HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting APPLICANT 4/3/2008
~
ZON2008-00014 Data Reoo"'ed:~pootf
Development Issues Meeting - Children's Mental Health IRtiAR8fi AI. r-. .--
Proposed Site Development
3995 Marcola Road (Map 17-02-20-00, TL 100, 200 & 700)
Q1 [Applicant's Question #3] Can the City clarify whether the property is required to submit a
floodplain application? The site elevation seems like it would be outside of the floodplain.
A A Floodplain Overlay District application Will be required because the available FEMA floodplain
mapping Information depicts portions of the site within the 100 year floodplain (Including some of
the eXisting bUildings) Staff are not aware of any recent floodplain studies In this area that
would refine the FEMA map elevations Portions of the site, such as the lower parking lot, that
are within the floodplain Will probably require grading or other Improvements In conjunction with
site development The site plan submittal should also provide topographic Information, including
spot elevations, to confirm that the proposed bUilding finished floor elevation IS outside the
mapped floodplain
The Floodplain Overlay Dlstnct establishes base flood elevatlon(s) for the entire Site, and runs
with the land Therefore, the Floodplain Overlay application needs to be made only once and -
unless there IS a change of circumstances anslng from a flood event or updated FEMA mapping
- It Will cover any future site developments
Q2 [Applicant's Question #8] Parking requirements per Table 4.6-2 indicate 1 drop-off space per
750 sf gross, plus 1 long-term space per 350 sf gross. Per [SDC] 4.7-195.[A].8, 2 parking
spaces for each "teaching station" and 1 parking space for each 100 sf of interior public
assembly area are required. What is the correct requirement for this project? What
constitutes a "teaching station"?
A The site IS best classified as a "pnvate school" The parking space requirements for the eXisting
and proposed development are 2 per classroom plus 1 for each 1 00 square feet of Indoor
assembly area The total bUilding floor area of all components of the Center IS required to
determine If adequate parking IS provided for the facIlity Additional parking may be required for
portions of the Center that are administrative/office space and would be based on the number of
expected employees at full staffing levels The definition of 'teaching station' would be used If
there are shared or open facIlities, Instead of attnbutlng parking to the number of classrooms
Q3 [Applicant's Question #10] Specific Development Standards ([SDC] 4.7-100) are required by
"Child Care Facilities", "Public/Private Elementary/Middle Schools", and "Wellness Center"
designations. What is the appropriate designation for this development?
A ThiS development IS an eXisting use that IS best classified as a "pnvate school" It does not meet
the Code definition of a wellness center, child care faCIlity or a public elementary/middle school
Special development standards for "pnvate schools" Will be applicable for thiS use In accordance
with SDC 4 7-195
Q4 [Applicant's Question #6] [SDC] 4.2-105.G addresses additional right-of-way and street
improvements. What is the status of the street fronting this property? If deficient, what will
be required of this project regarding mandatory improvements? Will sidewalks, planter
strips, street trees, streetlights, bikeways, pedestrian trails, etc. be required?
A Public Works Englneenng and Transportation Englneenng to provide comment There are no
antiCipated requirements for additional nght-of-way dedication Street trees Will be reqUired with
the site plan review, but eXisting trees on the northern edge of the property could be retained
(wherever feasible) as street trees There are Sidewalks, curb and gutter and lane stnplng along
the property frontage on Marcola Road In lieu of constructing other public street Improvements
along the property frontage, an Improvement Agreement may be required for Marcola Road for
storm sewer, utilities and street lighting
Q5 [Applicant's Question #2] The proposed project is designed to enhance the quality of services
provided. The new offices will not increase the number of employees or youth being served.
Will the City require any type of traffic analysis for the project such as a T.I.A. required per
[SDC] 4.7-195.A.11 and [SDC] 4.7-203.D?
A Transportation Englneenng to provide comment A traffiC analYSIS may be required due to the
proposed relocation of the dnveway entrance across from Hayden Bndge Road Also, a parking
analYSIS might be required to ensure adequate parking spaces are available for the proposed
bUIlding - and the site as a whole All parking must be paved and stnped In accordance With the
Development Co~e (SDC 4 6-120) ProvIsion of parking spaces will be based on the total floor
area of all buildings on the Site, and based on the classificatIon of "pnvate school".
IF THERE'S TIME.
Q6 [Applicant's Question #1] On May 18, 2004 the Springfield Planning Commission approved
changing the zoning of the subject property from Heavy Industrial to Public Lands and Open
Space. The staff report and findings for the Commission refer to the property as being
designated in the Metro Plan as Parks and Open Space. The Metro Plan Diagram dated April
1, 2000 shows the property as designated Parks and Open Space. The updated Metro Plan
Diagram dated 4/08/04 appears to designate the property as Heavy Industrial. Is that
accurate? Is there a mistake in the map? If not, will the City interpret the Commission's
action on the zone change request to provide the policy basis for determining that since the
Metro Plan Diagram is a generalized depiction of uses that the proposed project can be
considered consistent?
