HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PWE 5/6/2013 •
't
MEMORANDUM . City of Springfield
DATE: May 9, 2013
TO: Andy Limbird, Urban Planner
FROM: Clayton McEachern, Ciyil Engineer
SUBJECT: PRE13-00011 Roth, Annexation DIM
The subject application involves tax lot 17-03-34-42 100, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100
Applicant's Questions:
1. [Land Use Analysis] To be answered by Planning Staff
2. [Annexation Criteria]
[A] The subject property is contiguous along its northern boundary as the subject site is separated from the
city limit boundary by not more than " a stream, lake or other body of water'. Does the city concur?
With the pending annexation action from the City of Springfield, The land is contiguous on both
its northern and southern boundary.
[B] To be answered by planning .
[C] The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and
services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be provided in an orderly, efficient and timely manner. Does the
city Concur? If so, how will these facilities and services be provided? Please provide information-regarding
existing public sanitary sewer, storm drainage and potable water systems at, adjacent to and in the vicinity
of the subject site.
All of the required services are available at the fringe of the property and do not require the
cooperation of a third party to extend those services throughout the application area.
Typically those services are extended through the subject property by the developer/landowner
•
through the Public Improvement Permit process (see ch12 of the EDSPM).
(Sewer) There is a trunk sewer in Franklin Blvd with a stub out at Concord Ave and an
additional connectidn is possible if needed at a future intersection that conforms to the basic
layout of the Glenwood refinement plan and the work is completed BEFORE any reconstruction
of Franklin Blvd.
•
(Storm Drainage) Per requirements laid out in the GRFP and the EDSPM most of the runoff
from new development in the GRFP area will be handled on site with overflow available
(depending on capacity) along adjacent Public areas. Since a portion of the this development is
adjacent to a planned park block area, it is possible to use a portion of that park block set aside
• Date Received: s/6/do/3
Planner: AL
• •
for stormwater conveyance and treatment for the storm drainage needs if development of the
private area, roadway and park block can be coordinated and occurs together.
[D]Where applicable, fiscal impacts to the city have been mitigated through an Annexation Agreement or
other mechanism approved by the City Council. SDC indicates that an Annexation Agreement is
sometimes required component of a complete annexation application. Does staff believe that an
annexation agreement will be required in this instance, and, if so, what might the scope of that agreement
include and what might the process and timeline for generating the agreement look like?
At the present time, the city feels that each party's responsibilities for cost and construction
should be established through an annexation agreement. The scope would cover the needed
infrastructure for the success of any proposed development that would be dedicated to the public,
such as streets, park blocks, and sewers. A tentative site plan or master plan for any future
development could greatly simplify and speed up the process. However, it could be left
somewhat open as to the final location of the facilities if a site plan is not available as part of the
negotiations. The city is assigning a dedicated internal group that will handle the negotiations
and help facilitate a timely resolution to the agreement. •
3. [Glenwood Refinement Plan]
A. As it affects the subject property; how will the Franklin Riverfront—Local Street Network be
implemented?
The tentative street network proposed in the GRP is still the model, although it is unlikely
that the area will develop exactly per that layout. The city's policy on the layout is that the
first to develop a parcel/dedicate the ROW will decide the alignment and location for
whatever street/area that development is occurring in.
B. What is the current status, scope and timeline of the Franklin Blvd Corridor Study and subsequent
Implementation. (to be answered by Transportation)
C. How will the 150' greenway setback/75' WQLW riparian setback be implemented? The applicant
existing restaurant facility is within that setback area. It is their understanding that it may continue as a
legal non-conforming use. Would there be a trigger, and what would that be, that the restaurant facility
would need to be removed from the setback?
The only activity that would remove the restaurant from being a legal, non conforming use
would be a development activity that would require review-such as a substantial change in
use, demolishing the building or substantial change in building envelope. The setback will
be implemented from the Ordinary High Water Line and the two setbacks overlap and
compliment each other with different uses allowed. •
D. The Springfield Stormwater Facilities Master Plan includes improvement actions for the west and south
portions of Glenwood but nothing for the northern area-the area along Franklin Blvd and between
Franklin and the river. The GRP cites a number of LIDA methodologies as solutions to manage
stormwater. With the adoption of the FRP, migh the Stormwater Master Plan be amended to address
the Franklin Blvd riverfront area? If LIDA methodologies are to be utilized, will that requirement be
borne by the property owner or will some of those facilities bbe part of the public system? If so, what
and how would that come about?
The area covered by the GRP does not currently have any substantial stormwater facilities
constructed within it and there was not any system to improve or identify as part of the
•
'eceived: 5/6/ao/3
Planner: AL
,• • •
master plan. Several items have been added to the EDSPM to address future stormwater
needs and set policy for the GRP area. As the area builds out the stormwater system will be
constructed as needed for each development with the backbone of the systems constructed as
part of the park blocks and the public roadways. As part of the incentive for the developers
adjacent to the park blocks that area can be utilized by adjacent developments for some of
their stormwater conveyance and treatment requirements as long as the area is dedicated and
developed at the same time and sufficient capacity is reserved for runoff from the parks and
the adjacent streets (the area available should be a large fraction of the total area if the full
width of the park block is dedicated). It is also possible that areas can develop without a
clear path to discharge along the river and so would have higher stormwater needs than is
strictly required by the GRP until that conveyance path becomes available, at which point the
treatment area could be reduced and redeveloped. With a design that fully utilized LIDA
methods adjacent to the park blocks it is possible for most of the stormwater needs to be
offloaded to the park block area (but likely developed and dedicated by the developer).
E. The Springfield Wastewater Master Plan cites the presence of a sanitary trunk line in Franklin Blvd.
The GRP calls for adjacent and nearby properties to rely on this facility for sanitary service. Yet many
properties today utilize septic drain fields. What plans, or what recommendation, can the city provide at
this time regarding sanitary service for the subject property?
The trunk sewer is installed in Franklin and has a stub out available at the current Concord
Ave Intersection. An additional stub out could be installed by the developer BEFORE
Franklin is redeveloped at an additional location to conform to the future street layout,
pending PW approval. Such additional stubs are not required and due to the depth of the
existing stub, the system can be extended throughout the subject parcel without difficulty
(providing dedication or availability of suitable ROW). The city follows a policy of
encouraging decommissioning of septic systems and installation of sewer services wherever
possible, but on a voluntary basis. Sewer service also requires annexation and this as well as
distance to services, provides a serious obstacle to expansion. Service can be extended to
any property that is annexed and willing to construct and extend that service to the desired
area. In cases where a septic system fails and is within 300' of an existing public system,
than installation of sewer services becomes mandatory under state statute.
In all cases where private developers will be building infrastructure for their development
and that can benefit adjacent development the city has different methods to help the
developer recoup some of their costs. These include SDC credits, SDC credit transfers,
Reimbursement Districts and city participation funds (when available).
•
4. Vertical Housing Development Zone and other Public/Private Partnerships.
To be answered by Planning/Housing staff
5. Additional Advice
It is strongly encouraged to work with any adjacent property developers about infrastructure
needs and locations. Coordination could result in major savings of both money, time and space
in case of anticipated ROW locations not being aligned and then redesign is necessary due to
timing of various developments.
Date teceived: 2223
Planner: AL