HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 1/8/2013 a a
City of Springfield SPRINGFIELD
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street 2
Springfield, OR 97477
Annexation Development Issues Meeting (DIM)
Required Project Information (Applicant. complete this section)
Prospective
Applicant Name: Betsy Hunter Phone: 541.682.2530
Housing and Community Services Agency of
Company: Lane Count HACSA Fax: 541.682.3411
Address: 177 Day Island Road Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail: bhunter hacsa.us
Prospective
Applicant's Rep.: Colin McArthur AICP Phone: 541.485.7385
Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture &
Company: Planning Fax:- 541.485.7389
colin(8cameronmcca
Address: 160 East Broadway, Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail: rth .com
Property Owner: HACSA Phone: 541.682.2530
Company: HACSA I Fax: 541.682.3411
Address: 177 Day Island Road, Eu ene, OR 97401 E-mail: bhunter-@hacsa.us
1100, 1400, 1700, 1800, 1900,
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-03-34-41 TAX LOT NOS : 2000
N/A (Lots 1400-1900). Lot 2000: 4224 Franklin Blvd., Eugene, OR 97403;
Property Address: Lot 1100: 249 N Brooklyn St Eugene, OR 97403
Size of Property: 1.35 Acres ® Square Feet ❑
A transit-oriented, 5 to 6-story mixed-use building to provide commercial space
Description of on the ground floor with approximately 150 units of work-force housing in the
Proposal: GRMU District Franklin Riverfront Subarea A .
Existing Use: Industrial; One lot Single Family Housing Proposed Use: Mixed-Use
City Zoning: LMI Metro Desi `nation: LMI/ND I Population: 2
Prospective
Applicant:
w gn. X13
Date:
Signatur i
yrs Y *Vrl TM
Print fi
Required Project Information (City Intake Staff. complete this section)
T'as'elro'f
110 1 1i I Date: ( Reviewed by:
Appiication Fee: d- Q Technical Fee: 0 Postage Fee: 0
TOTAL FEES: ( -O PROJECT NUMBER: p 00001
O
Date eceive :
JAN - 8 2013
Original Submittal
t
0 0
Development Issues Meeting 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, technology, and postage fees are collected at the
time of complete application submittal.
® Development Issues-meeting Application Form
® Five (5) Questions - list specific questions the applicant would like staff to answer
during the meeting. So that each question may be fully evaluated, the list is limited to five
questions. Examples of relevant issues for annexation include but are not limited to the
following:
• Contiguity
• Availability and capacity of surrounding city services
a Affected special districts
• Fees
Ten (10) Copies of the Proposal - suggested information valuable for staff to review the
proposal is listed below. It is not necessary to include all of these items on the site or plot
plan. However, applicants are encouraged to address as many as possible given that the
level of information that will be derived from the meeting is commensurate with the level
of detail provided in the application.
Applicants are also encouraged to include additional information on the plan as listed in
the Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.7, Annexations.
® Drawn in ink on quality paper no smaller than 11" x 17"
® Scale appropriate to the area involved and sufficient to show detail of the plan and
related data, such as 1" = 30', 1" = 50' or 1" = 100'
1Z North arrow
® Date of preparation
® Street address and assessor's map and tax lot number
❑ Dimensions (in feet) and size (either square feet or acres) of the annexation area
❑ Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including connection points
❑ ,On-site drainage collection system and flow patterns, the size and location of drain
lines and catch basins, dry wells, and natural drainageways to be retained
Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for
future public road right-of-way _
® Approximate location, number and dimensions of proposed lots
® How streets in the proposal area'connect with existing streets
® Future development plan, which may include proposed and existing buildings
(location, dimensions, size) or other impervious surfaces
bate Received=
JAN - 8 2013
Original Submittal._____,,_.__
7 of 16
i
U \/
CAMERON 160 East Broadway • EugeneIIregw 97401
MCCARTHY uNOSCAPE ABCNITECTUIIEd Pu1NNIN8 r 541.485.7385 • f 541.405.7389 www•cemeronmcce lhµcom
Memorandum
To: City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Cc: Betsy Hunter; Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County
Richard Herman; Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation
Bill Seider, Kelley Howell; PIVOT Architecture
From: Colin McArthur, AICP
Date: January 7, 2013
Subject: Glenwood Affordable Housing
Annexation DIM Statement& Questions
OVERVIEW
The Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HACSA) and Metropolitan Affordable
Housing (Metro) are teaming to build the first major transit-oriented development project in
Glenwood. The project is expected to include: two 5-6 story buildings—residential with commercial
on the ground floor; approximately 120-150 units;and, at-grade parking. The project is planned to be
constructed in two phases,with the south building closest to Franklin Boulevard first and the north
building second.
