HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 11/20/2012o o
Appeal Submittal Requirements Checklist
Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee
calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development Services
Department. The applicable application,Itechnology, and postage fees are collected at the
time of complete application submittal.
Appeal Application Form
(] Narrative explaining each appeal issue listed on the application form in more detail. This
statement should indicate where you feel the Director, Historic Commission, or Planning
Commission erred in the decision based upon the evidence presented and in applying that
evidence to the criteria used to evaluate 'the request. Be sure to make this statement as
complete as possible.
NOTE: Appeals of a Director's or Historic Com
Planning Commission or Hearings Official. The
evidence submitted to the Director or Historic
well as any new evidence or testimony which t
at the public hearing.
Appeals of a Planning Commission decision will
upon the record of proceeding. They shall con:
submitted to the Director or Historic Commissi(
evidence or testimony presented to the Plannir
Revised 11/17/08ddk
fission decision will be reviewed de novo by the
shall consider all physical and documentary
ommission as part of the original application, as
e opponents or proponents may wish to present
)e reviewed by City Council and will be based
der all physical and documentary evidence
i as part of the original application and any
Commission.
®ate Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal
3 of
U
t
TYPE U TENTATIV
STAFF REPORT & 11
SITE PLAN REVIEW,
Project Name: High Banks Business Park Site Plan Review
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
Project Proposal: Construct a new 5 -building business park totaling 161,345 ft' on a vacant industrial site
Case Number: TYP212-00007 9,9110- W
Project Location:
5250 & 5262 Highbanks Rd.
(Map 17-02-28-00, TL 400)
Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI)
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Light Medium Industrial (Metro Plan)
Pre -Submittal Meeting Date: May 19, 2009
Application Submitted Date: June 4, 2012
Decision Issued Date: November 5, 2012
Decision: APPROVED with conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: November 20, 2012
Associated Applications: ZON2007-00021;
LDP2008-00001; SHR2008-00001;
ZON2008-00032; PRE2009-00012
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner/Applicant: Applicant's Representative: Project Engineer:
Shaun Hyland Kristen Taylor Lane Branch, PE
Hyland Business Park LLC TBG Architecis & Planners Inc. Branch Engineering Inc.
P.O. Box 7867 132 East Broadway, Suite 200 310 5's Street
Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97401 Springfield, OR 97477
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION
f
REVIEW OF
NAME
PHONE
Project Manager
I
Planning
Andy Limbird
541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer
Transportation
Michael Liebler
541-726-3679
Public Works Engineer I.
Utilities
Clayton McEachern
541-736-1036
Public Works Engineer I
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
Clayton McEachern
541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire and Life Safety
Gilbert Gordon
541-726-2293
Building Official I
Building
David Bowlsby
541-736-1029
Date Kecelvuu.
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal
N
Site Information: The subject site is a vacant 7.58 acre parcel located at the northeast comer of 52"d Street at
Highbanks Road, just northlof Highway 126. The site is municipally addressed as 5250 & 5262 Highbanks
Road (Assessor's Map 17-02-28-00, Tax Lot 400). Although accessible from a driveway extending north from
52nd Street at the west edge of the property, the site also has limited frontage on Highbanks Road at the southeast
corner. Current access to the property is via the private driveway extending north from 52"d Street at its
intersection with Highbanksli Road. The applicant proposes to construct five multi -tenant industrial buildings
comprising 161,345 fiz of floor area, site landscaping, vegetated storrnwater infiltration Swale and detention
pond, and parking and driving surfaces.
The subject site is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area, therefore the prevailing Comprehensive Plan is
the Eugene -Springfield Metro Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The site is zoned and designated Light Medium
Industrial according to the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram. Other properties in
the vicinity of the subject site are zoned and designated IIeavy Industrial (west and southwest); Light Medium
Industrial (north); and Low Density Residential (south and east).
The site lies outside the mapped Time of Travel Zones (TOTZs) for City's drinking water wellheads and,
therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-200.
Most of the north half of the site was within the mapped FEMA 100 -year floodplain of the McKenzie River.
The applicant previously obtained a Floodplain Overlay District permit (Case SHR2008-00001) for site grading
and placement of fill. Subsequently, a Letter of Map Revision — Fill (LOMR-F) for the property was received
from FEMA, which confirms the site was elevated out of the flood hazard area (FEMA Case No. 09-10-0007A).
DECISION: Tentatively Approved with conditions. The standards of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the
submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final
Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision
made according to City code and state statutes. ,Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this
document carefully.
(See Page 19 for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY TAE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance
with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable
local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type lI procedures listed in Springfield
Development Code Section.5.1-130 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125. The subject
application was submitted on June 4, 2012. On August 20, 2012 the applicant granted a 60 -day extension for a
decision to be issued by December 1, 2012. Subsequently, on October 22, 2012 the applicant granted a second
21 -day extension for a decision to be issued by December 22, 2012. Therefore, this decision is issued on the
154'" day of the 201 days provided for by the State.
Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property .
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the
application (SDC Sections 5!1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during
the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written
Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision).
Procedural Finding: On June 26, 2012, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed
plans (I I Sheets — TBG Architects and Planners Sheet Tl dated 11/10/2009; Sheets CI — C3 dated 4/20/2012;
Sheets Al — A5 dated 11/10/2009; and Sheets LA -1 — LA -2 dated 11/10/2009), Traffic Impact Analysis and
Stormwater Management Plan and Drainage Study prepared by Brandp supporting
f
NOV 2 0 2012 Page 2of22
Original Submittal
information. City staff's reew comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for
compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125.
Procedural Finding: City staff requested clarification on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) traffic queuing
analysis at a meeting with the applicant's project team on July 19, 2012. As a result of this and subsequent
discussions, the applicant's Traffic Engineer chose to re -submit a revised TIA on August 15, 2012.
I'
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the
requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan
otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved
as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval.
Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building
Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Modification Decision.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on June 6, 2012. No written comments were received.
CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval states, "the Director shall approve, or
approve with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon determining that criteria A through E of
this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny
the application."
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan
diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding 1: The site is zoned and designated Light Medium Industrial (LMI) in accordance with the
Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan. There are no proposed changes to the zoning for the
site.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity;
sanitary sewer and stormwater management Facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not
be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of
development, unless otherwise provided ,for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The
Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues.
Finding 2: Approval of�this proposal would allow for construction of five multi -tenant industrial buildings
with multiple driveway', accesses from a road extending north from the 52nd Street and Highbanks Road
intersection, and a driveway access onto Highbanks Road at the southeast comer of the property. The
development proposal 'also includes vegetated stormwater management facilities, vehicle parking and
driving areas, covered trash enclosures, and site. landscaping.
Finding 3: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to
design the site improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to
provide construction inspection services.
Finding 4: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and landscaping plan on
June 26, 2012. City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained
herein.
®ate Received:
Page 3 of 22
Nov 2 0 2012
Original Submittal
I
Water and Electricity
C
Finding 5: SDC 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having
sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access
for maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within
Springfield city limits. SUB Water advises that backflow prevention devices will be required for the water
service, and the applicant has shown the location of a proposed backflow preventer at the extreme southwest
comer of the property, just downstream from the proposed water meter.
Finding 6: Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments to make
arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements that may be
necessary to serve the development site and land'beyond the development area. The minimum width for all
public utility easements (PUEs) shall be 7 feet unless the Development & Public Works Director or utility
provider requires a larger casement to allow for adequate maintenance and access.
Finding 7: The existing public utilities available to serve the subject property are located in or adjacent to
the Highbanks Road right-of-way along the south boundary of the site. The applicant's site plan proposes to
connect to the existing 12 -inch SUB water line near the intersection of 52°d Street and Highbanks Road and
extend a 10 -inch fire line and a 2 -inch service line inside the west edge of the property. The proposed water
service lines should be adequate to serve the development site.
