HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 9/7/2010
(;....I""';'~_.~, "'
.
. ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Planning and Development Department
Decision of the Director - Site. Plan Review Application
Date of Decision
April 6, 1988
Applicant.
General Growth of California, Inc.
15821 Ventura Boulevard Suite 525
Encino, California 91436
Subject
CITY JOURNAL
multi -purpose
02300.
NUMBER
retail
88-03-35.
f ac i I i ty .
Type II Site Plan Review Application - proposed
Assessor's Map 17-03-22-00 Tax Lots 02109, 02200 and
\
Approval of this proposal subject to the following condi~ons:
1. The signage plan must be modified to conform with the sign standards of
. ,
18.090 CC AND MRC DISTRICT SIGN STANDARDS and Artlcle 37,SIGN STANOARDS.
Decision
Section
2. The drainage ditch adjacent to 1-5 shall remain open and landscaped.
3. The development must provide 245 bicycle spaces. The parking plan must be
modified to conform with Section 31.190(9) PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS to
show the number and location of these spaces.
4. All fire hydrantsloc~ted .in landscaped .areas must be maintained with a
"vegetation free" radius. of 3 feet.. Minimum separation between hydrants and
lighting standards must be five feet.
5. All identified fire lanes must be "vegetation free" for a minimum vertical
clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.
6.
The location and design
Transit District and shown
,
I
of the transit facility must be coordinated with Lane
on the Fjnal Site Plan.
7.
All evergreen plants excee~ing twoland a half feet in height at maturity must be
located outslde of all V1Slon clearance trlangles. These areas include driveway
. .. . 1. ..
lntersectlons wlth streets and drlveway lntersectlons wlth the ring roads.
I
All landscaped areas which exceed the minimum Code standards and
.'
Final Site Plan must comply w1th planting standards of this
maintained as landscaped area.
are shown on the
Code-,.alld_.l1lJ!st be
"tfJ"I 2010
8.
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 1
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.~
.
g.
The site
required
easements
utility plan must be modified to show the approximate location of all
pUblic utility easements. The exact location and description of these
will be shown on the site as-builts.
10. All public improvements identified in CRITERIA #2 of the attached FINDINGS OF
FACT must be completed prior to final occupancy of this facility.
11. Any additional pUblic improvements (on those sections of streets identified for
improvement in CRITERIA #2), that may need to be installed because of the effects
of tnis development, will be assessed to the applicant commensurate with the
development's contribution to the need for these improvements.
12. A Final Site Plan Showing the above modifications is required within gO days of
the date of this decision.
13. Any state or federal permits that may be necessary for development of this site
are theresponsibil i ty of the app 1 i cant and must be submi tted wi th the Fi na 1 Si te
Plan.
14. A Facilities permit must be obtained from Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
and submitted with the Final Site Plan.
15. A Development Agreement, .specifying all conditions of approval and conditions of
continued maintenance, must De signed prior to issuance of any building permits.
Tnis Development Agreement will not be available until the Final Site Plan is
accepted by the City. Modifications of the Development Agreement can only be
made in accordance with Section 31.100 of the Springfield Development Code.
Respectfully submi tted,
and Development Director
Iry/
APPEAL
Any affected party wiShing to appeal this Type II Site Plan Review decision or the
conditions of approval, must do so within 10 working days of the date of this
decision. Your appeal must be prepared and submitted in accordance. with the
Springfield Development Code~ Article 15, APPEALS.
SEP -'72010
JOURNAL NUM8ER 88-03-35
Page 2
Date Roceived:
Planner: SH
.
.
ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS
Findings in support of application for Type II Site Plan Review - Journal #88-03-35,
Applicant - General Growth of California, Inc. Proposed multi~purpose retail facility
on Tax Lots 02109, 02200 and 02300, Assessor's Map 17-03-22-00. Located on the west
side of Gateway Street, north of Harlow Road.
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL (Section 31.060 of the Springfield Development Code)
(1) DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THIS CODE.
This proposal complies with the following applicable provisions and standards of the
Springfield Development Code:
ARTICLE 3
*Application Submittal (3.050)(1-6)
The application was accepted as complete on March 15, 1988 in accordance with Section
3.050 of the Sprin9field Development Code.
*Review - Type II Procedure (3.080) (1-5)
The application was processed and reviewed as a Type II land use request in accordance
with Section 3.060 of the Springfield Development Code.