The project site is located north of Franklin Boulevard and is approximately 1.33 acres in size. The
site consists of six tax lots: 17-03-34-41-02000; 17-03-34-41-01900; 17-03-34-41-01800; 17-03-34-41-
01700; 17-03-34-41-01400; and 17-03-34-41-01100. The site is located outside of the Springfield City
Limits boundary and will:require annexation prior to site development.
Representatives from HACSA, Metro, and PIVOT Architecture met with City staff on November 19,.
2012 to review and discuss initial questions posed by the development team. Notes from that
meeting are included asExhibitA.
The development team intends to proceed with the annexation process. This submittal and the
enclosed.application fe0application form, and plans constitute the initial annexation proposal for
review in accordance with "Step 1. Annexation Development Issues Meeting (DIM)."
T �
QUESTIONS
Following are questions the development team would like staff to address during the meeting:
1. Site Access: The subject site does not currently have dedicated access from Franklin Boulevard
(i.e.,there are no existing curb cuts). Access to the site in advance of build-out of the street grid,
as conceptualized in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, is proposed via an existing curb cut directly
east of the site within an access easement.1 What is the City's ability to acquire properties or
easements around the proposed development site and/or to facilitate site access through other
means? Date Received:
JAN - 8 2013
Cameron McCarthy Original Submittal---------1-
Glenwood Affordable Housing
0 0 41
Annexation DIM Statement&Questions January 7,2013
2. Franklin Boulevard Improvements: The City of Springfield is planning for future expansion and
improvement of Franklin Boulevard. How can the development team best integrate building and
site design work, and the need to provide access during construction for construction operations
and later for building occupants,with future street improvement plans?
3. Street Grid: The Park Blocks street plan in the attached drawings represents the approved street
section geometry as specified in the updates to Springfield's Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual in accordance with the recently adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan
(Appendix 1A.2 Glenwood Riverfront Area North/South Park Block Streets, pages 1A 14— 15). The
CAD file we received from the City did not match the Design Standards so we have modified the
drawing in order to meet the prescribed Design Standards. We have aligned the proposed
development parcel property line (on Tax Lots 1600, 1900, 2000)with the edge of the required 7'-
0" wide sidewalk as defined in the Refinement Plan. Can the City guarantee that it will not need
to acquire any property from the tax lots identified In this application for future right-of-way in
the development? When will the City be able to confirm that the proposed street section and
right-of-way is acceptable as proposed? When will the City be able to provide a setback along
Franklin Boulevard? These are critical components to the development of the parcels, as the lots
are narrow in the East/West dimension, and any reduction due to right-of-way may limit the
ability to develop the parcels. The Franklin Boulevard setback is critical due to the
maximum/minimum street setback outlined in the Refinement Plan and the unique geometry of
the parcel.
4. Funding: As the first major transit-oriented project in Glenwood,the project faces funding
challenges related to the provision of needed and planned public infrastructure including roads
and utilities. What funding sources are potentially available to assist the project? Will the
project be eligible for waived or reduced system development charges in 2013 or 20147
5. Minimum Development Area: The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District specifies a
minimum development area of 5 acres (SDC 3.4-265(1)►. As noted above,the subject site is
approximately 1.33 acres in size. SDC 3.4-265(1)(a) provides that the developer may request an
exception to the 5-acre minimum by submitting a letter to the Director stating that either abutting
property owners are not willing to participate in the assembly, or there are smaller properties that
cannot meet the standard. The developer intends to request said exemption based on the small
size of the properties, although assembly is a factor and can also be used to support the request.