Finding 8: There are existing overhead power lines outside the south and west edges of the site. The power
line immediately outside and parallel with the west boundary of the property is an EWEB transmission line
and is not available for providing electrical service to the site. However, there is a parallel SUB Electric
power line running north -south along the west edge of the driveway that extends north from the 52°d Street
and Highbanks Road intersection. SUB Electric advises that two service feeds are desirable for the
proposed development site. One service can be taken from a pole -mounted transformer near the southwest
corner of the property, and the other from a pole -mounted transformer near the northwest corner of the
property.
Finding 9: SUB Electric has requested 10 -foot wide utility easements along the south and west edges of the
property to accommodate necessary electrical services to the site. There is an existing 7 -foot wide PUE
inside the south edge of the property that should suffice for extension of utility services along Highbanks
Road.
Finding 10: There is an existing 20 -foot wide EWEB parcel that is located outside and parallel with the
west boundary of the site. This parcel is not currently occupied by overhead electrical transmission lines
and should be available for extension of electrical lines necessary to serve the site. According to the
applicant's submittal there is a private easement benefitting the subject site recorded against the EWEB
parcel. Upon dedication of the easement area as part of the 52°d Street public right-of-way, a parallel public
utility easement may be'required inside the parcel frontage to provide for extension of utilities necessary to
serve the subject property and adjacent properties to the north.
Finding 11: In accordance with SDC 4.3-125,. all utility lines shall be placed underground. Underground
electrical service will need to be taken from the nearest available SUB Electric facilities along Highbanks
Road and on the west side of the future 52°d Street alignment.
Conditions of Approval:
1. All utilities installed to serve the development site, including electrical service, shall be placed
underground.
®ate Received,
NOV 2 0 2012 Page 4 of 22
original Submittal
o o
2. Prior to approval f the Final Site Plan theapplicant shall provide for a 10 -foot wide public
PP ,
utility easement along the west boundary of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of SUB Electric that utility lines can be appropriately
accommodated within the future 52" Street right-of-way.
Conclusion: As conditi lned herein, the existing,SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the
site and the proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities
Sanitary Sewer
Finding 12: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requiIIIres that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers
shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
i
Finding 13: Section 2.02.1 of the City's EDSPM states that when land outside a new development will
logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers shall be public sewers and shall
normally extend to one or more of the property boundaries.
i
Finding 14: Section 2.02.8 of the City's EDSPM states that sanitary sewers shall be located in the public
Tight -of -way at street centerline or within 5 feet of the centerline of the street. Sanitary sewers in easements
shall be allowed only after all reasonable attempts to place the mains in the public right-of-way have been
exhausted.
Finding 15: The area marked as "private drive" along the west side of the development site is subject to
road right-of-way dedication easements that provide for extension of 52°d Street as a public street. The City
Attorney has concluded that the applicant is in a position to act upon the road right-of-way dedication
easements necessary to provide for a public street along the west boundary of the property.
Finding 16: There is an existing 8 -inch publI ic sanitary sewer lateral stubbed out to a cleanout at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Highbanks Road and 52°d Street. The applicant is proposing to extend
a private sanitary sewer line along the west boundary of the property and terminate the sewer line at the
building at the north edge of the site. The applicant is not proposing to provide a stub or Y-connection to
serve properties north of the subject site.
Finding 17: Staff advises that extension of al public sewer line will be required at or near the future
centerline of 52" Street outside the west edge of the property. Sewer laterals necessary to serve the
development site can ble extended from the public sewer line and run beneath the parking, driving and
landscaping areas along�the west edge of the property.
T
Condition of Approval
t
3. The applicant shall construct a public sanitary sewer line within the future 52" Street alignment
west of the development site. The public sanitary sewer line shall be appropriately sized to
accommodate future development to the north of the subject property and shall be constructed as
part of a Public improvement Project that is dedicated to the City of Springfield upon completion.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
I
®ate Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Page 5 of 22
Original Submittal—
E
Stormwater Management (Quantity)
Finding 18: SDC 4.3-1103 requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only
where adequate public land/or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as
determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM.
Finding 19: SDC 4.3-110.0 states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential
runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development.
Finding 20: SDC 4.3-110.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved
stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
Finding 21: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new devllopments to employ drainage management practices that
minimize the amount and rate of surface water ruInoff into receiving streams, and that.promote water quality.
Finding 22: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D& E, stormwater runoff from the site will be directed into a
series of vegetated swales and infiltration ponds with provision for overflow discharge into the public
stormwater system. The public stormwater system is located just outside the south boundary of the site in
Highbanks Road.
Finding 23: The existing public stormwater system, which the applicant proposes to connect to, has limited
capacity. The applicant has prepared and submitted hydrologic stormwater calculations, consistent with the
City's EDSPM, showing that the proposed infiltration basin will limit the peak stormwater discharge to pre -
development rates for both applicable storm events, thereby limiting the flow into the existing public system
to an acceptable level.
Finding 24: The applicant's revised drainage Ireport and proposed stormwater system design meets the
City's stormwater management requirements. (City permits will be required for installing the hard -pipe
components of the proposed stormwater system to serve the development site.
I
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Stormwater Management (Quality)
Finding 25: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain,
and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit
requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP).
Finding 26: Federal and Oregon Department off Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's
MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post -Construction
Stormwater Management for New Development land Redevelopment", applies to the proposed development.
I.
Finding 27: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and
enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also
must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community.
Finding 28: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other
regulatory mechanism to address post -construction runoff from new and re -development projects to the
extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used bate C1ty Ce,Vke SDC, the City's
NOV 2 0 2012 Page 6 of 22
Original Submittal
N
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the adopted Stornnvater Facilities Master Plan
(SFMP).
Finding 29: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM (states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim
design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and
procedures of either the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual or the City of Portland (Clean
Water Services) Stormwater Management Manual.
Finding 30: Section 3.03.3.13 of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and
redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post -developed BMPs that in combination are
designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by
the development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non -building
rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative
methods.
Finding 31: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and
the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed using vegetated swales with infiltration basins. The
applicant also proposes to install double -chambered catch basins within the parking and driving areas of the
site to provide initial treatment of parking lot runoff prior to discharge to the on-site vegetated swales and
infiltration basins.
Finding 32: The vegetation proposed for use in the vegetated swales and infiltration basins will serve as the
primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur
only when the vegetation has been fully established. Additionally, the proposed stormwater management
facilities will require periodic maintenance to ensure they perform as intended and designed.
Conditions of Approval:
4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and
maintenance plan satisfactory to the City to eusure viable long-term maintenance and operation
of the vegetated swales and infiltrations basins. The operations and maintenance plan shall
designate the responsible party for operating and maintaining the system and shall be distributed
to all property owners and tenants on the site.
5. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4
permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the vegetated swales and infiltration
basins shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of final
occupancy and commencement of operations. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the
applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures
acceptable to the Development & Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the
swale and infiltration basin vegetation becomes fully established. The interim erosion control
measures shall be in addition to the required plantings for the site.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal, satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Streets and Traffic Safety Controls
I
Finding 33: In accordance with SDC 4.2-105.A.1, the location, width and grade of streets shall be
considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, and to the planned
use of land to be served by the streets. The street system shall assure efficient traffic circulation that is
convenient and safe. Sheets shall ordinarily conform to alignments depicted in the Conceptual Local Street
Map. The arrangement of public streets shall provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of
I
®ate Received:
Page 7 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
Original
M
existing streets in the surrounding area, unless topographical or other conditions make continuance or
conformance to existing street alignments impractical.
Finding 34: In accordance with SDC 4.2-105.A.2-3, all streets and alleys shall be dedicated and improved
as specified in this Code. Development Approval shall not be granted where a proposed application would
create unsafe traffic conditions.
Finding 35: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.A.1, all developed parcels shall have an approved access
provided by direct access to a public street or is private street that connects to the public street system.