ARTICLE 13
*Scheduling (13.020)
A pUblic meeting was scheduled for March 24, 1988, in accordance with Section 13.020
of the Springfield Development Code, to review the proposed development.
*Notice (13.030)(1-3)
Public notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with Section 13.030 of the
Springfield Development Code (see attached affidavit of service, Exhibit "A").
*Nature and Conduct (13.040)(1-8)
The public meeting was conducted in ~ccordance with Section 13.040 of the Springfield
Development Code. The record was held open for written testimony until 5:00 p.m.,
-- . Friday,. March 25, 1988 (see attached minutes, Exhibit "B" and written testimony,
Exhibits IIO","EII, IlF", "G", "H", 111", IIJ"! and "K").
I
SEP "7 2010
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 3
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
ARTICLE 18
*Schedule of Use Categories (18.020)(3)(4)(6)(9)
The proposed development will provide lease space for retail businesses, department
stores, restaurants and a multi-plex movie theater. Additional space will be provided
for the development's administrative offices. All of these uses are permitted in the
CC Community Commercial District.
*Lot Size (18.030) The minimum lot size in commercial districts is 6,000 square feet.
The proposed development site is comprised of three separate tax lots totaling
approximately 65 acres.
*Lot Coverage (18.040) Lot coverage standards are limited only by standards specified
in other Sections of the Code, i.e., required off-street parking and circulation,
landscaping and building setbacks. When these standards are satisfied all remaining
land may be occupied by buildings.
The proposed development will supply the required number of parking spaces, exceed
required driveway width and landscape area and have a minimum building setback of 100
feet (see page PP - 1 Parking Plan, LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan).
*Setback Standards
for buildings is
setback areas must
(18.050) Front, street side yard and through lot rear yard setback
10 feet; for parking, driveway and outdoor storage, 5 feet. These
be landscaped.
The proposed development will provide a 10 foot landscaped setback around the entire
perimeter, including interior side yards. All buildings have a minimum setback of 100
feet. No part of the proposed structure is located on existing easements or within
100 feet of any required right-of-way (see page LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan).
*Height Standards (18.060) There are no building height limitations in the CC or MRC
Districts unless abutting an LDR or MDR District.
The development site abuts pUblic right-of-way at the east and west property lines and
CC Districts at the north and south property lines. Building height limitations do
not apply to this proposal.
*Off-Street Parking Standards (18.070) Shopping Centers or Malls - 1 for each 250
square feet of gross floor area or a Traffic Study.
Phase 1 of the proposed development will contain 713,423 square feet of gross floor
area. This will require 2,853 spaces. The proposed development will provide 3,684
parking spaces for phase 1. Phase 2 will add 102,290 square feet of gross floor area
to the development. This addition will occupy some of the surplus parking spaces
resulting in a parking ratio that complies with the Code Standard: 1 space @ 250
square feet, (815,713 square feet / 250 square feet) = 3,262 spaces (see page PP _ 1
Parki ng PI an).
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 4
SEP /7 2010
Date Received:
Planner: SH
'.
.
.
*CC and MRC District Sign Standards (18.090)
The Applicant's proposed signage plan exceeds height and area limitations. The Final
Site Plan must comply with the standards of the Code.
*Fence Standards (18.100)
The Applicant is not proposing to construct any fences.
ARTICLE 31
*Information Requirements, (31.050)(I)(a-k), (2)(a-k)
The application complies with all of the information elements listed in this section
(see attached site plan, sheet PP - 1 Parking Plan, LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan, SLP -
1 Site Lease Plan, ESC - I, Existing Site Conditions, Sign - I, Exterior Signage Plan,
Sign' I, MLP - I, Mall Lease Plan, I, Site Grading Plan, 2, Sa'nitary Sewer Plan, 3,
Storm Drainage Plan, 4, Site Plan Utility Plan).
NOTE: Public improvements, including on-site public storm sewer, street improvements,
including storm and sanitary sewer, street lights, traffic signals, travel lanes,
sidewalks and bike lanes will be designed by the City of Springfield. The design of
these improvements will correspond to the proposed development of the site, including
points of access, landscaping, circulation and parking, easements and building
setbacks and with projects identified in TransPlan and the Public Facilities Plan.
*Landscaping Standards (31.130)(1-3)
The application complies with all requirements of this section (see page LP - 1 Site
Landscape Plan).
*Planting Standards (31.140)(1-5)
The application complies with all requirements of this section (see page LP - 1 Site
Landscape Plan).