Does the City anticipate any issues or challenges granting said exception and,other than the
letter, are there any evidentiary requirements the developer needs to satisfy as part of the
request?
6. Riverfront Access: What assurances can the City provide that ensure future residents will have
pedestrian-oriented river access once the project Is completed?
7. Timeline: What is the estimated timeline for processing the annexation request, including
Council Hearing,adoption of the ordinance, and ordinance effective date?
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A Meeting Notes (11/19/12)
Exhibit B Preliminary Site Plans
Date Received:
JAN - 8 2013
Original Submittal
Cameron McCarthy 2
R y HACSA/METRO GLENWOOD PROJECY.
Development Discussion Meeting: 11-19-12
In Attendance: Betsy Hunter, Bill Seidler,John Tamulonis, Kelley Howell, Kevin Ko, Molly Markarian,
Richard Herman, Tom BoyaItt
The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss questions posed by the HACSA/Metro
Development team. It is understood by all parties that many areas for implementing the refinement
plan are still under development and not all of the affected City departments were represented at the
meeting.
Summary of Common Themes:
1. HACSA/Metro and i he City of Springfield share a common vision for developing Glenwood and
creating a quality dlevelopment that will serve as a catalyst for other Glenwood developments.
2. HACSA/Metro will need a strong collaboration with, and funding support from,the City of
Springfield and theiSpringfield Utility Board (SUB) to make this development possible. At the
same time, it is understood that The City of Springfield and SUB currently have limited available
reserve funds requiring creativity by all parties.
1
3. While there are significant challenges to developing on this site, no one in the meeting identified
any items that that I would deem developing on this site unfeasible.
4. HACSA/Metro will look for opportunities to work in collaboration with current Glenwood
property owners, residents, and other developers to achieve the goals of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan.
i
Outlined below are highlights of key discussion items from the meeting:
i
I
Utilities:
5. A main sewer line runs down Franklin Blvd and there are currently four stubbed-out 8 inch lines
in the general arealproposed for development. The City indicated it will be the responsibility of
the developer to pay for the cost of installing the "collection system" to connect to the main line
in the street. As other developers connect in the area, there is the possibility that some money
might come back to the developer who covers the initial cost.
6. There is no existing storm water system in place in Franklin Blvd. The Park Blocks are planned to
handle future water mitigation from streets and there is the potential that the Park Blocks might
have some capacity to handle storm water from some private properties. However, on-site
storm water treatment will be required, especially in the early developments. Planned
Parenthood is an example of how one developer handled their water treatment in advance of
the construction of�.Franklin Blvd.
7. Water, power,and communication services were not discussed. The conclusion was the
development teamshould talk to Jeff Nelson, General Manager of SUB.
Annexation:
8. An Annexation agreement is required and there are fees.
9. Major elements of the annexation plan include identification of the level of services required,
the City's ability•to provide the services, what are the costs, and who pays the costs.
10. We will need an annexation before we can do a plan review.
11. It appears that the property is next to the section of Franklin Blvd that could get annexed in
the City of Springfield as a partial annexation by the end of the first quarter of 2013. - i ddV, eceived:
allow for the annexation of the property by the end of March or April.
JAN - 8 2013
Original Submittal
0 0
HACSA/METRO GLENWOOD PROJECT:
Development Discussion Meeting: 11-19-12
12. The City Council must approve the annexation and a public hearing process is required.
Refinement Plan
13. We will be able to request a variance from the 5 acre minimum site requirement.
14. We will have some flexibility of meeting the requirement for a 4`" floor setback by meeting the
intent of the setback through other architectural means of building massing.
15. It appears likely there will be an extension of Springfield City SDC waivers into 2013.
16. There is a path to make exceptions on setbacks.
17. There is not yet a design for the "Park Blocks." There is the possibility there could be some
parking but developments should not count this as a substitute for on-site parking.