A The property IS zoned Public land and Open Space but the current Metro Plan diagram shows It
as Heavy Industnal As noted by the applicant, It appears there has been a change In the Metro
Plan designation for the property at some pOint between production of the 1992 and 2004 Metro
Plan diagrams Planning staff will adVise lCOG of the apparent discrepancy The PlO zOning
remains Intact for the property and another zOning/pian amendment action IS not required In
accordance With SDC 32-705 B, Public land and Open Space zOning IS permitted on properties
designated other than Public and Semi-Public In the Metro Plan Therefore, a Plan/Zone conflict
IS not deemed to eXist for the subject property
Q7 [Applicant's Question #4] Per [SDC] 3.2-710, what is the appropriate Use Category for this
project?
A The most comparable use would be "pnvate school", although the subject site also provIdes
treatment and counseling for children, families and adults There IS no specific category for
"mental health treatment facIlity" In the Development Code Planning staff support a deSignation
of "pnvate school" for purposes of development review. The proposed bUilding will require
evaluation of the entire site for conformity With provISions of the Development Code.
Q8 [Applicant's Question #5] Per [SDC] 3.2-715, footnote (2), what is the future street right-of-way?
If different than the current property line, how will it be located? What is the process for a
right-of-way ded~cation?
A Transportation Englneenng to provide comment There are no Immediate plans to change the
current nght-of-way configuration. Along the property frontage the road IS a two-lane rural
highway transltlonlng to an urban artenal street Dedication can be voluntary, or In conjunction
with an intensification of development on the site such as facility expansion or a land divIsion
Q9 [Applicant's Question #7] Per [SDC] 4.2-130, Table 4.2-5, there is a required 10' vision clearance
triangle measured from the property lines. How is this area positioned relative to property
lines that may also adjoin a Special Setback for a future road widening?
A It IS recommended that the 10' vision clearance tnangle IS measured from a future property line
In the event there IS a special setback for future road widening City staff are not aware of any
special setbacks for thiS property, although thiS information could be venfled In the future with
additional submittal information As an example, there IS an overhead powerllne along the
northern boundary of the site that may run within a dedicated easement
Q10 [Applicant's Question #9] Per [SDC] Table 4.6-3, one bicycle parking space per 8 students is
required for schools - public or private; ...or...one bicycle parking space per 3000 sf is
required for mental health treatment facilities. Which designation is appropriate?
A: The designatIon of pnvate schools (1 per 8 students) would be appropnate for thiS facIlity The
parking standard would be applied to the cumulative floor area of all bUildings on the site
Bicycle parking should be covered and consist of a rack that IS SUitable for locking the bicycle
frame and wheel to It
Q11 Per [SDC] 4.7-125.B.2, outdoor play areas are to be screened by a 6' high sight obscuring
fence. Per [SDC] 4.7-195.A, the Code acknowledges the possible need for non-sight
obscuring fencing/screening for security purposes. Which approach is required for this
project? Does this screening apply to the meditation/outdoor exploration trail to the east of
the proposed new building?
A What IS the applicant's preference? In accordance with SDC 4 7-195, there IS no requirement for
sight-obscunng fencing or screening of the play area at thiS location, provided It IS set back from
the public roadway There IS natural screening and Interruption of sight lines by non-opaque
natural vegetation and eXisting/proposed bUildings It IS not necessary or desirable to screen the
trail area
Q12 [SDC] 4.7-125.B.5 requires a 10' front yard setback only in residential districts for child care
facilities. [SDC] 4.7-195.A.3 requires a 20' front yard setback and a 30' side and rear yard
setback. [SDC] 3.2-715 requires a 15' street setback for the PLO zoning district. Which
requirement is appropriate for this project? Are these "minimum" building setbacks?
A: The setbacks depend upon the use classification for the site With classification as a pnvate
school, the 20' front and 30' rear and side yard setbacks listed In SDC 4 7-195.A 3 are applicable
to thiS Site, unless there are other factors affecting the property (such as easements or utility
installations) that require a larger setback The existing use does not fall within the claSSification
of child care faCIlity, and IS not within or adjacent to areas with residential zOning. Yes, the
setbacks are minimum setbacks
Q13. [SDC] 4.7-195.A.2 allows a maximum of 65% of the site to be impervious surfaces. Does this
refer to the entire development area?
A The maximum 65% of the site is correct, but IS based on SDC 32-715 Impervious areas
generally Include rooftops, parking areas, dnveways and hard surface walkways Yes, It refers
to the entire contiguous development area
Heads-up Issues
· A plan showing the eXisting conditions on the property, including bUilding locations, property
lines, easements and other features Will be required for the site plan application
· Removal of more than 5 trees over 5" diameter Will require a tree felling permit.
· The conceptual site plan appears to show parking spaces within the required front yard
setback
· The number and location of dnveway accesses to the property may be limited by intersection
spacing and sightllne requirements The proposed consolidation of the dnveways Into a
single access pOint across from Hayden Bndge Road IS preferable
· Square footage of eXisting and proposed bUildings and the maximum numbers of students
and staff should be provided to determine vehicle and bicycle parking requirements
· A Site Plan Review application will require the entire site to be brought Into conformity with
current Development Code regulations - espeCially pertaining to stormwater management,
developed parking spaces for vehicles and bicycles, site lighting, overhead utility lines,
landscaping, street trees, site access, and paving of dnveways/parklng areas
/