However, a private street shall not be permitted in lieu of a public street shown on the City's adopted
Conceptual Street Plan or Transplan. The applicant's proposed access shown as "private drive" on the site
plan is illustrated as a future street extension within TransPlan and on the City's adopted Conceptual Street
Plan.
Finding 36: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.A,.2, driveway access to designated state highways is subject
to the provisions of the City's Development code in addition to requirements of ODOT. Where City and
ODOT regulations conflict, the more restrictive regulations shall apply.
Finding 37: SDC 4.2-105.G.2 requires that whl never a proposed development will increase traffic on the
City street system and that development has any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully unproved street,
that street frontage shall be fully improvedto 'i City specifications. Exception (i) notes that in cases of
unimproved streets an Improvement Agreement! shall be required as a condition of Development Approval
postponing improvements until such time that a City improvement project is initiated.
Finding 38: The subject site has approximately 60 feet of frontage on Highbanks Road at the extreme
southeast corner of the property. West of this public street frontage, there is an intervening wedge-shaped
piece of property owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation that abuts the south edge of the
development site. The applicant is not proposing to construct any public street frontage improvements with
the subject development.
Finding 39: Along the southeast site frontage, eland continuing along the south edge of the ODOT parcel,
Highbanks Road is a 44 -foot wide, three -lane minor arterial street within a variable -width right-of-way. The
street is improved with paving, curb, gutter, curbside sidewalk and street lighting. The street provides one
vehicle travel lane and one striped bicycle lane in each direction with a bi-directional center turning lane.
Estimated average daily traffic on this segment of I Highbanks Road is about 7,000 vehicles per day.
Finding 40: The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) initially submitted with the applicant's development proposal
is dated 11/10/2009. City staff expressed concerns about the queuing analysis presented in the TIA and
communicated these issues to the applicant's Traffic Engineer. On his own accord the applicant's Traffic
Engineer determined that the TTA would need to be revised and re -submitted. A revised TIA, dated 8/15/2012,
was submitted that shows analysis for the southbound movement at 52nd Street and Highway 126 along with
queuing associated with the site access points. i Eastbound, northbound and westbound movement analysis
were required to be in the TIA as detailed in the scoping document, and these movements were included in the
11/10/2009 TIA. However, the revised TTA dated 8/15/2012 omitted reporting queuing at these locations for
the 52°d Street andHighway 126 intersection. Queuing analysis for these movements was provided with the
8/15/2012 TIA appendix and showed larger queuing for the eastbound left turn in the `existing' condition than
the `build' condition after traffic was added. The applicant was advised on several occasions to address the
omitted data, but has not responded. The Oregon Department of Transportation reviewed the 8/15/2012 TIA
and advises that the omission of data and analysis has relevance to this intersection: specifically, that the
added vehicles associated with this proposed development increase the queuing past the available storage for
this left -turning movement. One possible conclusion is that the eastbound left turn queue on Highway 126 at
52"d Street, in the 'build' condition, will extend past the turn lane into the through lane of Highway 126. Since
Date Received:
P
NOV 2 0 2012 age 8 of 22
Original Submittal_T—
0 0
Highway 126 has a posted speed limit of 55 m h >;Ithe possibilityof a high seven tycrash resulting in fatalityor
injury is elevated.
Finding 41: The ODOTIreview of the applicant's revised TIA dated 8/15/2012 concluded that the applicant's
TIA requires a comprehensively revised analysis before the state agency can render a recommendation on this
land use application. i.
Finding 42: As noted above, the applicant has provided a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated
8/15/2012. This TIA included queuing analysis) for the southbound movement at 52nd Street and Highway
126, along with queuing associated with the proposed site access points. Staff has expressed concerns about
the overlapping queuing for the southbound movements at 52nd Street and Highway 126 versus northbound
queuing for the Highbanks Road at 52nd Street intersection. This northbound movement must stop for the
westbound to southbound flow of traffic sincelthis is the dominant flow and has the right of way over
northbound.left-turning traffic. In addition, the City has expressed concerns about the lane striping
assumptions used in the analysis and possible need for striping mitigation as part of the revised TIA dated
8/15/2012. The applicant's Traffic Engineer (reviewed these concerns and submitted a draft queuing
diagram dated 8/20/2012 via email on 8/29/2012. The draft queuing diagram shows needed mitigation
striping to accommodate the queuing analysis. After review, staff advised the applicant's Traffic Engineer
that the submitted queuing diagram was not properly scaled and misrepresented the actual queuing distances
at this location. The applicant's Traffic Engineer acknowledged the discrepancy and re -submitted a
properly scaled draft queuing diagram dated 9/25/2012 via email on 9/26/2012. The draft queuing diagram
uses a sight distance around the westbound to southbound curve given a 15 mph posted speed. State law
does not provide for a regulatory atory posted speed limit of 15 mph. The curve at this location has an adviso
speed posted at 15 mph. Field observation performed by staff found that the curve operates at an 85"
percentile speed of 20 mph from measurement by driving the curve with a ball bank indicator. The speed of
20 mph was confirmed by a spot speed study. Overlapping queues at this location may introduce a situation
where westbound traffic on Highbanks Road would not be able to see vehicles stopped in the southbound
queue to avoid a collision. This condition could be compounded with the occurrence of large trucks (WB -
67 or similar), which, when aligned properly inIthe curved two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) would greatly
overlap the 95th percentile southbound queue with very limited visibility of stopped vehicles.
Finding 43: There is no Lane Transit District; (LTD) service available in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property. The nearest transit service is Route #91 (McKenzie Bridge), which provides limited
service along Highway 126 from Springfield Station to McKenzie Bridge. The bus passes the Highway 126
and 52"d Street intersection and stops at the Thurston Station at the intersection of Bob Straub Parkway and
Main Street.
Finding 44: The proposed development may generate additional pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to
the "Household" survey done by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) in 1994, 12.6% of household trips
are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8% are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or
destinations at a variety, of land uses, including this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for
sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes.
Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 4.2-140 and 4.4-105.B.2, street trees are a required public street
improvement where planter strips exist or can be accommodated within the public right-of-way. After a
suitable establishment period, street trees installed in the public right-of-way become the maintenance
responsibility of the City. Where street trees cannot be planted in the public right-of-way, they shall be
planted inside private property at or near the edge of right-of-way. Street trees planted on private property
are the responsibility of the property owner or their designee.
Finding 46: Because of the proposed driveway placement, the site has an insufficient width of street
frontage on Highbanks Road for public street trees to be installed. The applicant is proposing to install
private street trees along the south edge of the property and within the detention basin near the southeast
®ate Received:
Page 9 of 22
Nov 2 0 2012
Submittal.-
o Io
edge of the site. The proposed private street trees are suitable for planting beneath overhead power lines and
therefore meet the require"ments of SDC 4.2-140 and 4.4-105.13.2.
Finding 47: Upon implementation of necessary traffic mitigation measures, the existing transportation
facilities would be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular and pedestrian traffic. patterns
generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner.
Conditions of Approval'-
6.
pproval;
6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
for dedication and .improvement of the area denoted "private drive" on the submitted tentative
plan as public right-of-way. The timing and extent of the right-of-way improvements will be
determined through this agreement and during the Public Improvement Project process.
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall dedicate the area denoted as "private
drive" on the submitted tentative plan as public right-of-way to accommodate the future extension
of 52"" Street as a public street as shown in TransPlan and the adopted Conceptual Street Plan.
S. The Final Site Plan shall provide for traffic mitigation for the overlapping queues at the
intersection of 52"" Street and Highbanks Road to reduce crash potential at this location. The
mitigation shall provide for dynamic warning of southbound queues for westbound vehicles
approaching the curve, when northbound vehicles block visibility of the southbound queue.
9. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive, revised TIA
satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer that accurately addresses all of the ODOT and City
comments concerning the previous TIAs.
10. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, t
for ODOT and City facilities to addre
development vehicle trips to critical t
suitable for all intersection queuing mo
analysis and mitigation provided for the
the City Traffic Engineer.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the
C. The proposed development shall cot
construction standards contained in this
applicant shall provide for traffic mitigation measures
known deficiencies related to the addition of post-
iing movements. The mitigation measures shall be
nents based on the `build' scenario. The reporting,
tersection queuing movements shall be satisfactory to
satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
with all applicable public and private design and
and other applicable regulations.
Finding 48: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub -elements and applicable code standards.
The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub -element
unless otherwise noted, with specific findings 11 and conclusions. The elements, sub -elements and code
standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to:
1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
• Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
• Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 11 4.3-140)
2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.171100, Site Plan Review and SDC 3.2-400 Light Medium
Industrial Zoning District
• Primary and Secondary Uses (3.2-410)
• Minimum Parcel Frontage (3.2-420)
• - Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (3.2-420 & 4.4-100)
i
Date Received: Page 10 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
• ' Maximum Building Height (3.2-420)
• On -Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
• Vehicle Parkingf Loading and Bicycle
• Warehouse Commercial Retail and WI
f
i
Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinem
• Floodplain Overlay District (3.3-400)
C.1 Public and Private Improvements in
Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
Access
Finding 49: All fire apparatus access routes are
Ib. imposed load in accordance with the 2007
D102.1. Access to the project area is afforded fi
that could potentially respond to the developme
the site on Main Street. Station #14 is apprc
intersection and Station #16 is approximately 1.:
E
Standards (4.6-100 — 4.6-155)
(4.7-245)
Plan Requirements
with SDC 4.1-100,4.2-100 & 4.3-100
to be paved all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000
Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix
)m 52°" Street at Highbanks Road. The nearest fire stations
it site are Stations #14 and 416, which are located south of
dmately 1.1 miles west of the Highway 126/Main Street
miles east of this intersection.
Finding 50: At least three (3) feet of clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of all fire
hydrants and Fire Department connections in laccordance with SFC 508.5.5 and 912.3. This includes
preventing obstruction by fences, trees, shrubs, walls or any other objects. Working space shall be
maintained 3 feet in width on both sides of the Fire Department connection, 3 feet in depth in front of the
connection, and 78 inches in height above said connection in accordance with SFC 912.3.2.
Water Supplv
Finding 51: The proposed development site is served by an existing public fire hydrant at the extreme
southeast corner of the site at Highbanks Road. I The existing fire hydrant is appropriately located to serve a
portion of the proposed development area. The applicant is also proposing to extend a 10 -inch water line
and install two fire hydrants along the west edge of the property. In conjunction with the existing hydrant,
the proposed fire hydrant scheme is adequate to serve the proposed development.
Finding 52: The applicant is also proposing
systems.
Condition of Approval:
11. At least three (3) feet of clear space hor
shall be maintained around all fire hydra
SFC 912.3.
i
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposs
Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 — 4.3-
I'
install dedicated private fire lines for building sprinkler
itally and at least 78 inches of clear space vertically
and Fire Department connections in accordance with
satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Finding 53: As stated previously, there is an existing 7 -foot wide PUE along the south boundary of the site.
Outside the west boundary of the site, there is a 20 -foot wide EWEB parcel that has an overlying access and
utility easement benefiting the subject property. The existing utility easements should be suitable for
extending utility connections to the subject site and to adjacent sites beyond the development area.
®ate Received:
Page 11 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal_
Finding 54: As stated previously, the "private
subject to roadway dedication easements that,ca
Attorney and staff that the applicant is in a pos
improvements and utility line extensions along
public right-of-way would be dedicated as an i
Conceptual Local Street Map.
101
riveway" denoted on the applicants' tentative site plan is
be activated by the applicant. It is the opinion of the City
on to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for public street
re west boundary of the property (see Condition 6). The
tension of 52nd Street as illustrated on the City's adopted
Finding 55: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120!A.1, all developed parcels shall have an approved access
provided by either direct access to a public street along the frontage of the property, a private street that
connects to the public street system, or access to a public street by an irrevocable joint use/access easement.
Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provision of
corresponding access and utility easements. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -element
of the criterion.
C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-400, Light Medium
Industrial (LMI) Zoning District
Primary and Secondary Uses (3.2-410)
Finding 56: The proposed buildings would accommodate a wide variety of potential tenants as outlined in
the Schedule of Light -Medium Industrial Uses found in SDC 3.2-410. The applicant's project narrative
does not specify which uses/activities will be locating on the site, nor is this a requirement of this decision.
However, certain industrial uses are either subject to additional special standards or are not permitted in the
LMI zoning district. If there is any uncertainty about whether a use is permitted in the proposed
development, staff recommends that the applicant verifies the suitability of potential tenants with staff in the
City's Planning Division.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Minimum Parcel Frontage (3.2-420)
Finding 57: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, jtbe minimum public street frontage for LMI parcels is 75
feet. The proposed development site has approximately 60 feet of frontage on Highbanks Road at the
extreme southeast corner of the parcel. West of the Highbanks Road frontage there is an intervening wedge-
shaped parcel owned by ODOT that is undeveloped and not considered "street" frontage for the purpose of
this review. SDC 3.2-420, Exception (3) states that the Director may waive the requirement that buildable
parcels have frontage on a public street when all of the following apply:
a) The parcel has lieen approved as part of a Site Plan; and
b) Access has been guaranteed via a private street or driveway by an irrevocable joint use/access
agreement as specified in Section 4.2-120.A.
Staff advises that waiving the requirement for al equate width of parcel frontage on a public street is at the
discretion of the Development & Public Works Director. The need for an irrevocable joint use/access
easement can be satisfied by activating the roadway dedication easements to create public right-of-way
along the west boundary, of the site.
Landscaping, Screening and Fence
Finding 58: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420
driveway setback and a.minimum 10 -foot bui
& 4.4-100)
4.4-105, a minimum 5 -foot wide front yard parking and
setback shall be landscaped. The applicant's proposed
®ate Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Page 12 of 22
site plan shows a variable -width planter strip along the south edge of the site. The landscaped area includes
a vegetated swale and infiltration basin, and meets the minimum setback requirements of SDC 3.2-420.
Finding 59: The applicant's proposed site plan shows a 5 -foot wide planter strip along the west boundary of
the site, which meets tb minimum landscaped setback requirements of SDC 3.2-420.
Finding 60: In accordance with SDC 4.4-105.17, the minimum parking lot planting required for each 100 ft
of parking lot landscaping is one canopy tree and, four 5 -gallon shrubs.
Finding 61: The applicant is proposing to install one canopy tree and at least four 5 -gallon shrubs, with
accompanying smaller shrubs and accent trees, within the parking lot landscaping areas along the west,
south, and southeastern edges of the site. The applicant is not proposing to install any landscaping areas
within the site interior. The proposed parking lot landscaping on the perimeter of the site meets the
requirements of SDC 4.4-1O5.F.
Finding 62: SDC 4.4-105.E.3 states that lawn or groundcover plants can be substituted for trees or shrubs
where there are adequate provisions for ongoing maintenance. The applicant's submittal proposes to use
groundcover plants as accent material along the edges of the project area. All landscaping areas shown on
the applicant's site plan are proposed to be irrigated.
Finding 63: The applicant's tentative plan indicates that 36,205 fl of pervious area will remain on the site
at build -out, which includes landscaping areas and a gravel strip at the northern edge of the property. The
applicant's site plan does not have a detailed breakdown of the area dedicated to landscaping versus other
pervious surfaces. Staff has deducted the 12' x 288' gravel strip from the total calculated pervious area,
resulting in approximately 32,749 flz of net landscaping area. In accordance with SDC 4.4-105.E.1, at least
two 2 -inch caliper trees and 10 five -gallon, shrubs are required for each 1,000 8' of landscaping area
(fractional amounts are rounded up to the nearest whole plant). Therefore, based on the amount of new
landscaping area provided on the site, at least 66 trees and 330 five -gallon shrubs are required. A greater
quantity of three -gallon shrubs, accent trees and groundcover plants may be substituted for a small
proportion of the required five -gallon shrubs. The applicant's submittal meets these requirements.