*Planttng Installation Standards (31.150)(1-3)
The application complies with all requirements of this section (see page LP - 1 Site
Landscape Pl an).
*Screening and Lighting Standards (31.160)(1-3)
The application complies with all applicable requirements of this section (see pages
LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan and PP - 1 Parking Plan).
*Parking Standards (31.170)(1-6), Parking Lot Design Standards (31.180), Parking Area
Improvement Standards (31.190)(1-8)(10)
The application
Parki ng Pl an).
bi cycl e racks.
final Site Plan
complies with all requirements of these sections (see page PP _ 1
Section 31.190 (9) specifies the number and location of required
The development requires 245 spaces, the site plan shows 77. The
must show 245 spaces.
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 5
SEP7ZolO
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
*Off-Street Loading Standards (31.200)(1-5)
The application complies with all applicable requirements of this section (see page PP
- 1 Parking Plan.
Article 32
*Street Standards Public (32.020)(1-13), Sidewalk and Planter Strip Standards
(32.040(1-8), Street Tree Standards (32.050)(1-13), Street Lighting Standards
(32.060), Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Standards (32.090(1-2)
The specific design of contiguous or off-site public improvements is not included in
this application. The City of Springfield will design, inspect and accept all
improvements in the pUblic right-of-way.
*Vision Clearance Standards (32.070)(1-3)
The application complies with the standards of this section (see page LP - 1 Site
Landscape Plan).
*Access and Driveway Standards (32.080)(1-4) and Tables 32-2 through 32-6.
The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page PP -
1 Parking Plan and Traffic Impact Study for Springfield Regional Mall, prepared by
Entranco Engineering). Driveways accommodate 4 lanes of traffic, have a median of 6
feet and have a total width of 54 feet each. The extra driveway width is necessary to
provide safe and efficient access to the site, as specified by Table 32-3.
*Sanitary Sewer Standards (32.100)(1-5)
The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page 2
Sanitary Sewer Plan).
*Storm Drainage,Standards (32.110)(1-4)
The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page 3
Storm Drainage Plan and page 1 Site Grading Plan).
*Utility Standards (32.120)(1-5)
The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page 4
Site Plan Utility Plan).
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 6
SEP .72010
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING
ISSUE:
1. CONSISTENCY WITH METRO PLAN
Testimony was received stating that the policies and diagram descriptions of the
Metro Plan should be applied to determine whether the proposed shopping center
should be approved. It was stated that Site Plan Review is a "land use decision,"
and that the Community Commercial plan designation as implemented by the
Springfield Development Code does not allow for an integrated or "regional"
Shopping center.
RESPONSE:
Site Plan Review approval. is not a "land use decision" as defined in ORS
197.015(1O)(b). A land use decision "Does not include a ministerial decision of a
local government made under clear and objective standards contained in an
acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation and for which no right to a
hearing is provided by the local government under ORS 215.402 TO 215.438 or
227.160 TO 227.185." ORS 215 applies to Counties; ORS 227 applies to cities.
Site Plan Review criteria are "clear and objective." Article 31 (Site Plan
Review) of the Springfield Development Code establishes criteria of, and standards
for, approval of uses permitted under the applicable zoning district. Section
31.060 applies to approval of."needed housing" as defined in ORS 197.303. These
approval criteria must be "clear and objective" to comply with Statewide Planning
Goal 10--Housing. Article 31 has been acknowledged as complying with the
Statewide Planning Goals--including Goal 10--on three separate occasions: first,
when the Code was adopted in May of 1986; second, when the Code was amended in
October of 1987; and third, when the Code received "Periodic Review"
approval in December of 1987. The criteria and standards of Article 31, Site Plan
Review are, therefore, "clear and objective."
There is no right to a public hearing for Site Plan Review under ORS 227.160 TO
227.185. Department stores, movie theaters, retail and office uses are permitted
outright in the. Community Commercial District (Section 18.020). The Site Plan
Review process therefore applies to:
"Development for which
terms of the ordinance."
a permit is granted as of right on compliance with the
(ORS 227.215(3)(a))
ORS Sections 227.160 to 227.185 apply only to "the discretionary approval of a
proposed development of land" (ORS 227.160(2)). Since site plan review criteria
.and. standards are "clear and objective", and not "discretionary", no public
hearing is required. The site plan review process therefore meets the two-part
t~st for "ministerial decisions", and is not a "land use decision." Similarly,
the timing and funding of public facilities projects in the acknowledged Public
Facilities Plan are not land use decisions (ORS 197.712(2)(e)). All of the
transportation and public facilities improvements required by site plan review
are listed projects in the acknowledged PFP.