18. An environmental report was ordered by the City. There are environmental reports available for
other nearby sites. There is the potential for Brownfield assessment grants.
Transportation:
19. There is not yet a definitive plan for development of Franklin Blvd. ODAT still has control of the
road.
20. It appears that the street in front of the property might move further to the south than first
anticipated, so there could be more site development space for affordable housing.
Access:
21. What is the City's plan/ability to acquire properties or easements around our development site
for future right of way so that we can move forward?
22. How do we best integrate our building and site design work, and the need to provide access
during construction and for occupants, with their street improvement plans?
23. How can we ensure that our residents have pedestrian oriented river access once our project is
completed?
24. Without knowing what development will take place on the east side of the project what special
issues will the Fire Department have for fire truck access around the building?
Next Steps: (Not inclusive of all items individuals agreed to work on beyond the meeting)
1. Schedule a follow up meeting with Betsy, Kevin, Richard (Betsy)
2. Contact Jeff Nelson at SUB to address questions on utilities.
3. Schedule a following up meeting with the same individuals who attended the last meeting.
Possible times include week of 12-10 or the week of 12-17 (Betsy)
4. Create an agenda for a December meeting to include items not discussed in the 11-19 meeting.
Date Received:
JAN - 8 2013
Original Submittal
r
[�wv rey.�ww.r wb� os,
kk"
SITE LOCATION Main
t
4 5 A Sl PRELIMINARY NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Flapklin Blvd .`nSt yP. : JJ
t N �, F2Mtlin a !ND I■
,A y eitiAll
€ I I I
ffff I
ur!'..� —
��w Ak t7
I
m
1100
0 Z
2 VICINITY MAP -
N.T.S.
- - . 0
1 =
- - — I 1400 w
m
0 0
1 / LU LL
LL
F
---------- ----------------
U Q
I Y �
1 Q 0
— I
1 STRE "YOIR W REPRE9 A9 Z O
o[E[r WD3:
REFlNEMENrPUN � Z
B�—
WN J
1800 1700 EL $ C7
Il
1900 oEw.oPraNr PARCE�snovmaibEo
DEVElO wPN uSHOWN
SITE LOCATION I g sNAOEowrtN PROPoeEo O[Fxw000 Irl
¢, REFNEAIEW P[AN S1REEf[AYOUI
x`16 LWV
I
1: I
ate Received,
- - - -- N - 82013
mginal
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT SITE AREA:57.934 SF OR APPROXIMATELY 1.33 ACRES U�v
3 AERIAL PHOTO 1 TAX LOT MAP 17 03 34 41 1*=50'.O• A100
N.T.S.
— - - - -- PRELIMINARY NOT FOR
i CONSTRUCTION
I I I
WADES
I I
Fm:� -
Lu
co
_ H CENTERLINE DF FUTURE ROAD I Z c]
b Q
�11 POW TO BE OEDICATEO FOR FUTURE BTREET U Q
PARK BLOCKS e,�B.sF TDTAL AAEA LLI
d o O
LU
LL
I
FROI MEA BOUNOARr aZ O
Q Z
Lu LLJ
IO I F0.BE USE FM
- a =
O I TO BE USED FOR SITE ACCESS
m
UNTIL BUM1DOUT OF TIE STREET GRID _
I
_ I
-�� I � —}ESIMUIED SE1Bpfl(ON FR/NIQIX FIXi �
_ - FOSS —�-g I FUPAE RON FJ�M4W i _�_,-
RANKLINBLVD `— EXISTINGLURBLUT LEGRID
- "--- ESTWAfM'ELXOX
LED[ TOU,IUXES - T.V LOT FIB.DWES
N
_ - wavosm BFFmENExrvw+sTREET urour �I
CfYcLOPMEMSITE
Pnavos.n PEFNENENi rvA doddl� 1"C�C`�-rVl ef`.
^�yyS PROPOSED BUILDINGS ,An 209 k �"
I 3
o w3e
5
it U � oe lu
_)riginai Sobmlztta, - A101
1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1.,5(