Finding 64: In accordance with SDC 4.4-110.A.1, screening is required where industrial districts abut
residential districts. Screening can be vegetative, earthen and/or structural and shall be designed to
minimize visual and audible impacts to adjoining residential areas.
Finding 65: The subject site is zoned LMI and it abuts Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning along the
east boundary. There are no residential dwellings currently developed along the eastern edge of the site.
However, to address the requirements of SDC 4.4-110.A.1, the applicant is proposing to install a sight -
obscuring wood fence along the east and southeast edges of the development site where it abuts LDR
property.
Finding 66: There is no specific requirement to fence the site, but the applicant is proposing to install a
sight -obscuring wood fence along most of the eastern property line to address screening requirements. The
proposed site plan provides for a slatted chain.link fence along the remainder of the eastern and northern
property lines where theproperty abuts industrial -zoned properties.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Maximum Building Height (3.2-420)
Finding 67: In accordance with SDC 3.2-420, the maximum building height allowable in the LMI District
where a parcel abuts LDR zoning is no greater than that permitted in the LDR District for a distance of 50
feet from the property line. The maximum building height allowable in the LDR District is 30 feet.
®ate Receive:
Page 13 of 22
NOV 2 0 201,?
0 0
Finding 68: According to the applicant's site plan, Buildings 1-4 are within 50 feet of the LDR zoning at
the eastern edge of the site. Proposed Buildings 1-4 are depicted as 24 -feet high to the top of the parapet,
which meets the building height limitations of SDC 3.2-420.
P
On -Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
Finding 69: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.A, lighting used for the site must be shielded, flat -lensed light
fixtures that will prevent glare and light trespass onto adjacent sites and perimeter roads.
Finding 70: In accordance with SDC 4.5-110.B.1, the maximum height of a freestanding light fixture shall
not exceed 25 feet or the height of the principal building(s), whichever is less. Exception 2.b notes that the
maximum height of a freestanding light fixture within 50 feet of a residential district is 12 feet. As noted
above, the applicant's submitted exterior elevations indicate the buildings will be 24 feet high.
Finding 71: The applicant is proposing to install 12 -foot high parking lot light poles on the east edge of the
site. Elsewhere on the site, the applicant is proposing to install 20 -foot high parking lot light poles. Both
proposed light pole heights meet the requirements of SDC 4.5-110.B.
Finding 72: The applicant has submitted a photometric grid and manufacturer cut sheets for the full cut-off
light fixtures proposed for the site. The proposed lighting style meets the requirements of SDC 4.5-110.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 — 4.6-155)
Finding 73: In accordance with SDC Table 4.6-2, the minimum vehicle parking requirement for
manufacture and assembly areas, and other primary industrial uses is 1 space per 500 fe of building floor
area. Warehousing generates a vehicle parking requirement of 1 space per 1,000 ft2 of building floor area.
Fractional parking spaces are rounded up to the nearest whole space. Based on the gross square footage of
the buildings (161,345 f?) and the proposed breakdown of manufacturing/assembly use versus warehousing
use (37,600 ft2 @ 1 per 500 ft2 and 123,745 ft' @ 1 per 1,000 fiz) , the development area would generate an
overall parking requirement of 200 spaces. According to the applicant's submittal there are 199 parking
spaces proposed for the site.
Finding 74: In accordance with SDC 4.6-11 O.A.3.a, the Development Services Director may authorize a
reduction in the number of required parking spaces without a formal Variance based on an approved parking
analysis prepared by a Transportation Engineer. In this case, the discrepancy of one parking space across
the entire development area can be attributed. to rounding -off numbers and does not warrant a formal
parking analysis.
Finding 75: The applicant's project narrative indicates the development site is designed to accommodate
small-scale office, manufacturing and warehousing use. Office and small-scale repair/maintenance uses —
possible tenants in this development site — have a much higher parking space requirement of I space per 300
ft' of floor area. Because specific tenants are not identified in the applicant's submittal, the exact ratio of
uses and combined parking generation rates is not known and could exceed the applicant's anticipated ratio
of approximately 23% manufacturinglassembly,and 77% warehousing floor area. It is the opinion of staff
that should the proportion of manufacturing/assembly area to warehousing area vary from the applicant's
anticipated ratio (ie. should there be more office and manufacturing uses than the relatively low proportion
predicted), it could result in an overall deficiency of parking spaces on the site and/or competition for
available parking between various tenants. However, because there is insufficient room for on -street
parking on the site perimeter, any impacts of a "parking shortage" should be contained on the site.
®ate Received:
NOV 2 0 2012 Page 14 of 22
Original Submittal.
Finding 76: In accordance with SDC 4.6-155 and Table 4.6-3, most light industrial uses including
manufacturing/assembly; offices and warehousing (not including warehouse commercial sales) generate a
bicycle parking requirement of one space per 3000 fe of floor space. At least 75% of the bicycle parking
spaces are to be covered! long-term spaces. Based on the floor area (161,345 ftz) at least 54 bicycle parking
spaces are required. Of This, at least 40 are to be covered long-term bicycle parking spaces. The applicant's
site plan proposes 14 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 41 covered spaces within individual lease
spaces, which meets this requirement. Verification of long-term bicycle parking spaces will be done with
individual building permits for the tenant infitls.
Finding 77: Staff observes that, of the 14 short-term bicycle parking spaces proposed for the development
area, 10 are at the south edge of the site and the remaining 4 are at the extreme northeast comer of the
property. Staff recommends a more even distribution of short-term parking spaces throughout the
development area — approximately one short-term bicycle rack (each serving 2 bicycles) per building face
containing entry doors to tenant lease spaces.
Condition of Approval:
12. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the distribution of short-term bicycle parking shall be
revised to provide for approximately one 2 -space bicycle rack per building face that contains
entry doors to tenant lease spaces.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Warehouse Commercial Retail and Wholesale (4.7-245)
Finding 78: In accordance with SDC 3.2-410, warehouse commercial retail and distribution are allowable
uses in the LMI District. However, there are special considerations for warehouse commercial uses related
to wholesale sales of materials to the construction industry. In accordance with SDC 4.7-245.F, at least 50%
of the building floor space shall be used for storage of materials and not more than 50% can be dedicated to
combined retail and office floor space. The applicant is advised that potential warehouse commercial
tenants will need to meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-410 and 4.7-245.F.
C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
Finding 79: Approximately the northern one-half of the subject site is within the mapped 100 -year
floodplain of the McKenzie River. A Floodplain Overlay District permit (Case SHR2008-00001) was
previously issued for site grading and placement of fill. Subsequently, the applicant obtained a Letter of
Map Revision — Fill (LOMB -F) from FEMA, which confirms the subject site is elevated out of the flood
hazard area (FEMA Case No. 09-10-0007A). Therefore, the Floodplain Overlay District no longer applies
to this site. ?
V
Finding 80: The subject site is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area. Therefore, the prevailing
comprehensive plan is the adopted Metro Plan. The current LMI zoning is consistent with the zoning
designation for the site, {{and therefore no specific Metro Plan policies are applicable to this site.
Finding 81: The subje Y site is not located within the mapped Drinking Water Protection Overlay District.
However, during site construction and operations, precautions must be taken to prevent fluid-containing
equipment, machinery and vehicles located outside from leaking, including providing a dedicated area for
fueling and maintenance of equipment. This area should be prepared and maintained in such a way that
prevents spills or leaks from migrating to the soil or the stormwater system. Additionally, no fill materials
containing hazardous materials can be used on the site.