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 7
SEP 12010
Date Received:.-
Planner: SH
.
.
The distinction between "land use decision" and "ministerial decision" is not
academic in this case. If this were a plan amendment, zone change or
discretionary use, then the policies of the Metro Plan would have to be weighed
to determine whether, on balance, the land use decision complies with the Plan.
However, when a use is permitted outright under clear and Objective standards,
plan policies are not applied in determining whether a use is permitted.
Although Metro Plan policies do not apply in the determination of whether the
proposed uses are allowed to develop on the Gateway site, the issue of plan-zone
consistency is addressed below.
Under Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, local implementing measures
must. be found "consistent with and adequate to carry out" the plan for the Land
Conservation and Development Commission to acknowledge Goal 2 compliance. The
Metro Plan, together with the adopted implementing measure of the City of
Springfield have twice been acknowledged as complying with. Goal 2, Land Use
Planning, by LCDC first, in 1982 during initial acknowledgment proceedings; and
again pursuant to PeriOdic Review procedures in 1987.
The Gateway Commercial area has had a Community Commercial designation since the
initial adoption of the Metro Plan. Springfield has been openly and actively
marketing the site fOra Shopping center for years, yet no one has raised the
issue of plan conformity until site plan review. The site has also had zoning
which allows' department stores, movie theatres, retail and office uses since
1972. Nothing in the Springfield Development Code now in effect, nor in previOUS
zoning ordinances, restricts the siting of large, integrated commercial
developments on land zoned for Community Commercial use. No one alleged a
plan-zone conflict affecting this site during any LCDC proceeding.
The Springfield Development Code's least restrictive zoning district is the
Community Commercial District.' In contrast, the Major Retail Commercial District
has a more restrictive use list and requires a minimum development area of 20
acres for sites that are suitable for large Shopping centers (Section 18.010).
The only "requirement" of the Metro Plan MRC designation is "protection" of the
Mohawk site for "specialized retail use" (Metro Plan, p. II-E-4). The remainder
of the MRC designation is not written in mandatory language, and cannot be
interpreted to 'over-ride uses;1;hat are specifically permitted in the Community
Commercial Oistrict. Rather, the descriptions of the various land use
designations are guidelines to be used by local governments in developing and
assigning zoning districts, and do not have the status of policy.
As a point of comparison, consider the Special Light Industrial Metro Plan
designation. Like the Major Retail designation, SLI implementing zoning
generally applies to larger sites and is more restrictive than the Light-Medium
'Industrial implementing' zoning. If the Metro Plan's general and non-binding
description for the SLI designation were directly applied in reviewing permitted
industrial development applications~ then the siting of industrial uses in
Eugene-Springfield would become a I very tricky business. For example, any
permitted SLI use could be chall~nged because it did not have "projected
employment of at least 500 per fir~," or because there are "effluents or other
emissions to create prOblems," orj because "heavy transport is not important."
(Metro Plan, pp. II-E-7-8).. Neither.Eugene's nor Springfield's SLI implementing
ordinances are thlS restrlctlve; oust as nelther Eugene's nor Springfield's
I .
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 SEP 7 :2010
Page 8
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
ordinances implementing the Community Commercial designation preclude large-scale
shopping centers.
The point is that the language of the Metro Plan Diagram designations were never
intended to be applied directly to determine whether outright permitted uses are,
in fact, outright permitted uses. If the proposed use were discretionary, or
there were serious questions about whether the proposed uses matched the listed
permitted uses, then the plan could be called upon to guide the use
determination. Because the uses proposed are permitted outright, the City has no
discretion to deny these uses, and the policies of the Metro Plan do not apply to
the question of whether the use is permitted. To interpret otherwise would
render zoning ordinances in urban areas useless in implementing the plan.
By zoning the Gateway
designation, the City
integrated centers ~ a
area Community Commercial, consistent with the Metro Plan
has left open the option of allowing either large,
series of smaller-scale commercial developments.
