phases adequately. or . .there will be adequate 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. ....,,,<10 r<eceived: Planner: GK 01 'J.-J- 09 ATTACHMENT 1 - 15 . . 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, includinq but not limited to slopes 15 percent or qreater with unstable soil or qeoloqic conditions. areas with susceptibility to f1oodinq. siqnificant clusters of trees and shrubs. watercourses shown on the Water Qualitv Limited Watercourses (lNQLW) Map and their associated riparian areas. wetlands. rock outcroPoinqs and open spaces and areas of historic and/or archaeoloqical 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. The Preliminarv 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. H. PhasinQ Plan, The PhasinQ Plan shall: demonstrate that the construction of required public facilities shall occur in a loqical sequence. either in coni unction with. or prior to each phase. or that there are appropriate financial Quarantees as specified in Subsection 5.13-120M. to ensure the phased public facilities construction will occur. I. Adiacent use protection. The proposed Preliminarv Master Plan contains desiQn, elements includinq, but not limited to landscapinQ/screeninQ, parkinQ/traffic manaQemenl. and multi- modal transportation that limit and/or mitiqate identified conflicts between the site and adiacent uses. I 5.13-130 Preliminary Master Plan - Conditions The Approval Authoritv may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary to the Preliminarv Master Plan in order to ensure compliance with the approval criteria in Section 5.13-125, and with all other applicable provisions of this Code. All conditions shall be satisfied prior to Final Master Plan approval. Certain conditions may require an adequate financial Quarantee in a form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance. I 5.13-131 Final Master Plan - Review Commentary. Currently, there is no formalized "Final" Master Plan process; it's implied by past practice" This Section establishes the "Finaf' Master Plan review process. A. A Final Master Plan application shall be reviewed under Type I procedure. However, if the Preliminarv Master Plan approval was reviewed under Type III procedure. the Director shall require the Final Master Plan to be reviewed under Type II procedure. 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 a lication. 5.13-132 Final Master Plan Submittal Re uirements 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 . Date Received: 01 <),2 oct Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 16 .- . . 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. A. Within one vear of Preliminary Master Plan Approval. the applicant shall submit the Final Master Plan. The Final Master Plan shall illustrate the location of proposed buildinqs. streets. utilities. parkinq and landscape areas. The Final Master Plan shall incorporate all Approval Authoritv 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. diaqrams or plan sheets that require revision: . 2. The specific maps. diaqrams. plan sheets or other documents have been revised and/or demonstrate conformance with the Preliminary Master Plan approval: and 3. Anv other information that mav be required bv the Director. . EXCEPTION: The applicant mav request an extension of the Final Master Plan submittal for UP to one additional vear. The applicant shall submit the request for the extension in writinq to the Director no later than 30 davs prior to the expiration of the Preliminary Master Plan effective date. The applicant shall explain whv the request is necessary and demonstrate how the Final Master Plan application will be submitted within the requested extension time line. The Director mav 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 Authoritv shall qrant Final Master Plan approval upon findinq that: 1. . The Final Master Plan substantiallv conforms to the provisions of the Preliminary 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 Finat Master Plan as the regulations are currently written. The recordation of a Memorandum of Final Master Plan approval vs. all approval documents will reduce costs to the applicant. . B. Recordation. The applicant shall record a Memorandum of Final Master Plan Approval in a format approved bv the Citv Attornev and anv other required documents at Lane Countv Deeds and Records and return a recorded copv of the Memorandum of Final Master Plan Approval and all other applicable documents to the Development Services Department. Dale Received: 01;22. oq . Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 -17 . . C. Effective Date. _ 1. Final Master Plan approval is effective on the date of recordation of the Memorandum of Final Master Plan Approval. the effective date. for not more than 7 vears. 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 permitted development has been - constructed or the plan is modified. superseded or expires. 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 anv interest in the real propertv within the Final Master Plan boundarv. shall be bound bv the terms and conditions of approval of the Final Master Plan and the provisions of this Section. Notice of the Final Master Plan _ effective date will be mailed to the applicant. 15.13-134 Final Master Plan - Phasinq'lmDlementation A. No Subdivision andlor Site-Plan Review applications (phasinq implementation) shall be submitted until the Memorandum of Final Master Plan has been recorded (effective date) and returned to the Citv. B. The approved Final Master Plan shall be the basis for the evaluation of all phases of proposed development. includinq Subdivision andlor Site Plan Review applications. 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. The approved Final Master Plan and all applicable conditions of approval shall be addressed for each Subdivision andlor Site Plan Review application (phasinq implementation) as part of application completeness durina the Pre-Submittal Meetinq application process. specified in Section 5.1-120.C. 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 underlying assumptions" 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 O. is added to list those modifications for which no planning review is required. _ A proposed Final Master Plan modification. or a proposed modification to a Master Plan approved prior to the effective date of this requlation. shall be processed under the applicable procedures described below: Date Received: 01 J-1. oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 18 .- . . A. The followinq modifications to a Final Master Plan shall be processed under Type I procedure. These modifications include a request: . Commentary. As part of this additional review, staff is reevaluating all of the current and proposed Final Master Plan modification categories. 1. By the applicant to modify the Master Plan phasinq schedule for a specific phase of development when the proposed chanqe does not affect the construction of scheduled public improvements: 2. By the City based on the requirement to implement newly adopted State or Federal requlations: or 3. By the applicant for a one time extension of the approved time limit for UP to 3 years. An extension request shall be filed in writinq with the Director at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial 7 year period. If the applicant has made reasonable proqress. as determined by the Director. in the implementation of the Final Master Plan and public services and public facilities will be available to serve the site. the time line extension will be qranted. Commentary. Those categories that require the 10 percent standard in Subsection B., below will be processed as a Type I procedure.. 4. By the applicant for modifications that are less than the 10 percent thresholds specified in those specific instances specified in Subsection B.. below. Commentary. This Subsection is based upon current text and adds specific thresholds in certain situations. The level of review is reduced to a Type If or Type ffI procedure to be consistent with the level of review for the Preliminary Master Plan application. B. The followinq modifications to the Final Master Plan shall' be processed under Type II procedure. unless the Director determines that the proposed modification should be reviewed as a Type III procedure. based on the proposed size of the Master Plan site: and/or the availability/capacity of public facilities; and/or impacts to adiacent properties . includinq but not limited to noise and traffic. These modifications include a request: 1. By the applicant if a proposed permitted non-residential use for example. a church or a school. affects the approved Final Master Plan residential density; 2. By the applicant for 10 percent or qreater increases or decreases in the overall qross floor area of commercial. industrial or public buildinqs: the number of dwellinq . units; buildinq heiqht: and the location or buildinq mass of the primary structure (as defined in this Code); 3. By the applicant for increases or decreases in the amount of approved or required parkinq by a factor of 10 percent or qreater. The applicant shall provide a new parkinq analysis related to the proposal; 4. By the applicant for a Zoninq Map amendment or Discretionary Use application: Date Received: 0 I 2 '1..09 Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 19 .