Date Received:
NOV 2 0 1012 Page 15 of 22
Original Submittal
X
Condition of Approval:
13. No fill materials containing hazardous materials shall be used or placed on the site.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
D. Parking areas and ingress -egress points have been designed to;
pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activii
and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collect
other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT ac
highways,
facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and
within the development area and to
y centers, and commercial, industrial
rr streets as specified in this Code or
:ess management standards for State
Finding 82: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater
number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the
probability of traffic crashes include; reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between
intersections and driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance areas where driveways intersect
streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the
number and difficulty of decisions that drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety.
Finding 83: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C, site driveways shall be designed to allow for safe and
efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5, the City's EDSPM, and the
Springfield Public Works Department's Standard Construction Specifications. Ingress -egress points must
be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion, and minimize curb cuts on public
streets.
Finding 84: In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.A.2, driveway access to designated state highways is subject
to the provisions of the City's Development code in addition to requirements of ODOT. Where City and
ODOT regulations conflict, the more restrictive regulations, shall apply.
Finding 85: In accordance with SDC 4.2-1203, driveway access to local streets is generally encouraged in
preference to access to streets of higher classification, An exception to this states that driveway access to
arterial and collector streets may be permitted if no reasonable alternative street access exists or where
heavy use of local streets is inappropriate due to traffic impacts in residential areas.
Finding 86: SDC 4.2-120.B.1 states that where a proposed development abuts an existing or proposed
arterial street (Highbanks Road), the development design and off-street improvements shall minimize the
traffic conflicts. Additional improvements or design modifications necessary to resolve identified
transportation conflicts may be required.
it
Finding 87: SDC 4.2420.A.1 stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to a public
street". The applicant proposes to provide vehicular access to the property via three overwidth full -turn
driveways along the future 52"d Street frontage, and one full -turn driveway at the southeastern corner of the
site along Highbanks Road.
Finding 88: Access management principles and SDC 4.2-120.8 support limiting the number of driveways
along a street and encourage wide spacing of access points to increase the time and distance drivers have to
make decisions and maneuvers. These principles are especially relevant in proximity to high volume and
high speed operations typically found on arterial streets and highways. The three proposed access points
along 52W Street are in close proximity to each other and to an intersection of an arterial street and a
highway, which is an undesirable condition. Staff is of the view that one access point onto 52nd Street
would adequately serve the site. A similar site at 4660 Main Street, a state highway, functions with one full -
gate Received:
Page 16 of 22
NOY 2 0 2012
Original 8u0mitial.
101
turns movement access and 52°d Street is not expected to have the high volume of traffic that Main Street
carries.
Finding 89: The applicant's proposed development depicts a full -turns movement driveway to Highbanks
Road, which is classified as an arterial street with local residential access driveways on the opposite (south)
side of the street. If large trucks seeking to access the development area fail to proceed north on 52nd Street
north of Highbanks Road and turn east onto Highbanks Road, they will enter a residential area with limiting
geometric street features such as a residential -scale roundabout. For this reason, a secondary driveway
entrance onto Highbanks road is desirable in the location shown on the proposed site plan. This driveway
entrance at the southeast corner of the site must provide for a three-quarters turning movement access to
allow trucks to enter the site via a left tum from eastbound Highbanks Road. However, the driveway design
will need to preclude left turns for exiting vehicles through signage, physical design features and physical
modifications to the site. Restricting the outbound left turns from the driveway access onto Highbanks Road
will also reduce potential conflicts with residential uses on the south side of the road.
Finding 90: Section 4.2-120 (Table 4.2-3) of the SDC requires that a minimum of 60 feet of throat depth be
provided for industrial curb return driveways as measured from the curb face to the first parking stall or
driving aisle. The proposed site plan depicts driveways along the future 52°d Street frontage that have
significantly less distance than that required for suitable throat depth.
Finding 91: Section 4.2-120 (Table 4.2-3) of the SDC shows a maximum driveway width of 35 feet for
industrial developments with an exception where wider driveways may be permitted to accommodate traffic
demands and/or to improve safety. The applicant's revised TIA dated 8/15/2012 argues for a 40 -foot wide
driveway being necessary for a WB -67 design vehicle. However, the scaled large vehicle simulation
submitted in the TIA dated 8/15/2012 shows that the design vehicle can be accommodated within a 35 -foot
driveway.
Finding 92: The applicant is proposing to use an existing driveway connection that crosses a parcel owned
by ODOT located at the north edge of the Highbanks Road and 52°d Street intersection. Staff anticipates
that until 52nd Street is extended north of Highbanks Road an ODOT access permit will be required for the
proposed development. The permit should not be unreasonably withheld unless the traffic generated by the
site has an adverse and unmitigated impact on ODOT facilities. The applicant will need to produce
satisfactory evidence of ODOT access permit issuance prior to or concurrently with submittal of the Final
Site Plan.
Conditions of Approval:
14. The Final Site Plan shall remove the southernmost driveway access onto 52"d Street and may
retain the middle and northern access as depicted on the tentative site plan. Alternatively, the
applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction mechanism against the property title that
provides for removal of the southernmost access in the event the future intersection at 52nd Street
and Highbanks Road is located less than 150 feet from this driveway.
15. The Final Site Plan shall be revised to provide for a three-quarters turning movement for the
driveway onto I ighbanks Road. This access shall allow for left turning trucks and other vehicles
to enter the site while preventing all, types of vehicles from exiting the site via a left turning
movement. Control of exiting vehicles shall be through signage interior to the site and at the
driveway; driveway design features ,that physically prevent exiting left turns; and physical
modifications internal to the site to specifically prevent trucks from leaving the internal aisles
eastward toward the driveway on Highbanks Road.
16. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a minimum driveway throat depth of 60 feet in accordance
with City design standards, or shall use a standard `dustan' style driveway.
Bate Received:
Page 17 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal
X
l
17. The Final Site Plan shall provide a maximum driveway width of 35 feet for the industrial
11
driveways serving the site.
18. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for any development on the site, the applicant shall provide
a copy of a valid ODOT access permit for the subject property.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this criterion.
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions;
areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on
the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock
outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, 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.
Finding 93: The Natural Resources Study; the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland
Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted
and there are no significant natural features warranting preservation on this site.
Finding 94: According to the applicant's site plan, there appears to be four qualifying trees proposed for
removal from the site, which is within the parameters of the City's Tree Felling standards (SDC 5.19-100).
Therefore, in accordance with SDC 5.19-110,,.A,, a Tree Felling Permit will not be required for the removal
of the four trees.
Finding 95: Stormwater runoff from the subject site flows to the McKenzie River system. This river is
listed with the State of Oregon as a "water quality limited" stream for numerous chemical and physical
constituents, including temperature. Provisions have been made in this decision for protection of
stormwater quality. The proposed on-site stormwater treatment system consists of. vegetated swales,
infiltration basins and filtering catch basins. Stormwater that is collected and treated on-site is discharged to
the public stormwater management system.
Condition of Approval:
19. The property owner shall be responsible for ongoing and perpetual maintenance of the private
stormwater facilities on the site to ensure they function as designed and intended, and to ensure
protection of groundwater resources. Annual maintenance records shall be kept by the property
owner and provided to the City for" review upon reasonable request — normally within rive
business days. �II
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposed development provides storm and ground water quality
protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with
SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115.
I
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A-
E of SDC 5.17-125.
r
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL?
Five copies of a Final Site Plan, the Final Site Plan application form and fees, and any additional required plans,
documents or information are required to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date of
this letter (ie. by February 3, 2013). The application form and fee information is available on the City's
website here: http://www.springficid-or.pov/dsd/Planninp/apps fees%202008.htm. In accordance with SDC
®ate Received', Page 18 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
5.17-135 — 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions
imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with
the tentative plan reviewed. 'Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be
substantively changed during, final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans)
shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision
Modification.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is
required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the
City. This agreement will be.prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the
property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All utilities installed to serve the development site, including electrical service, shall be placed
underground.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide for a 10 -foot wide public utility
casement along the west boundary of the site. Alternatively, the applicant shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of SUB Electric that utility lines can be appropriately accommodated within_ the future
52°d Street right-of-way.