In Eugene-Springfield, commercial developments that draw from a regional market
have been permitted routinely under the Community Commercial plan designation in
both Eugene and Springfield, consistent with local zoning. There are stores of
greater than 100,000 square feet, developed commercial areas of greater than 40
acres, centers of more than 25 retail stores -- all of which have been developed
on sites designated for Community Commercial use. It is because there is lack of
precision at the Metro Plan level that local zoning must clarify the intent of
the Plan. This is also why LCDC acknowledges comprehensive plans and
implementing measures .so thet alleged plan-zone conflicts can be identified
and corrected through the acknowledgment process, and local governments can rely
on adopted zoning in approving permitted developments. To do otherwise -- that
is, to review every outright permitted use against every policy of the plan --
would result in a high level of uncertainty and would frustrate regional economic
development efforts. This is not the intent of either the Metro Plan or the
Statewide Planning Goals.
(2) PROPOSEO ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO
CONFORM WITH PUBLIC FACILITY. PLANS AND CITY STANDARDS.
On-site private improvements inCluding parking, circulation, landscaping, storm
and sanitary sewers, water and electric service, fire hydrants, illumination,
vision clearance areas and loading facilities have been shown on the proposal and
comply with the standards of the Springfield Developmen.t Code. A corrected
signage plan, additional bicycle racks, fencing along open drainage ditches and a
final design and location of the transit facility must be shown on the Final Site
Plan.
Off-site private improvements - none.
The City's adopted Public Facilities Plan (PFP) identifies needed pUblic
improvements for the entire Metro area. These improvements are based on
projected service demand levels that will occur when land has been developed to
urban densities consistent with the Metro Plan. The method of financing and the
timing of these improvements are to be determined at the local level.
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 9
SEP ...7 2010
Date Received:---------
Planner: SH
.
.
The PFP has identified storm sewer, sanitary sewer and road improvement projects
in the Gateway area as necessary measures to serve future development. As the
City receives land development requests, staff evaluates impacts attributable to
the proposed development and then conditions any approvals with requirements to
construct pUblic improvements consistent with applicable PFP projects. The
widening of a portion of Gateway and Beltline in 1987 are recent examples Df land
development approvals that have been conditioned with pUblic improvement
requirements that conform with the PFP.
Our preliminary analysis of the proposed Gateway Mall development revealed
potential impacts associated with: a) an increase in impervious surface from
on-site building and parking area; and, b) an increase in the traffic volume on
roads providing access to this site. The applicants have submitted additional
information addressing drainage and transportation issues.
Entranco Engineers ,Inc. of Kirkland, WA, provided the City with an analysis of
these issues that documented the extent to which the development would create
service demands that exceed the capacity of the existing facilities (see Exhibit
"C"). To mitigate these impacts, and meet or exceed the TransPl an long term goal
of providing level of Service 0 for all streets and highways (see page 3,
TransPl an, Key Assumpti on #4) impacted by thi s development, the City is requi ring
the installation of the following improvements, consistent with projects
identified in TransPlan, prior to final occupancy of this development:
1. To prevent excessive stacking of traffic exiting 1-5 north bound at Beltline east;
widen off-ramp to two lanes (Project #100 TransPlan).
2.
To facilitate right turn movements from Beltline
Beltline and redesignate existing through lane to
right turn lanes at' Gateway; revise traffic
(Project #225 TransPlan).
to Gateway; widen south side of
right turn only to provide dual
signal at Beltline and Gateway
3. To handle the projected increase in Gateway Street traffic; widen to five lanes,
Beltline to Harlow; upgrade illumination to City standards; construct southbound
deceleration lanes into site at north and south accesses; install interconnected
traffic signals; revise traffic signal at Gateway and Harlow (Project #225
TransPl an).
4. To facilitate the projected increase in Harlow Road traffic; install traffic
signals at Beverly Street and Game Farm Road; revise traffic signal at Pioneer
Parkway; widen to four lanes between Beverly and Gateway; at Gateway, widen
westbound approach to five lanes for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet; at
Pioneer Parkway, widen eastbound approach to five lanes for a distance of
approximately 1,800 feet (Project #226' and #255 TransPlan).
5. To further facilitate Harlow Road traffic, when warranted; widen to five'lanes
remaining three lane section between Hartman lane and Game Farm Road approximately
2,000 feet (Project #226 TransPlan).
6. To capture all on-site drainage and continue to provide downstream link to 1-5
ditCh, pipe existing ditches with 48 inch storm sewer trunk, widen, clean and
re-contour and landscape 1-5 ditch (1-5 Basin Project improvements, Table 111-2,
page 17 PFP).
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 10
SEP
Date Received::"--
Planner: SH
.72010
--
.
.
7.. The sanitary sewer line in Gateway has current peak flow levels of 48% capacity.
The projected discharge of the development would increase this figure by 8 - 10%.