- . . 5. By the applicant for proposals that would increase the number of PM peak-hour vehicular trips by 10 percent or areater. except in cases where a trip cap has been imposed on development of the prooerty. Where such a trip cap is in effect. a . modification of the land use decision that imposed the trip cap shall be reauired. In all cases. the applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact Analysis supportina the proposal: 6. By the applicant to alter the placement of interior streets by 10 percent or areater from their approved location. as lona as the modification maintains the connectivity established by the approved Final Master Pan. 7. By the City or the applicant when essential public infrastructure cannot be provided: 8. By the applicant to modify the Master Plan phasiria schedule for a specific phase of development when the proposed chance affects the construction of scheduled public improvements; 9. By the applicant for extension of the Final Master Plan time limit beyond the maximum approved 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 approval as specified in Subsection 5.13-133:C. An extension reauest shall be filed in writina with the Director at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial 7 year period or any subseauently approved extensions. The time line extension will be aranted provided the applicant has made' reasonable procress in the implementation of the Final Master Plan and public services and facilities remain available: 10. By the applicant for a chance to the approved Final Master Plan boundarv. C. Proposed Final Master Plan modifications other than those described in Subsections A. and B.. above, shall reauire the submittal of a new Preliminary Master Plan application. D. The followina modifications to the Final Master Plan do not reauire subseaueni land use. review and are allowed upon issuance of a buildina permit. if reauired: 1. Buildina interior improvements; 2. Exterior improvements associated with existinc buildinas that do not involve a chance in floor area. subject to all applicable base zone development and desian standards and relevant conditions of approval as approved in the Final Master Plan: 3. Installation of new mechanical or electrical eauipment. or modification of existina eauipment. subiect to all applicable base zone development and desian standards and relevant conditions of approval as approved in the Final Master Plan; 4. Routine maintenance of existina buildinas. facilities and landscapina: and/or E. A Pre-Submittal Meetinc application. as specified in Section 5.1-120.C.. is reauired prior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan modification application. Date Received: 0 I J- 2 O>~ Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 1 - 20 . . ATTACHMENT 2 SDC SECTION 3.3-200 DRINKINGWATER 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 referencf?s, 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." (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: 0 ( ?-2. 0'1 Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 2 - 1 ..- . . 3. Review new or expanded uses of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater. I 3.3-220 Time ofJravel 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 TOTl 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 TOTl 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 TOTl, the following criteria apply: 1. The Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation maps shall be used asa base map with the addition of TOTl boundaries. 2. That portion of a tax lot that lies within a TOTl is governed by the restrictions applicable to that TOTl. 3. Tax lots having parts lying within more than one TOTl are governed by the standards of the more restrictive TOTl. 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 TOTl 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 TOTl standards; and c. The tax lot is 20,000 square feet or larger. 4. A property owner may request the TOTl be, modified by submitting a lone Change application to the City. Any request for modification of the TOTl shall be accompanied by certification of the TOTl 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: 01 22 01 'Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 2 -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 otlier 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 Fir-e CoEle 8001.15.1] Sprinafield 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.; . Date Received: 01 n 0,/ Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 2 - 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 lones Applications shall comply with the following standards. Where the following standards are more restrictive than the standards of the [Uniform] Sprinafield Fire Code, the following standards apply: A. 0 -1 year TOTl Standards. 1. Within the 0-1 year TOTl, 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 500-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. 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 [(Uniform Fire Code Articles 2 and 800a.1.a.3] Sprinafield Fire Code 2702.1 and 2704.2.2). Date Received: 0 I ). 2. oct Plaim~r: GK ATTACHMENT 2 - 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 [(Unifoll'R Fire Code I\ppondix II E J.2.e] SprinGfield Fire Code 2704.2.2.5) for a monitoring program and [if! IlOOJ.1.J.J 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 followinG requirements [found in Uniform Firo Coao Appendix II E Section J.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 inspectinG safety and monitorinq and emerGency eGuipment. The applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure acce.ptable to the Director for inspectinG the facility for events or practices which could lead to unauthorized discharaes or hazardous materials. An inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in coni unction 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 countersiGnature of the desiGnated safetv manaGer 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 Date Received: 0 I ') 2. 0 q Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 2 - 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 [(Uniferm Fire Coee Articles 2 and 8003.1.3.3 SprinGfield 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 [UnifoFfR Fire Code Appendix II E 3.2.6 fer a monitoring program ane in 8003.1.3.3 for] SprinGfield Fire Code 2704.2.2.5 for a monitorinG proGram 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. 7. The followinG requirements [faund in Uniferm Fir-e Code Appendix II E Seclion 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 Date Received: 0 I ').2 oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 2 - 6 .- . . to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures for inspectina safety and monitorina and emeraency eauipment. The applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure acceptable to the Director for inspectina the facility for events or practices which could lead to unauthorized discharaes or hazardous materials. An inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in coni unction 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 countersianature of the desianated safety manaaer for the facility. 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 ([UniforFfl Fire Code Articlos 2 and BOO::l.1.::l.::l] Sprinafield 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 followina requirements [found in Uniform Fire Code I\ppendix II E Section ::l.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 inspectina safety and monitorina and emeraency eauipment. The applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure acceptable to the Director for inspectina the facility for events or practices which could lead to unauthorized discharaes 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 countersianature of the desianated safety manaaer for the facility. 