3. The applicant shall construct a public sanitary sewer line within the future 52°a Street alignment west
of the development site. The public sanitary sewer line shall be appropriately sized to accommodate
future development to the north of the subject property and shall be constructed as part of a Public
Improvement Project that is dedicated to the City of Springfield upon completion.
4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance
plan satisfactory to the City to ensure viable long-term maintenance and operation of the vegetated
swales and infiltration basins. The operations and maintenance plan shall designate the responsible
party for operating and maintaining the system and shall be distributed to all property owners and
tenants on the site.
5. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit,
the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the vegetated swales and infiltration basins shall
be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to issuance of final occupancy and
commencement of operations. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall
provide and maintain additional interim!lerosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the
Development & Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale and
infiltration basin vegetation becomes fuliy!,established. The interim erosion control measures shall be
in addition to the required plantings for the site.
G. Prior to approval of th'e Final Site Plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for
dedication and improvement of the area denoted "private drive" on the submitted tentative plan as
public right-of-way. The timing and exteuf of the right-of-way improvements will be determined
through this agreement and during the Public Improvement Project process.
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plau,�the applicant shall dedicate the area denoted as "private
drive" on the submitted tentative plan as public right-of-way to accommodate the future extension of
52°" Street as a public street as shown in TraosPlan and the adopted Conceptual Street Plan.
S. The Final Site Plan shall provide for traffic mitigation for the overlapping queues at the intersection
of 52°" Street and Ilighbanks Road to reduee crash potential at this location. The mitigation shall
Date Receive#::
+, Page 19 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
MI
M
provide for dynamic warning of southbound queues for westbound vehicles approaching the curve,
when northbound vehicjles block visibility of the southbound queue.
9. Prior to approval of tie Final Site Plan, ;the applicant shall submit a comprehensive, revised TIA
satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer that accurately addresses all of the ODOT and City
comments concerning the previous TIAs.
10. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide for traffic mitigation measures for
ODOT and City facilities to address known deficiencies related to the addition of post -development
vehicle trips to critical turning movements. The mitigation measures shall be suitable for all
intersection queuing movements based on the `build' scenario. The reporting, analysis and mitigation
provided for the intersection queuing movements shall be satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer.
11. At least three (3) feet of clear space horizontally and at least 78 inches of clear space vertically shall, be
maintained around all fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 912.3.
12. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the distribution of short-term bicycle parking shall be revised
to provide for approximately one 2 -space bicycle rack per building face that contains entry doors to
tenant lease spaces.
13. No fill materials containing hazardous materials shall be used or placed on the site.
14. The Final Site Plan shall remove the southernmost driveway access onto 52°d Street and may retain
the middle and northern access as depicted on the tentative site plan. Alternatively, the applicant
shall execute and record a deed restriction mechanism against the property title that provides for
removal of the southernmost access in the event the future intersection at 52°d Street and Highbanks
Road is located less than 150 feet from this driveway.
15. The Final Site Plan shall be revised to ,provide for a three-quarters turning movement for the
driveway onto Highbanks Road. This access shall allow for left turning trucks and other vehicles to
enter the site while preventing all types of vehicles from exiting the site via a left turning movement.
Control of exiting vehicles shall be through signage interior to the site and at the driveway; driveway
design features that physically prevent exiting left turns; and physical modifications internal to the
site to specifically prevent trucks from leaving the internal aisles eastward toward the driveway on
Highbanks Road.
16. The Final Site Plan shall provide for a minimum driveway throat depth of 60 feet in accordance with
City design standards, or shall use a standard `dustpan' style driveway.
17. The Final Site Plan shall provide a maximum driveway width of 35 feet for the industrial driveways
serving the site.
18. Prior to issuance of Building Permits forlany development on the site, the applicant shall provide a
copy of a valid ODOT access permit for the subject property.
19. The property owner shall be responsible for ongoing and perpetual maintenance of the private
stormwater facilities on the site to ensure they function as designed and intended, and to ensure
protection of groundwater resources. Annual maintenance records shall be kept by the property
owner and provided to the City for review upon reasonable request — normally within rive business
days.
The applicant may submit permit applications to other city departments for review prior to final site plan
approval in accordance with SDC 5.17-135 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision
®ate Received: Page 20 of 22
NOV 2 0 2012
i
for compliance with the finallsite plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 5.17-140 will not be
issued until all plans submitted by the applicant have been revised. CONFLICTING PLANS CAUSE
DELAYS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant,
and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the
Development Services .Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
APPEAL: This Type 11 Tentative Site Plan decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may
be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department
by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals, An Appeals application
must be submitted with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the Planning Commission
approves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.3-115.13 which provides for a I5 -day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on
November 20, 2012..
QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development & Public Works
Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird s ringfield-or.gov if you have any questions regarding this
process.
PREPARED BY
Indy Libbmbird
Senior Planner
Date Received:
NOV 2 0 2012 Page 21 of 22
Original Submittal--
0 0
J
Please be advised that tli`e following is provided for informationonly and is not a component of
the Site Plan Review decision.
�Y FEES AND PERMITS
Systems Development Charples:
The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building permits are issued for
developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates
to the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site
improvements within the subject site. The charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of
permit submittal for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Sanitary Sewer In -Lieu -Of -Assessment Charge:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer In -Lieu -Of -Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the
property or portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise
participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if the
In -Lieu -Of -Assessment charge is applicable [Ord. 5584].
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure.
Other City Permits:
Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit (working within right-of-way or public easements). For
example, new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, installation or repair of public sidewalk, or
adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $267 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits.
Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at
541-726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements.
Additional permits/approvals may be necessary:
• Plumbing Permits
• Building Permits
• ODOT access permit
• Curb cut permit
• Paving permit
Date Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal -- Page 22 of 22
800 U.S. Bank Center
800 Willamette Street
Eugene, OR 97401
MICHEAL M. REEDER
Via Email and Hand
Springfield Planning Co.
c/o Jim Donovan, Planni
Development Services E
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, Oregon 974
Re: High B
Appeal
ARNOLD GALLAGHERO
A Professional Corporation
Telephone: (541) 484-0188 Correspondence:
Facsimile: (541) 484-0536 P.O. Box 1758
E -Mail: mreeder@agsprp.com Eugene, OR 9 7440-1 75 8
November 20, 2012
Supervisor
Business Park Tentative Site Plan Review, TYP212-00007
Dear Planning Commissioners
I represent Hyland Business Park LLC ("Hyland" or the "Applicant'), the owner of a flat, vacant
7.58 -acre parcel zoned Light Medium Industrial with a site address of 5250 & 5262 High Banks Road
(the "Subject Property"). On June 4, 2012, Hyland submitted an application for tentative site plan review
(the "Application") for a five (5) building industrial business park, totaling 161,000 square feet (the
"Business Park"). On November 5, 2012, staff approved the Application with nineteen (19) conditions of
approval. Please accept this letter as the Applicant's appeal narrative. In addition, the Applicant reserves
all rights to raise and address any and all issues prior to and during the de novo Planning Commission
hearing pursuant to Springfield Development Code ("SDC") 5.3-115.D.
Below is a discuss ' ion of selected findings of fact ("Findings") and conditions of approval
("Conditions") imposed by taff that the Applicant finds objectionable and that the Applicant appeals to
the Planning Commission. However, it is important to understand that the primary issue on anneal is
Procedural I rreeu la rite
Staffs treatment of this Application has been highly irregular as well as arbitrary. Staff never
bothered to provide the Applicant with a completeness review as required by SDC 5.4-105.0 and D.