There is no need to upgrade this line for this development.
8.
A transit facility,
constructed on-site.
as identified on TransPlan Transit System Map, will be
The design and location will be coordinated with LTD.
ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING
ISSUE:
1.
Signalization
St reet and a
liEu and IlFIl).
needs for Gateway Street intersections wHh Postal Way, Oakdale
private driveway at the Driftwood Villa Apart~ents (Exhibits "D",
RESPONSE:
The Traffic Impact Study (Exhibit "CD) concluded that warrants for signalization
of each of these intersections will not be met by the initial establishment of
this development. Staff concurs with this conclusion, but recognizes that
conditions are subject to .change as additional development occurs. The City will
monitor these intersections and, where warrants are met, require the installation
of appropriate traffic control devices (see also Exhibit "L").
ISSUE:
2. Possible removal of landscaping a~jacent to Granada Park (Exhibit "E").
RESPONSE:
The improvement of Gateway Street will not affect existing landscaping on private
property. Any street trees removed from the planter strip will be relocated,
where practicable, on private property at the owners request subject to City
Standards for street tree placement.
ISSUE:
3. Light and noise generated by this development (Exhibit "E").
RESPONSE:
The proposed internal lighting is designed to illuminate parkihg, circulation and
building areas and not to conflic~ with pUblic street lights or surrounding
.private property. The landscaped setback and substantial building setback will
provide a noise buffer from residential property on the east side of Gateway
Street. The proposed hours of operation will not include those hours of the day
protected by the City's noise ordinances.
ISSUE:
4. Impacts to Harlow Road west of 1-5 (Exhibits "G", "H" and "K").
SEP '7 2010
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 11
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Oennis Neuzi I, Entranco Engineers, Inc., prepared the Traffic Impact Study and.
responded to the questions raised by the City of Eugene and Lane Council of
Governments concerning the increase in traffic on Harlow Road west of 1-5 (see
Exhibit "J"). The City of Springfield concurs with Mr. Neuzil's Traffic Impact
Study and his response to these letters.
The significant conclusions of the L-COG study are as follows:
1. The traffic generated by the proposed Gateway Mall was accounted for in
developing the projects list for TransPlan.
2. 27% of the traffic generated by the mall is projected to travel via Harlow
Road west of 1-5, not 14% as projected by Entranco.
3. Some TransPlan projects may have to be built sooner than anticipated.
The proper interpretation of these conclusions is:
1. Construction of the appropriate TransPlan projects as we are proposing will
address the transportation needs created by the development.
2. While the accuracy of the 14%/27% figure is of some interest, it is the
absolute number of vehicles on Harlow Road.that determines level of service
(LOS). The difference between L-COG's and Entranco's projections of the
number of vehicles. accessing the mall via Harlow Road is not great. As
pointed out in Exhibit "J", L-COG projects only 135 vehicles more during the
peak hour than Entranco. The L-COG study gives no indication that projects
other than those shown in TransPI an may be necessary to serve tne mall.
3. Constructing projects sooner than anticipated in no way contradicts TransPlan.
In fact, the INTRODUCTION of TransPlan recognizes that many things will impact
the timing of projects which are constructed. It is for precisely this reason
that the "phasing, financing and project justification..." of the Project List
were not adopted as Metropolitan Plan policy language.
ISSUE:
5. Impact to Harlow Road east of Gateway with phased improvements (Exhibit "I").
RESPONSE:
Since the shopping center is not scheduled to be fully "built out" at opening,
phasing of improvements along Harlow Road meet projected traffic demands. The
~ity of Springfield will coordinate with Lane County transportation planning staff
to insure agreement on the scheduling of these improvements, as per ORS 197.015
(10)(11).
ISSUE:
6. The Traffic Impact Study does not provide information on future traffic impacts
(Exhlbit "K").
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 12
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
RESPONSE:
The Traffic Impact Study concluded that if the improvements identified in
TransPlan were completed for all streets providing primary access to the site, the
Level of Service (LOS) for this street system would not only be consistent with
TransPlan objectives, but in many instances would provide reserve capacity. Since
TransPlan projects are based on service demand to the year 2000, implementing
these improvements addresses the issue of future demand.
ISSUE:
7. The Traffic Impact.
impacts (Exhibit "K"
was limited in scope; it did not include downstream
RESPONSE:
The City has specific guidelines for the preparation of a Traffic Impact.Study
(see Exhibit "M" S.O.P.P. T-6.1). The City instructed the applicant to focus on
the street network that would provide primary access to the site and consider
measures necessary to mitigate traffic demand consistent with identified TransPlan
projects.