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. Date Received: 01 ;n oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 2 - 7 r . . ATTACHMENT 3 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. Prooosed chandes are hiahliahted. Revised text is underlined. (Delotod toxt is . wftJ:JiR koskots. with "strike out'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 SOC" listing for the use on collector and local streets was inadvertently omitted. This is the only use in this Section that is being amended. ZoninQ Districts Use CateQoriesl Uses lDR MDR HDR Residential Uses Child Care Center -13 or more children (abuttinq a colleCtor Q S. ~. or local streel\ (Section 4.7-125) Commentary. Several footnotes are amended due to inadvertently deleted "old SOC" text when creating the table and/or for clarity. The footnotl?s to the base zone development standards are the only portion of/his Section that is being amended. I 3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards I ~, (1) 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. (2) 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 [is reqYired tQ] allowl! for the future the division of the lot/parcel to create separate ownership for each half of the duplex [dwollin!;l YRit]. (3) The 45 percent coveraqe standard applies to covered structures onlv. On lotslparcels 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. /14\ In the MDR and HDR Districts. the buildinq heiqht may be increased to 50 feet as specified in Subsection 3.2_240D.3.c. Date Received: 0 I :21 oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENt 3 - 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 alllotslparcels zoned and designated Low and Medium Density Residential provided that units placed on individuallots/parcels outside of existinq platted manufactured home subdivisions shall be Tvpe 1 classification and all densitv standards are satisfied. A Tvpe 2 manufactured home mav be sited in manufactured dwellinq parks. interior lots of existinq platted manufactured home subdivisions and in multi-familv 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 Glen wood 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 Conceptu.al 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 required] mav be submitted when phased developments exceeding [twG] ~ 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. . Commentary. Hotels were inadvertently omitted from the MUC use list. The intentto allow hotels as a MUC use has been established by the following text in the Glen wood 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. "P" = PERMITTED USE subject to the standards of this Code. "5" = 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: CJ I ?-]. 0'1_ Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 2 . . "D" = 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 Catel!orieslUses MUC MUE MUR Transient Accommodations Bed and breakfast facilities (Section 4.7-120) p N S Ememency shelter facilities N N P Hotels (Section 4.7-180) S N N 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 CateQories/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 the 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, iestrictions or exceptions specified in this Code shall apply. . PLO Zonin District Re uirement LoVparcel 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 coveraQe standards and no minimum planted area exce t for arkin lots 6. 2, 3 and 4 15 feet 6 20 feet 6 .5 feet Landsca ed Setbacks 1, Street Setback Residential Pro ert Line Parkin and Drivewa Date Received: 01 ?oJ- oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 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 heiohtlimitation. (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. (51 In the Downtown Exception Area. there shall be no minimum planted area except for parkinq 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 FI F. Expansion or replacement of lawful Discretionary Uses in the underl in zonin district Section 3.3-825 FI F. New Permitted and Specific Development Standards in the underlying zoning district within existing structures. Section:3.3-825 FI 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. Now permittee uses and expansions of permitted uses in commercial and industrial districts shall demonstrate that the use will not generate singly, or in the aggregate, additional neeEl fur key urba'n services.] . Date Received: 0 ( '1). o-q Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 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 Stevens and Perkins Buildin LO.O.F. Buildin Pacific Power & Li ht Buildin Southern Pacific Railroad De ot Brattain I Hadle House Stewart House Dou las House Thurston Gran e Address 330 Main Street 346 Main Street 590 Main Street 101 South A Street 1260 Main Street 214 Pioneer P . West 3362 Osa e Street 66 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 bv Zonina District Yard Tvpe Residential Commercial . . Industrial PLO MS Front Yard 111 6' 121 6' 6'/8'13l 6' 6' Street Side Yard 14) 6' 6' 6'/8' 131 6' 6' Rear Yard 6' 6' 6'/8'13l 6' 6' HeiQht Exceotions 8'/10' 15) 8' 8' 161 8' NIA Vision Clearance 2%' 2%' 2 ;1,' 2%' 2;1,' Area 171 Barbedl Razor Y1!U Y1!U Y1!U Y/N(8) N Wirel Electric (1) (2) The fence shall be located behind the front yard setback in all districts unless allowed in (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. . In the Campus Industrial District the base height standard is 6'. In all other industrial districts, the base height standard is 8'. 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. 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. (3) '(4) (5) Date Received: 0 I n oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 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 2%' 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 [drainago] 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: 0 I -:21. cq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 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 Dermitted/allowed bv City. State and Federal requlations; 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 B. (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 qrOUD also includes rooftoD solar collectors. Fences are addressed in Section 4.4-115. Commentary. The amendment specifies that duplexes are permitted only on corner lots/parcels in the LOR District. This is the only'i/em in this Section that is being amended. Date Received: 0 I 7-2- ocr Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 7 . . 14.7-140 Duplexes A. A duplex mav be located on corner lots/parcels of 6.000 square feet in the LOR District. unless asmav be permitted below. A corner duplex or duplex lollparcel 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 MUG District shall be the same as those specified in Section 3.2-310 as an'S' 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 MUG 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 MUG 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 MUG '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 fagade facing the pedestrian facility. One or more of the following techniques may be used: Date Received: ([I ?-2 O'q . Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 8 . . 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; and/or 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. Commentary. Hotels in the MUG District require siting standards. c. In MUC Districts. parkinQ lots shall be located beside or behind buildinQs, internal to the development on a site. ExistinQ or new outparcel buildinQs between a larQe parkinQ lot and the street shall be used to help define the streetscape. and lessen the visual impact of the parkinQ lot from the street. 14.7-190 Professional Offices Commentary. The MUC 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. Profes~ional offices in residential districts are permitted when: 1. The lots/parcels 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 ce. Mue or MRe 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. I 5.1-120 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 the 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: . Date Received: U' J.)... oq Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 9 . . B. Pre-Application Report. The purpose ofthe 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" [aM] 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 noticee] who submitted comments or requested 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 J\pplication Conference] Development Issues Meetinq is encouraged prior to a formal Metro 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" [aM] 4.3-120,4.3-125 and 4.3-130 and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3-140. Date Received: 0 I J:4 0':''- Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 -10 . . 15.15-125 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 [1*] 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., selo'll] 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 [A4.G] Q., 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]~. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 45 days of the Director's approval of the Final Plot Plan. [a] 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] D., below. [8] Q. The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction time line specified in Subsection [A4.G] Q., 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] E. lithe time line established in Subsection [A4.G] 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. [1;)] f. If the time line established in Subsection [A4.G] Q., 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. . Date Received: 0 I )..1 OlL Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 11 . . I 5.16-120 Submittal Requirements Commentary. Duplicative language regarding submittal requirements for Property Line Adjustments in Subsection B.3., is deleted. The remaining Subsections are renumbered accordingly. Consent language is found in reformatted Section 5.4-105B.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 applioant is not the property owner, written permie:sion from all property owners is requires.] [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. I 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. 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; . 2. The reason for the Vacation; 3. The proposed use of the property after Vacation; 4. For citizen initiated Vacations of public rights-of-way or Partition and Subdivision Plats, the petition of affected property owners; 5. 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; LiGlib "..celved: 0 I J.. L 09.- Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 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; f. 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. [j. The legal description of the easement, right of way or Plat, or portion thereof, propO!:ed to be vacated.] Commentary. The proposed new Section and text explains a part of the current vacation process. Vacated right-of-wayhas always assumed the zoning of the abutting property. 15.20-140 Zonina of Vacated Ri!:lht-of-Wav Vacated riaht-of-wav is incorporated into the abuttinq property. typically to the centerline. However. in cases where only one abuttinq property dedicated riqht-of-way. all the vacated riqht-of-way would be incorporated into that property. In any case. the vacated riqht-of-way acquires the zoninq of the abuttinq property. without the need of a separate Zonina Map amendment. CHAPTER 6 DEFINITIONS Commentary. The Downtown Exception Area was modified during the Downtown Refinement Plan appro va/ process in 2006. The SDC was not amended at that time. Downtown Exception Area. An area defined by the Willamette River on the west, [-Wf.1!lh Street on the east, the alley between north B and north C Streets on the north, and a line north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the south. Date Receiyed: Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 - 13 . . 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 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] larae 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: 0 J 22 0 'J Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 3 -14 . . ATTACHMENT 4 PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE DISCUSSION Backaround. At the PlanninCg 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's 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's has the discretion to raise the application to a Type f11 review. This latter review option applies to all Type II SDC applications. Justification for the initial Tvpe II Review Procedure. The proposed amendment 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 Metro Plan amendment review process, in order to comply with State-wide Planning Goals, staff evaluates whether there are public facilities available to serve the property, transportation capacity issues, etc. Once the plan designation and zoning are in compliance, an applicant is entitled to submit a development application to the City. The purpose of the Master Plan is to allow for phased development to occur for at least 7 years, with the possibility of timeline extensions. The Site Plan Review process (Type II Review) 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. The three largest Master Plan applications, MountainGaie, Peace Health Riverbend and Marcola Meadows all impacted adjacent residential properties and if these applications were to be processed under the amended regulations, the Director would raise the level of review from Type II to Type III. Additionally, in proposed Section 5.13-110, the submittal of Master Plan applications for 3-5 acres w9uld be allowed because staff became aware of the need of a non-profit to require a longe~ approval timeline than the 2 years permitted under the Site Plan Review process. In this case, the current 5 acre minimum development area would not allow this non-profit to utilize the Master Plan Review process. . 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 entirely commercial or industrial zoned area and the proposed development may have limited impact on the adjacent properties. These applications would be reviewed under the initial Type II procedure. . Date Received: 0 I ) 2 0 q Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 4 - 1 . . Review of the Tvpe I - Tvpe 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. Ttiese staff decisions are made without public notice and or a public hearing. A mailed notice of decision is sent to the applicant. Type /I 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 III 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. 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 Planning Commission decision to the City Councilor the Hearings Official decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. . . Date Received: a I ;J.. '2. oc{ Planner:GK ATTACHMENT 4 - 2 . . 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). o 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. 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 reviewprocedure, 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 based on the proposed square feet of impervious surface. Question: Should there be a reduced Preliminary Master Plan Approval fee for a Type II application? Date Received: 01 J..2. oq Planner: GK . .. ATTACHMENT 4 - 3 . . 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. ATTACHMENT 4 - 4 Date Received: 01;;22 09 Planner: GK -- -'. \' . . ATTACHMENT 5 RESPONSES TO WRiTTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONY Staff has addressed the highlighted responses, Name SOC Reference/Summary of Testimonv Staff Response R. Satre SDC 5.13-1058.1. questioned "large scale" "large scale" deleted reference R. Satre SDC 5.13-1058.3. questioned "establish revised text to "determine specific specific uses" uses" R. Satre SDC 5/13-1058.3. questioned "intensities" revised to "square footage". R. Satre SDC 5.13-1058.4. questioned "impacts" revised text to define "imoacts". R. Satre SDC 5.13-116C. "approval is granted" revised text to add "approval is effective." P Farrington SDC 5.13-117 questioned "neighborhood revised text based on Corvallis meetinq" process regulations. 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 revised text as suggested. Planner/Civil Enaineer R. Satre SDC 5.13-120A.2. questioned "uses" deleted Subsection A.2., renumbered subsections. R. Satre SDC 5.13-120A.5. questioned "impacts" deleted Subsection A.5., renumbered subsections. Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-120A.6.a.lb. suggested "300 revised text to add "300 feet." feet" R. Satre SDC 5.13-1208.4. questioned "unstable did not change - same text used soils and/or hiqh water table elsewhere in SOC. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1208.4. suggested revised text as suggested. "Geotechnical Engineer" R. Satre SDC 5.13-120C. questioned "fill revised text to address both topics. 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 deleted questioned text. proposed desian option" R. Satre SDC 5.13-120H. questioned intent of explained intent of subsection and subsectionfneed for overall site plan reason for a Site Plan Review level of detail/the existing Site Plan Review process in SOC 5.17-100 allows as many elements as possible that can fit on the Preliminary Site Plan - the same is true for the Preliminary Master Plan. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120H. suggested making the revised text to state which aspects of architectural plan conceptual the Architectural Plan may be conceotual. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.1.a. questioned the need did not change, but explained why a for a parkinq plan and study oarkina plan and studY are necessarv P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.1.d. questioned the need revised text to delete exterior lighting in for exterior lighting requirement this Subsection; it's still required in Subsection 5.13-120J. Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-1201.1.e. questioned "bike - revised text to require the minimum parking space" amount of information. P. Farrinqton SDC 5.13-1201.2. suqqested adding ""or revised text to add "or use or'/"if Attachment 5-1 Date Received: 012? C5'1 . Planner: GK . . use of'!"if needed" necessarv" . P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120J. suggested deleting all revised text to delete "lighting type and liqhtinq requirements extent of shielding" only. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120L.suggested deleting revised text to delete "events" "events" Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-120M. questioned "...a revised text to clarify if, when and by statement of the applicant's with whom a financial guarantee is required. regard to the future selling or leasing.. .." P. Farrington SDC 5.13-120Q.1. suggested more revised text to provide more specificity specificity re ESEE analysis P. Farrington SDC 5.13-125H. questioned the revised text to address why a Phasing requirement to guarantee that all Plan would be required. proposed development will occur P. Farrington SDC 5.13-125J. suggested deleting explained why "shading", "glare were "shadina, alare" not deleted. Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-130 questioned how the revised text to delete "minimize preliminary decision will be identified on-site conflicts and rendered/appeal period/effective impacts.... And to clarify why/how date/when the Final plan can be conditions may be attached" - this submitted/same section questioned process is similar to the Site Plan vague language Review (SDC 5.17-100) and Land Division (SDC 5.12-100) review processes. The Type II review process is found in SDC 5.1.130 and is not repeated in each land use application review process to reduce redundancies. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-131 questioned the rationale to revised text to address this question. raise a Final Master Plan application from a Type I to a Tvpe II review R. Satre SDC 5.13-132A.1. questioned "have been revised text to read "require revision". revised" P. Farrington SDC 1.13-132A2. suggested additional revised text to address this suggestion. lanquaqe R. Satre SDC 5.13-132A. EXCEPTION questioned revised text".. .30 days prior to the "expiration date" expiration of the Preliminary Master Plan effective date." P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1338. suggested deleting "all revised text to add "other" - there may applicable documents" be deed restrictions and other similar documents that also must be recorded concurrently. R. Satre SDC 5.13-133C.1. questioned "7 years" revised text to clarify when effective date beains Attachment SDC 5.13-133D. questioned Final Master revised text to state that notice of the 1-1 Plan notice of decision process Final Master Plan effective date will be R. Satre mailed to the applicant R. Satre SDC 5.13-134 questioned when a revised text to state when a Site Plan Subdivision and/or Site Plan Review review or Subdivision application can be application can be submitted. submitted to implement Master Plan ohasina P. Farrington SDC 5.13-135A.1. questioned "change of revised text to read: "for a specific scheduled phasinq" phase of development". R. Satre SDC 5.13-135A.3. questioned "reasonable revised text to read" ...as determined by prowess" and "remain available" the Director..." and "... to serve the . Date Received; 0/ ..2J.... Planner: GK oq Attachment 5-2 . . site..." P. Farrington SDC 5.13-135A.4. questioned the 10 revised text to clarify but not change - percent threshold the 10 percent was utilized as a method to clearly separate a Type I review from a Type II review. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1358. questioned "potential revised text to read: "size of the Master impacts"/"other properties" Plan site, the potential impact on adjacent properties and/or infrastructure, or any unresolved Master Plan conditions of approval". Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-1358.1. questioned zoning revised text to address this question. district ranQes/density P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1358.4. and 5. questioned the did not change - the 10 percent was 10 percent threshold utilized as a method to clearly separate . a Tvpe I review from a Tvpe II review. R. Satre SDC 5.13-1358.4. suggested "or revised text to address the suggestion. decreases" R. Satre SDC 5.13-1358.6. questioned review type revised text - the Master Plan Modification would be elevated to a Type III review. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-1358.7. suggested deleting revised text, but - the 10 percent was "realign" utilized as a method to clearly separate a Type I review from a Type II review. P Farrington SDC 5.13-1358.8. questioned the 10 did not change- the 10 percent was percent threshoid utilized as a method to clearly separate a Type I review from a Type II review. Satre/Farrington SDC 5.13-1358.12. questioned "primary revised text - this is now Subsection structure"/need B.2. P. Farrington SDC 5.13-140A.1. suggested "or as revised text to add suggested language. otherwise previously approved". Date Received' Planner: GK . 01 :22. oq _ Attachment 5-3 . . P,TIACfjMENT 6' , RECOMMEND/\TIClN 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 Springfie'ld Development Code (SOC) Amendments apply to Secti.on 5.13-100 Master Plans; . Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection (OWP) Overlay District; and various sections to correct Scrivener's errors created with the adoption of the reformatt~d SOC as listed in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL The proposed Master Plan amendments address staff's concerns regarding the current Master Plan review process by: better defining this process which allows long term phasing of ~evelopment proposals; requiring an Initial Type 11 rather than a Type III review procedure for smaller development proposals or those proposals which limit l~pacts on adjacent properties and infrastructure - the Development Services Director has the authority to raise goy Type II review application to a Type III; requiring a neighborhood meeting hasted by the . applicant to infonn 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; requirlng specific Preliminary and Final MasterPlan review processes; and redefining the categories of the Master Plan Modification process. The proposed ame~dments to the OWP Overlay District, due to updated Fire regulations, were proposed jointly by the City's Fire and Life Safety Department and the Springlield utility Board, The proposed amendment of ~crivener's errors is the second, and hopefully last, SDC amendment of this type regarding the SQC reformatting process adopted last year. 1. The above referen'ced application has ~een accepted as complete. 2. The application was initiated and submitted In accordance wIth Sectio~ 5.4~105. Timely and suffici~nt 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 Com~lssion held a public hearing regarding thE! proposed amendments. Two persons .testified regarding the proposed Master Plan sac amendments. No persons testified regarding the proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District or Scriveners errors am~hdments. The Planning- CommIssion continued the publ1c hearing until Decemb~r 2, 2008 5. On December 2, 2008 the Planning Commission reconvened the public hearing. The Development Servjces 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 ame'ndments-are consistent with the criteria ofSDC Section 5.6-115. This genera.l finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and Findings. I'l.ECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve the request 85 ,recom~~_nd ~E NUMBER LRP 2008-00011, al their February 17, 2009 m~eling, Plan . 9 ommission Chairperson ATTEST: AYES: 'f" NOES: if' ABSTAIN:'" POl ate Received: anner: GK' ATTACHMENT 6 - 1 October 7, 2008.. December 2, 2008 . . MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. o .. ate Received' Planner: GK . () I z 2 1- ATTACHMENT 7 - 1 . . Minutes approved by the Springfield Planning Commission: December 2, 2008 City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF TIIE REGULAR MEETING OF TIIE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMlSSION Tuesday, October 7,2008 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at 7 p.m., with Frank Cross as Springfield Planning Commission Chair. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Johnny Kirschenmann and Planning Commissioners Lee Beyer, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith, Terry Leezer, and Steve Moe. Also present were Development Service Director Bill Grile, Planning Manager Greg Mott, Planning Supervisor Mark Metzger, Planning Secretary Brenda Jones, and City Attorney Joe Leahy. ABSENT . None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Frank Cross. Commissioner Moe asked to be excused from the meeting due to a death in his family. Commissioner Cross excused Commissioner Moe and commiserated him on his loss. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE . ~ QUASI.JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING . Date ReceiVed: r(!J I :2 2 o~ Planner: GK . Babv Face Towin!!:. DRC2008-000056 The applicant proposed to use an existing industrial building for storing impounded vehicles that are towed to the site. All vehicles would be stored indoors. Staff would be on-site during normal working hours to allow owners to pick up their vehicles. Vehicles may be towed to the site any time of the night or day. Planning Manager Greg Mott reviewed the request before the coiIimission. He said the Springfield Code called for discretionary uses to be reviewed and approved if the relevant criteria were satisfied by the record. He called attention to the applicable criteria found in Section 5.9-120 of the code and reviewed the criteria Mr. Mott asked those offering testimony to raise issues with sufficient specificity to provide the. commission and others ATTACHMENT 7 - 2 .~ . . with the opportunity to respond. Failure to raise an issue or be,sufficiently specific could preclude one's ability to appeal the commission's decision. Mr. Mottindicated that requests to keep the record for one week would be honored. Commissioner Cross called for conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. There were none. Planner Mark Metzger provided the staff report. He noted only a few uses in the code were considered discretionary uses, and since such uses had the potential for controversy, applications were considered by the commission. Mr. Metzger said the application before the commission did not fit well into the category in the code entitled "Towing, Vehicle Storage, and Auto Wrecking Yard." The application did not concern a towing service, although a towing service would bring impounded cars to the location for indoor storage. He referred the commission to the aerial photographs included in the packet to provide with context in regard to the location. The applicant was present to answer questions about the use. Mr. Metzger overviewed Attachment A in the packet, the applicant's narrative, which described the business in question and how it was proposed to operate. ' Mr. Metzger recommended approval of the application. He believed it would have a low impact as it was entirely surrounded by industrial uses and the building itself was isolated from those uses. He noted that the City had a separate application for a new development that would incorporate the existing building and make fuller use of the existing site. Commissioner Beyer referred to the applicant's comments, which mentioned the vehicles would be stored inside the warehouse building. There were no conditions of approval related to that. He asked if that made a difference. Mr. Metzger said the application was for inside storage. He did not believe that outside storage would have a negative impact, either. It might change the nature of the concurrently processed drinking water protection pennit as it regarded mitigation measures and the required paving surfaces. Commissioner Beyer indicated he had no major concern. Mr. Metzger said there would be another opportunity to govern activities on the site through the drinking water protection pennit. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kirschenmann, the applicant indicated that, depending on the size, the building could hold 12 cars. Cars were typically in the facility for 48 hours, although occasionally owners did not pick up their cars. After 30 days, those cars were transferred to a Eugene facility. Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing. There bel!>at@fR~do speak, he 0/ )2 closed the public hearing. Planner: GK . 09 Commissioner Kirschenmann, seconded by Commissioner Moore, moved that the Planning Commission, based on the discretionary use criteria, to approve the application. The motion passed unanimously: ATTACHMENT 7 - 3 . . LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING . Sprinmeld Development Code Amendments. LRP 2008-00011. City of Sprinmeld The proposed SDC amendments address the following issues: Streamlining the Master Plan process; updating Fire regulations in the DWP Overlay District; and addressing additional scrivener's errors. Planner Gary Karp provided the staff report. He fIrst briefly reviewed the amendments before the commission. He then addressed questions raised at the commission's work session of September 16 about the change in review type. He referred the commission to Attachment 1 in the meeting packet materials related to the item and reviewed the justification for the change outlined in the attachment. Mr. Karp noted the commissiori'squestions.related to the term "significant impact" as it regarded the establishment of limitations on the number of master plan modifications. He recalled that the commission thought it too vague, and said it had been deleted and replaced with text found on 4-20 that read "Proposed final master plan modifications other than those described in subsections A and B, above, shall require the submittal of a new Preliminary Master Plan application." Mr. Karp recommended that the commission approve the amendments. Responding to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Karp said the City Council adopted the fees by resolution. The timing of the amendments and the fee updates were somewhat coincidental- and staff was attempting to coordinate those processes. If the commission supported a lower fee for the Type II application as recommended, he asked that the commission direct staff to proceed with that. Commissioner Moore asked how staff defined "complex." Mr. Karp interpreted it as a large amount of land, service delivery provisions, impact on residential uses, etc. He had attempted to be consistent with the language already in the code but staff would review- the use of the word if the commission preferred. Commissioner Moore wanted to ensure that the defInition was consistent. <:;ommissioner Beyer thought the amendments streamlined the process and made it clearer and easier for a property to owner. Mr. Karp concurred. Date Received: 01 .:22 (;''1 - Commissioner Cross opened the public hearing. Planner: GK Phil Farrington, Peace Health, 123 International Way, Springfield, expressed appreciation for Springfield's willingness-to examine its own code to develop more efficient processes. He indicated he had submitted some e-mail comments to Mr. Karp for inclusion in the record and asked that the commission be provided that information. Mr. Farrington suggested that the amendments to the code apply only to new preliminary master plans. He noted the extensive amount of time and effort that went into Peace Health's master planning process and the fact that master plan was vested. Mr. Farrington commended the requirement for a meeting between the developer and ATTACHMENT 7 -4 ~ . . .- neighborhood group, but pointed out many areas in Springfield did not have such organizations. He asked what the requirement would be in such a circumstance and what burden the applicant would bear in regard to notice. He asked the commission to consider notice examples from other communities to ensure the expense born by the applicant was reasonable. Mr. Farrington did not think the master plan process should be considered as a supplemental to the site plan review process, which was required for subsequent developments in the master plan area, and asked the commission to consider the requirements that were made to ensure that Springfield was not requiring a "super site plan review" with another such review required later on. He thought the requirements should be suitable to the level of review. For example, he thought the requirement for architectural plans should be for conceptual architectural plans because of the expense of preparing architectural plans, and he believed that requirements for such things as on-site lighting plans should be addressed at the site plan review level. Mr. Farrington referred to Section 5.13-120 of the code and the requirement that the applicant provide information about leasing. He suggested that the at the master plan level, that analysis was premature. Commissioner Beyer pointed out to Mr. Farrington that in regard to his suggestion for conceptual plans, residents involved in the planning process would object if the plans changed. He suggested that sometimes it was just better to have the plot plans with the conceptual footprint rather than "pretty drawings." Mr. Farrington referred to Section 5.3-135 and questioned the reasoning behind the numerical standards. He recommended that the existing code be retained as the numerical standards were sure to have an unintended consequence. He noted the requirement related to modification to the master plan as a result of realignment of streets (B)(7) and asked what happened if the City required a realignment of the street; why should the applicant have to go through additional processes for something not of its own creation? He did not think that the text was necessary and said there were other ways through which the City could require certain modifications. Mr. Farrington further argued that in terms of change oflocation of the primary structure, the key issue should be the footprint, mass, scale, and impact of the building. He said the commission should consider the level of specificity it Wished to see at this level. Referring to Section 5.13-140, Mr. Farrington suggested that the commission attempt to ensure that prior master plans were vested, and consider adding text to the section that stated "or as otherwise previously approved" to pay respect tol9JJt~~W&t~J; 01 .J. 2- 0 Planner. GK 1 Rick Satre, Satre and Associates, 101 West Broadway, Eugene, agreed WitJ\ Mr. Farrington's remarks. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Karp's outreach and said that many of his comments were incorporated into .the document before the commission. Mr. Satre said the process outlined generally followed the process that his firm went through for the Marcola Meadows Master Plan. The eXisting ordinance was ambiguous in a few places. For example, the notion of a final master plan did not exist in that code. He thought the code modifications in that regard were a good thing and that they made sense. ATTACHMENT 7 - 5 "!' . . .. Mr. Satre spoke to ambiguity in the proposed code language, saying it had been lessened from the first draft to the draft before the commission but some ambiguities continued to exist. He referred the commission to Section 5.13-105(8)(4), and the use of the phrase "incremental and cumulative impact," and asked what was "incremental" and what was "cumulative." Commissioner Beyer thought that the word "cumulative" could justified and that perhaps "incremental" could be deleted. Mr. Satre said if the word "cumulative" was used, he wanted to know the threshold for when enough impact was accumulated to the degree special cousideration was necessary. He suggested that the issue could be addressed through back and forth dialogue at pre-submittal meetings. He suggested that incremental impact was associated with the phases of development. For example, transportation would be incrementally impacted as more phases were developed. Responding to a question from Commissioner Moore, Mr. Satre said he did not have text to recommend to the commission. He suggested that more thought be put into the provision. He believed that the text had been improved by Mr. Karp's changes. As another example of ambiguity, Mr. Satre referred the commission to Section 5.13- I 15(A)(1)(b). He said that while the ambiguity had been lessened somewhat from past drafts, some still existing in the reference to "other properties." In other parts of the code, "affected properties" was used. He questioned what other properties were being referred to. Mr. Satre pointed out that in other parts of the code distance was used as a yardstick. He suggested that something similar be used in this section to place parameters on the concept of "other properties." Commissioner Beyer observed that master plans were generally only required for developments that were assumed to have a significant impact on their surroundings, which called into question the application of a specific distance requirement for "other properties." Mr. Satre agreed. He said that an arbitrary 300 foot distance was not a good idea. Mr. Satre posited the idea of an informal work group of staff and practicing planners to discuss the issue. Mr. Satre spoke to the level of detail and specificity that the proposed ordinance required. .He referred the commission to the Commentary accompanying Section 5.13-115, which discussed the difference between site plan review and master plan review by stating that the site plan review application required more specific information. He then referred the commission to Section 5.13-120(D), which called for a Stormwater Management Plan Diagram, and said it was difficult to develop a storm water management plan based on roof drainage patterns when one did not know what those patterns would be. He asked the commission to realize that a master plan was not a site plan. The purpose of the master plan was to address phasing beyond the allowed two years. It needed sufficient analysis and documentation to enSure that was approved by the City was something that could be built and was not going to have unintended cousequences. He thought the proposal went too far in that regard. . Date Received: 0/ ::22 0'1 Planner: GK Responding to a question from Conimissioner Beyer, Mr. Satre suggested that to be successful in the marketplace, it was likely a master plan would undergo more than one ATTACHMENT 7 - 6 . . modification. He apologized for having no text to offer to the commission. He emphasized that ambiguity caused anxiety for applicants, and the level of detail called for at the master plan level caused the applicant to make a greater investment at the master plan phase and repeated investment at later phases due to the modification process. Commissioner Cross called for staff response. Mr. Karp acknowledged Mr. Farrington's input, which was in the record, and indicated he had incorporated some of the suggestions in the ordinance, and Mr. Farrington might not have seen those changes yet. He referred the commission to Section I. I 3- I 17, which reflected revisions made to the ordinance in response to Mr. Farrington's comments. The references to roads and building locations in the modifications section had been deleted. In addition, the reference to "conceptual" plans had been deleted: He agreed that there were additional opportimities to clarify the text and staff would work on that prior to the council hearing. He said that he was willing to meet with those offering testimony to discuss their issues. However, he believed that the City needed a certain level of detail for things such as storrnwater conveyance in order to determine where the building areas were. Mr. Karp said there were tradeoffs made; for example, text specific to side lighting types had been. deleted. Commissioner Beyer determined from Mr. Karp that there was no rush to complete the I ordinance and encouraged him to sit down with Mr. Farrington and Mr. Satre for one more review. He added that he would not mind seeing the comments that staff received and staff's response before the commission made a recommendation to the .council. Commissioner Cross endorsed the approach suggested by Commissioner Beyer. He commended the ordinance as well written but thought some good points had been made in testimony. He agreed with Commissioner Moore that the word "complex" was somewhat ambiguous and that it should be defined. Commissioner Beyer thought that would be a difficult definition to create. He suggested that ambiguity allowed for some discretion on the part of professional staff, and taking that discretion away could elongate the process. Commissioner Cross asked Mr. Karp to speak to Mr. Satre's comments regarding City- initiated street realignment. Mr. Karp believed some text could be added to the ordinance to clarify that issue. Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Moore, moved to continue the public hearing until the first commission meeting in December, to keep the public record open, and to direct staff to meet with the interested parties, in particular the two parties who testified, to review further changes suggested to the code and return with a report on what was suggested. The motion passed llnanimously. . piJaifi1 Received' 01 "22 . 'ann . - r::J. BUSINESS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR er: GK . Development Services Director Bill Grile was present to give the report. ATTACHMENT 7 - 7 ~. . . REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION . None. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION . Commissioner Beyer reported that he and Commissioner Kirschenmann had been attending the meetings of the Commercial, Industrial Buildable Lands Study Advisory Committee and the process was proceeding well. He encouraged commissioners to view the maps on the City's Web site and to offer comment. ADJOURNMENT . The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes recorded by Brenda Jones, Transcribed by Kim Young Date R . PI ecelVed:.!? / 22 anner: GK 0'<] - ATTACHMENT 7 - 8 . . . -. Minutes Approved by Springfield Planning Commission: City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGIELD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 2, 2008 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon on Tuesday, November 2, 2008 6:00 p.m.., with Frank Cross as Springfield Planning Commission Chair. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair Frank Cross, Vice Chair Johnny Kirschenmann and Planning Commissioners Lee Beyer, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith, Sean VanGordon, and Steve Moe (via speakerphone). Also preseht were Development Service Director Bill Grile, Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly, Gary Karp . In. . the LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING .' . Sprinldield Development Code Amendment ~ City of Sprin2field - LRP2008-00011- Continuance of the public hearing held on October 7, 23008 to consider the proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments, which address the . followiDg topics: Streamlining the Master Plan review process '(Section 5.13-100); updating Fire regulations in the Dinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District (Section 3.3-200); and addressing additional Scrivener's errors found in various sections after adoption ofthe reformatted SDC. Date Receiv ' Planner: GKed:2'/ :22. 01 - ATTACHMENT 7 - 9 . ... . . ,.. -< 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 staff's 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 and Mr. Farrington's comments include over 40 pages of text. For ease of review, their written comments have been combined into a format which responds to each issue/question. Attachment I allows the reader to briefly see each issue/question and go to the applicable section/subsection in Attachment 4 to review the revised text, 'l;h,isJll~A:ll~!lS~c' "nupen ' . 0 osed dlar how it has been addressed. Planner Linda Pauly reviewed the criteria of approval regarding amendments to the Springfield Development Code, found in Section 5.6-100 of that code. She noted that .ijnyone could request that the record remain open to respond to new evidence. Gary Karp, Planner ill, introduced the item, first calling attention to the attachments to the meeting packet. He recalled the hearing on October 7, at which the commission . directed staff to meet with Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington, and called the commission's attention to Attachment I, Responses to Written and Oral Testimony Regarding the Master Plan Process. He indicated that staff had made some additional "tweaks" to the code language, and referred the commission to Attachment 4, SDC Section 5.13-100 Master Plans-Revised. He reviewed the changes incorporated into that document, which were highlighted in blue to reflect the suggestions made by Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington that were incorporated into the October 10 staff report, in yellow to reflect the Puaie Received' 0/ 22 oq lanner: GK '- -j. ATTACHMENT 7 :"'10 .. . . .. -t suggestions made by Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington after the November 12 meeting, and in green to reflect the addition changes made by staff. . Mr. Karp recommended that the Planning Commission forward the amendments to the council with a recommendation of approval. Responding to a question from Commissioner Kirschenmann about Section 513-140(1), Mr. Karp clarified that any Master Plan extending beyond ten years would have to meet the code requirements in place at that time. Responding to a follow-up question from Commissioner Beyer, Mr. Karp acknowledged that the code went beyond the State statutes and gave the applicant more protection than was provided by the statute. Commissioner Moe thanked Mr. Satre and Mr. Farrington for the time they spent on the code language in question. He concurred with the direction they suggested as he preferred the City to be more goal-oriented in its code as opposed to detail-oriented. Chair Cross solicited questions from the commission. Responding to a question from Commissioner Smith about the proposed requirement that a certified planner be included in a project design team, Mr. Satre said that those "participating in the discussions felt it was important to recognize that there was a national certification program for planners that required a certain level of education and proficiency. He believed that the ordinance required that level of professional expertise. Responding to a question from Commissioner Beyer about what it took to become a certified planner, Mr. Satre indicated that one must pass a national examination. Commissioner Moe asked how many certified planners existed in the metropolitan area He was concerned about that requirement as perhaps being too restrictive. Mr. Satre thought Commissioner Moe's point was well-taken but noted that nearly all the planners he had on staff were certified planners. He believed there were a "fair number" of such individuals. Mr. Karp noted that while he and Mr. Mott were the most senior planners Date Received: 0/ .::22 6'<f Planner: GK ATTACHMENT 7 - 11 ... . . .. -, . working for Springfield, neither was a certified planner. Commissioner Moe indicated that Mr. Karp's comments caused him some concem Ms. Pauly. observed that it was increasingly common for planners to have an American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) certification. She believed that most planners in private practice were likely to have that certification or were working toward it. Planners working for public agencies that did not have the requirement for an AICP certification might be less likely to seek it. Commissioner Beyer also questioned the requirement for a certified planner. He also questioned why an architect was needed on the design team given that no buildings were designed in the Master Plan phase. Mr. Karp indicated that architects provided illustrative designs at that stage. Director Grile noted some discomfort with the requirement, saying he had been a certified planner since the certification program was established 30 years ago, and he was .. .... Ms. Pauly maintained that a requirement for a certified planner would add to the .protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the people who occupied the site. Commissioner Cross suggested the commission was asking why the City had to restrict the design team to a set profession, or define the design team at all. Mr. Karp suggested that the commission use the phrase ''professioI\al design team" as had been used previously in the code, arid avoid being specific as to the membership. Commissioner Beyer supported that approach, pointing out, for example, that final engineering drawing's would still have to be stamped by a liceused professional. There was general commission concurrence. . ~ate Received: 0'/ :22 QQ anner: GK. ~ _ ATTACHMENT 7 -12 ". . . ... -. Chair Cross and Commissioner Beyer co=ended staff for the work it had done to revise the amendments. Commissioner Beyer, seconded by Commissioner Moe, moved that the Planning Commission reco=end to the City Council the adoption of the revised ordinance as prepared by staff and as amended by the commission. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0:0. Chair Cross noted staff's question to the commission regarding the Type II process as the initial review process as opposed to retention of existing Type ill review process, and Mr. Karp recalled the commission's discussion and indicated staffhad sufficient direction to move forward with work on the Type II fees: . BUSINESS FROM TIlE AUDIENCE . . SS FROM TIlE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR . or e as ill pro e J Ele..,.. 0 w se f tscussio 10M"".- ut theiE.. ene- p . - opo . PI 0 . The first meenng wo .. occur n January 13. The Board of ountYCOmmlSSlOners was illtereste1iii~ddltional 'scussion of the urban transition agreements between the County and two cities. ' e ticipated ~at the. JE.. O. w.. o.ul~..di.' s. cus..sthe. .de~tion of "k.ey. urban ServI. .' c. .es". an~ tho . e..()Ylder,Qf,tho~~l~-j;;o1lUIl1$SlQner.~e.r1t~~!l4:~q~,.~iE2i,,"l!!lhe rural areas on the fringes of the cities happened before the urban transition area was established, and expressed the hope the County did not return to those practices. Director Grile noted the board's interest in establishing rural reserves, which locked up land and the change in use of that land for 50 years. He said that it would be interesting to see how that discussion proceeded. He anticipated a second JEO meeting would occur in the .spring for more discussion of the urban transition agreements. . . REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION . Commissioner Kirschenmann attended the November 3, 2008, meeting, during which the council heard a report on from the Library Advisory Board and were introduced to the new library director. . . The council acknowledged the contributions of Springfield citizens and City employees. · The council heard an update on the Gateway Beltline project)ate Received' 0/ :22 oq . Planner: GK . - ATTACHMENT 7 -13 .. ... . . -, BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION . Commissioners Beyer and Kirschenmann have been participating on the CffiL team. The meetings have been well-attended, with good discussions. . The Planning Commission Christmas get-together was scheduled for Commissioner - Beyer's house on a date to be announced. Chair Cross introduced new commissioner Sean VanGordon. ADJOURNMENT . Chair Cross adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Minutes recorded by Brenda Jones, Transcribed by Kim Young Date f"{e P1ann Cell/ed' 01 er: GI( .~ ATTACHMENT -7 - 14