Staff has treated the Appliclation like an albatross from the beginning.
Findine 11 /Condition I
Staffs Condition I states: "AII utilities installed to serve the development site, including electrical
service, shall be placed underground." Condition I and its related finding (Find i 1�tldif;%Mzed
I
NOV 2 0 2012
C
Planning Commission
c/o Jim Donovan
November 20, 2012
Page 2
tightening of the standards (found in SDC 4.3-125,1which reads: " nenever possible, all utility lines shall
be placed underground." (Emphasis mine). While the Applicant is not specifically concerned with the
substance of staff's condition in this particular case (the Applicant intends to underground all utilities), it
illustrates the pattern and!practice of staff to impose more restrictions on this Application than are
justified by the SDC. Staff provides nojustification for its omission of the built in flexibility provided by
the SDC. I
Findings 33-34
Findings 33 and 341are merely recitations of the SDC and are therefore not findings of fact at all.
However, the fact that staff repeats the SDC and passes them off as findings illustrates the fact that staff
believes that SDC 4.2-105.X.1 somehow requires the Applicant to dedicate the private driveway that the
City wishes to be an extension of 52"d Street. Asl,will be discussed below, this is in error.
I i
Finding 35 is in error. Findings 10 and 54*d Conditions 6 and 7 are an outgrowth of this error.
The Applicant has exhaustively articulated to staff that SDC 4.2-120.A.1 does not stand for the
proposition that the Applicant must dedicate the private driveway that the City wishes to bean extension
of 52"d Street. In an October 4, 2012 letter to Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, I explained
that staff had already determined that dedication of the private drive was not required. I stated:
"On September 3, 2008, Jon Driscoll, confirmed that the City would not require the
dedication of the private driveway and would not require the building of corresponding
roadway improvements (the extension of 52"1 Street). See the attached email from
Mr. Driscoll to me and Damien Gilbert. Please also see my response letter to Mr. Driscoll
that I have previously attached to my September 20, 2012 letter to James Donovan, dated
November 12, 2008. Now, staff is attempting to require the dedication of the private
driveway. To my knowledge, the City has never explained its change in position.
Furthermore, your discussion that attempts tojustify staff s desire to take property interests
in the driveway from Hyland as part of a site plan review application is unpersuasive and has
already been rebutted by me in my November 12, 2008 letter to Mr. Driscoll and my March
19, 2004 letter to Mark Metzger. The SDC provision that you cite in your letter, SDC 4.2-
105(A)(I)(a)(iii), do not impose an affirmative duty on Hyland to dedicate a public street
because the Application does not propose to locate or construct a public street where the
current private driveway is located. Your cited code provision is a general provision for
regulating the location of proposed public streets; it does not provide guidance for when a
public street must be dedicated and constructed. Those triggers are found in a separate code
section, SDC 4.2-105(G). I have previously, exhaustively, rebutted staffs notion that the
Application triggersithe need for the dedicaf ion and construction of the "extension of 52nd
Street." However, for convenience I will repeat my previous argument in relevant part here:
Section 4.2-120(G)(1) states in relevant pant
I i Date Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal
Planning Commission O
c/o Jim Donovan
November 20, 2012
Page 3
Additional Right-oj way and Street Improvements.
1. Whenever I et an existing streof, inadequate width is abutting or within a
development area requiring Development. 4pproval, additional right-of-way is required.
(Emphasis added).
This provision cannot be used to justify the City's position that Hyland dedicate and improve
the private drive. This provision requires additional right-of-way only when there is an
existing "street" of inadequate width that "abuts" or is "within a development area." All of
the above emphasized and quoted terms are defined by the SDC. The private driveway is
not a "street." "StreIet" is defined by the SDC as "[a]ny roadway and associated right-of-way
that provides access to one or more lots/parcels and that is a part of the city-wide street
system." (Emphasis mine): The private drive is a non-public driveway for which multiple
lots have legal access; it is not part of the City's street system.
Since the private drive is not a public street, and since the Application does not propose any
new streets as parti of the Application, SDC 4.2-105(A)(1)(a)(iii) does not apply and
therefore the City may not require Hyland to dedicate and construct the "extension of 52"d
Street". The mere fact that the conceptual local street map may anticipate a possible future
extension of 52nd Street where the current private driveway is located, by itself, does not
create the requirement that Hyland dedicate the private drive to the City and to construct the
dedicated street to ity standards." (Emphasis mine in original quote).
However, even if the SDC could be interpreted to apply to the Application on its face, the
principles of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994), are violated and the City cannot require the
dedication of the private drive. See generally, McClure v. City ofSpringfeld, 175 Or App 425 (2001),
rev. den., 334 Or 327 (2002) (holding that the fact that an exaction is required by city code is irrelevant to
whether the exaction imposed pursuant to the code is in fact roughly proportional to the impacts of the
development). Conditions 6 and 7 are unconstitutional conditions which staff has yet tojustify. See also
Brown v. City of Medford, 251 Or App 42 (2012) and Schultz v. City of Grants Pass, 131 Or App 220
(1994).
Notwithstanding the above, staff still takes the erroneous position that dedication of the private
driveway is required. The Application must be approved without Finding 35 and Conditions 6 and 7.
Finding 36
Finding 36 is not a finding at all. It assumes, without explicitly so saying, that the private drive
impacts a state highway fac lity. It does not. The private drive crosses property owned in fee by ODOT,
but that ODOT property is not an ODOT facility and certainly not a "designated state highway."
Therefore, SDC 4.2-120.A2 is not applicable. It ishould be noted that this finding is the first time staff
has expressed (implicitly or explicitly) this interpretation; it was never raised as an issue during any
discussion with staff and the Applicant's team.
Date Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Orlainal Submittal
Planning Commission
c/o Jim Donovan
November 20, 2012
Page 4
101
Finding 37/Condition 6
This finding suffers from the same flaws as Finding 35 above. SDC 4.2-105.G.2 is not applicable
because the Subject Property does not have any frontage abutting any unimproved streets.
Staff generally mischaracterizes important components of the various traffic impact analysis
"discussions" and ODOT's review of this Application. However, the bottom line is that ODOT has no
jurisdiction for this Application and has changed its opinion on this Application multiple times. ODOT
has indicated to the Applicant and the Applicant's representative that ODOT will not intervene in this
Application. The Applicant's analysis of the traffic impacts for the Application is exhaustive; no
"revised" TIA is necessary and no traffic mitigation is required.
Finding 55
There is access to High Banks Road at the southeastern corner of the Subject Property. Therefore,
SDC 4.2-120.A.1 is satisfied.
Finding 75
The speculative staiff commentary in Find li ng 75 is irrelevant and should therefore be removed
Findings 82-92/Conditions 14-17
I
Findings 82-92 and Conditions 14-17 are, generally speaking, inappropriate and stem from staff s
major misapplication of the SDC. Most fundamental is staffs erroneous assumption that the private
driveway must be dedicated and therefore becom ie a public street.
Conclusion
The Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission approve the Application as
originally proposed without the Findings and Conditions described above, particularly without the
requirement that the Applicant dedicate the private drive.
submitted,
Micheal M. Reeder
Attorney for Hyland Business Park, LLC
®ate Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
nw�9rtat Submittal
Planning Commission a
c/o Jim Donovan
November 20, 2012
Page 5
MMR:jgh
Attachments: Signed Appeal Form, appeal fee and November 5, 2012 Staff Report & Decision
cc: Client
Gino Grimaldi, City Manager
Honorable Christine Lundberg, Mayor
Damien Gilbert, Branch Engineering
Kristen Taylor, TBG Architects + Planners
NAF - Nohn Hyland Const., Inc. 15495\High Banks Business Park 15495-Morrespondence\Appeal Narrative 112012.doc
Date Received:
NOV 2 0 2012
Original Submittal— _