The Traffic Impact Study included a sufficiently broad area that al.lowed estimated
for all factors which were of concern to staff. The conclusions of the Study
showed that if the improvements identified in TransPlan were completed for all
streets providing primary access to the site, the LOS for this street system would
satisfy TransPlan's long term' goal for LOS (see page 3, TransPlan Key Assumption
. #4).
ISSUE:
8. Explanation of costs associated with mitigation measures (Exhibit "K").
RESPONSE:
The estimated cost of all improvements cited in CRITERIA #2 will be 3.3 million.
The applicant will be responsible for 1 million, Lane County has awarded the City
of Springfield an economic development grant of 1.1 million, .5 million will come
from FAU reserves, .3 million will come from windfall property tax when the
property loses its farm deferral, and .4 million will come from the development's
permits and fees being put back in to the cost of improvements. It is doubtful
whether the City of Springfield or Lane County could have recovered so large a
proportion of off-site development costs had the Gateway site developed in a
piecemeal or incremental fashion.
ISSUE:
9. Many of the mitigating measures are not included on the list of TransPlan projects
(Exhibit "K").
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 13
SEP7 :2010
Date Received:
Planner: SH
.
.
RESPONSE:
All - proposed publ ic improvements are identified as projects in TransPl an (see
CRITERIA #2 above). The installation of all City required pUblic improvements
prior to final occupancy of this development will provide reserve capacity, that
is, future development of other uses relying on these street systems will also be
accommodated by these improvements.
ISSUE:
10. Additions
Exhlblt
to
'K I .
or
deletions
from
projects
on TransPlan will re uire amendments
RESPONSE:
All required improvements for this development are consistent with identified
TransPlan projects. In addition, project financing and timing modifications are
not considered significant changes to the project lists and hence, do not require
plan amendments". (TransPlan page 2). Refining the timing and financing of
identified projects is the responsibility of the local juriSdiction through
development of capital improvement programs: "The ability of these agencies to
construct any project is contingent upon the availability of revenues in the
future. Inclusion of a project in a particular phase does not represent a
commitment to complete the project during that phase. It is expected that some
projects may be accelerated and others delayed." (TransPlan page 9).
ISSUE:
11. The approval criteria for this development is in conflict with adopted polices of
the Metro Plan and TransPlan policy PC 5b (Exhibit "K").
RESPONSE:
TransPlan
(TransPlan
identified
is a "functional plan supporting the Metropolitan Area General Plan"
page 1). All required improvements directly implement specific,
TransPlan projects.
TransPlan policy PC 5b applies to the five year plan update process, not to
individual development proposals, particularly when those development proposals
result in the implementation of TransPlan policies and projects.
All metropolitan planning agencies received a copy of the Traffic Impact Study
several weeks prior to the pUblic meeting and were invited to attend this public
meeting. This is a prOfessional courtesy that goes beyond any requirements of
-TransPlan,-the Metro Plan or the City's Development Code.
ISSUE:
12. MAPAC should be allowed to review this proposal (Exhibit "K").
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 14
SEP 7 2010
Date Received:
Planner: SH
. . , .
.
.
RESPONSE:
There is no basis for such a review. TransPlan, which this development rigorously
adheres to, was reviewed and approved by the following elected and appointed
officials: The City Councils of Springfield and Eugene; the Lane County
Commissioners; the Lane Transit District Board of Directors; the Metropolitan Area
Transportation Committee; .the Transportation Planning Committee; and, the
Metropolitan Area Planning Committee (MAPAC). For purposes of pUblic review,
Section 13.030(1-3), of the Springfield Development Code, specifies the
appropriate public notice procedure for Type II Site Plan Review. This procedure
was rigorously adhered to.
ISSUE:
13. The approval is not consistent with Metro Plan Transportation Element Policy 2a
(Exhi bit UKU).
RESPONSE:
The proposed development will be required to implement TransPlan projects, not
ignore them or create a need to amend them. TransPlan is the functional document
that implements the Metro Plan, ergo, implementing TransPlan is implementing the
Metro Plan.
ISSUE:
14. Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 12 and Metro Plan Objective 8 have not been
considered in the review of this proposal (Exhibit UKU).
RESPONSE:
The Metro Plan comprises a number of separate elements, all of which were designed
with the fundamental. objective of interrelated coordination. The development of
this site for commercial use is consistent with the Plan diagram and local
implementation measures (the Development Code). The public improvements required
prior to final occupancy are consistent with identified TransPlan projects.
Implementation of thes~ two elements of the Metro Plan is, therefore, consistent
with all other policies of the Plan.
ISSUE:
15. This development will have negative economic impacts on downtown Springfield and
Eugene (Exhlbit UKU).
RESPONSE:
No factual data was presented to substantiate this allegation. All jurisdictions
participated in the review and adoption of the Metro Plan. Every version of the
Plan has designated this site for commercial development. The proposed
development has been endorsed by the Springfield Downtown Association, the
~pringfield Chamber of Commerce, Lane County Board of Commissioners, the
Springfield City Council and a member of the Eugene City Council representing the
City of Eugene.
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 15
Date Received:
Planner: SH
, .
.
.
ISSUE:
16. An economic analysis should be prepared and evaluated prior to approval of this
development (Exhibit "K").
RESPONSE:
The site has always been
Designations were assigned
use, facilities, economy,
jurisdictions that this site
designated for commercial use by the Metro Plan.
after lengthy analysis of all land use needs, i.e.,
energy, etc. It was determi ned and approved by a 11
could, and should, be developed with commercial uses.
Neither the Metro Plan or the Springfield Development Code require an economic
analysis as a condition, or pre-condition, of site plan review.
ISSUE:
17. Approval of this development is not consistent with policies 7, 'i4 and 19 of the
Public Utilities, Services and Facilities Element of the Metro Plan (Exhibit "K").
RESPONSE:
Policy 7 requires use of the Gpneral Plan as a basis for decisions for facility
and program planning to "ensure that the needs of the'metropolitan area are met in
an orderly and efficient manner." The PFP and TransPlan are the functional
documents that implement this element of the Metro Plan. All pUblic improvements
required prior to final occupancy of this development are taken straight out of
these two functional documents.
Policy 14 requires all jurisdictions to "provide one anrither the opportunity to
review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs and pUblic
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
responsibility." The Planning and/or Transportation Depar.tments of Eugene, Lane
County, Lane Council of Governments the Oregon Department of Transportation all
received copies of the Traffic Impact Study, site plan and agendas for the pUblic
meeting. The Lane Transit District, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority and
both utilities received site plans and agendas for the pUblic meeting. This 'was a
professional courtesy extended to these agencies, not a requirement of the Plan or
the Development Code. No changes to the Metro Plan, the PFP or TransPlan are
proposed for this development. All proposed pUblic improvements are identified in
the PFP and TransPlan.
Policy 19 requires amending the PFP when "additions to or deletions from the
project list or significant change to project location" are proposed. All
elements of the PFP that apply to this proposal are required as conditions of
'approval and must be completed prior to final occupancy (see CRITERIA #2 above).
No additions or deletions to the project list or significant change to project
location will occur as a result of this development. Implementation of the
functional document (PFP, TransPlan) that implements the Metro Plan is consistent
with Metro Plan policy.
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 16
d SEE7-Z01O
Date Receive :-
Planner: SH
. "
.
.
(3) INVENTORIEO NATURAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES OF THE SITE HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY
CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN, CONSISTENT WITH METRO PLAN POLICIES.
Historic features none. There are no significant natural features. Two small
man-made drainage ditches cross the property from Gateway to 1-5 at the north boundary
and approximately at the middle of the site. Another man-made drainage ditch
parallels the western boundary of the site and picks up the drainage from the smaller
ditches. Both of the smaller ditches will be piped and continue to discharge into the
1-5 ditch. The 1-5 ditch will be widened, cleaned, re-contoured and replanted to
increase its efficiency and enhance its appearance.
ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING
None.
(4) THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS CONDITIONED, MITIGATES IDENTIFIED
NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND RESOLVES IDENTIFIED LAND USE CONFLICTS.
The potential negative impacts identified during the City's review of this proposal
have been addressed in the preceding CRITERIA #2 above. In addition to the foregoing
improvements, the developer will be providing landscaped setbacks that exceed the
requirements of the Springfield Development Code (see page LP - I Site Landscape
Plan), and additional landscaping to enhance 1-5 and Gateway Street exposures, an
on-site transit facility for Lane Transit District, and a community room available at
no charge to non-profit organizations.
ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING
None.
SEp"7 2010
,:,"
JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35
Page 17
Oate Received:
.'~cmner: Sl-I