The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacket, DIM PLANNER 5/20/2008 cm OF SPRINGAELD a)EVELOPMENT ISSUES MEt: I.lNG DISTRIBUTION DATE: May 20,2008 TO: yT v: -L. \7 / V Current PlanninQ Staff: G. Karp, J Donovan, L Pauly, T Jones, K Gale,lM Metzqerj L Miller, A Limbird, D Reesor, S Hopkins, M Markarian Jeff Paschall, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works Department Ken Vogeney, City Engineer, Public Works Department Matt Stouder, AlC Engineering Supervising Ovil Engineer, Public Works Jesse Jones, Public Works, Engineering Kristi Krueger, Civil Engineer, Public Works Department Brian Barnett, Traffic Engineer Gary McKenney, Transportation Planning Engineer, Public Works Gilbert Gordon, Deputy Rre Marshall, Rre & Ufe Safety Department Melissa Fechtel, Rre & Ufe Safety Department Greg Ferschweiler, Maintenance, Public Works Department Pat French, Planner, Willamalane Park and Recreation District Thomas Jeffreys, Emerald Peoples ~tility District (EPUD) Tamara Johnson, Springfield Utility Board (Electric) Bart McKee, Springfield Utility Board (Water) Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board Mike Wilbur, ODOT Dave Puent, Building Official Will Mueller, L TD Norm Palmer, Quest Communications Tom Boyatt, Public Works Dennis Ernst, City Surveyor Jon Driscoll, Traffic Celia Barry,(Shashi Bajracharya) Lane County Transportation Jim Henry, Central Lane Communications 911 Dave Shore, Northwest Natural Gas Tom Henerty, Comcast Cable Jerry Smith, Police Chief Chuck Gottfried, Water Resource Coordinator, ESD Susie Smith,' ESD Len Goodwin, Public Works Steve Barrett, Springfield School District 19, Superintendent Joe Leahy, City Attorney George Walker, Stonnwater Facilities Planner, ESD Carole Knapel, PEACEHEALTH/1UsnCE CENTER ITEMS/FIRE STATION John Tamulonis, Economic Development Mgr. - Courtney Griesel, Planner 1 (EDM) Bill Grile Dan Brown A Development Issues Meeting will take place on Thursday, June 12, 2008 @ 1:30- 2:30 p.m: in the DSD Conference Room 616 @ Springfield City Hall. Please review the enclosed infonnation, and come prepared to discuss this application with the Planner and applicant. Should you have any questions, please contact Mark Metzger @ (541) 726-3775. Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 ReVised: 4-16-08 Origmal Submittal , \'1 DEVELOP~E~ll' ISSUES ~EE'l'I~G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT SPRINGFIELD CITY HALL 225 FIFTH STREET DSD Conference Room 616 Meeting Date: June 12, 2008@ 1:30 - 2:30 p.m.. 1 DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING #ZON2008-00025 KDIRT LLC Assessor's Map: 17-02-31-31 TL 2200 Address: 3402 Main Street EXisting Use" Knecht's Auto Applicant submitted plans to discuss a partial rezone of 2 acres of a 5 acre parcel The parcel currently has split zoning (CC/LDR). The applicant would like to rezone the rear two undeveloped acres of the property from LDR to MDR. Planner: Mark Metzger Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 Original Submittal 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 (547) 726-3753 FAX (541) 726-3689 WWW CI spnngfleld or us May 20, 2008 Karl Mueller Metro Planning, Inc. 370 Q Street Springfield, OR 97477 RE: ZON2008-00025 (17-02-31-31 TL 2200) DevelvYLLlent Issues Meeting - Applicant submitted plans to discuss a partial rezone of 2 acres of a 5 acre parceL The parcel currently has split zoning (CC/LDR). The applicant would like to rezone the rear two undeveloped acres of the property from LDR to MDR. Dear Mr. Mueller: Thank you for your Development Issues Meeting submittal. The following meeting has been scheduled: TYPE: DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING PLACE: CITY OF SPRINGlflliLD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 616 225 11111-1tl STREET SPRINGll'lliLD, OR 97477 DATEffIME: Thursday, June 12,2008 at 1:30 - 2:30 p.m. CONTACT PERSON: Mark Metzger If you have any questions, please call me at 541-726-3775 Sincerely, Mark Metzger Urban Planning CC: KDIRTLLC 3400 Main Street Springfield, OR 97478 Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 Original Submittal " , City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Development Issues Meeting (DIM) Re(tu..ied~:p.l;ojeci:t: I~fo'rrnati~n : ": " .. - - _ - -- (Applicant: cO~pj~tf{ this section) . . ~ '. . '-'r ~~" "'_ _. M . . . . '. _. . . _. , ~ Prospective Applicant Name: Karl Mueller Phone: 302-9830 Company: Address: Metro Planning, Inc Fax: 1-541-610-1805 370 Q Street Sprmgfield, OR 97477 Prospective Applicant's Rep.: see above Company: Address: Property Owner: Company: Address: I KDIrt, LLC 3400 Mam St Sprmgfield, OR 97478 Phone: Fax: c , i ',' -, -:-:'1 Phone: Fax: :I~ ': </ :. '~"- ~'l ,"I ~ w ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17023131 ITAX LOT NO(S}: 2200 Property Address: 3402 Mam St Spnngfield, OR 97477 Size of Property: 5 acres Acres 0 Square Feet 0 I "~ \,~-'~~ ~~" \1 Description of If you are filling In this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: re-zone of rear portIOn ofspht-zoned CC/LDR lot from LDR to MDR · i 'Existing Use: CommercIal (front portIOn) # of Lots/Parcels: 1 IAvg. Lot/Parcel Size: 5 sf Density: du/acre I '-~\"\' - ....::::". . I Prospective Applicant: Signat~jfc- Date: May 19,2008 Karl Mueller Print . . . . Case No.:7AJt\)..tj)K--' (j{f)lS Date: 00 Application Fee: $ 5Dfa Technical Fee: $0 Reviewed by: 7(- -ti4 A--- Postage Fee: $0 TOTAL FEES: $ 50roOO n~t~ P~rPfit2tECT NUMBER: PR~'2008/O:::XJ3( :;ft<J~'lI.1;i: ~:;:"?'t;h~h,,;;;':'~):W\'4t%,~ ":-2{1r'0,,,:*s0 $~~='~~~ ::"~ - -. ~"'-'T';h ft!,' -:.. t., ~dt_~~$#N I t,_~.: ;}L..I-.~n:;4'~);k14~~\4~~.~i!t'1~I$'S~~v~ ~~~"-.~}:'" ~&?'J*k;'J.):wf~,:" ~f:~i.~ ~~ft~V >'!-t:sr.yi\:~~~ MAY 2 0 2008 ReVised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian Oriainal Submittal 1 of 3 , . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD VICINITY MAP ZON2008-00025 KDirt LLC 3402 Main Street ~ J.l) t;; J: l- e ('t) SITE Map 17-02-31-31 Tax Lot 2200 North t Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 Original Submittal lAND USE PlANNING AND CONSULTING SERVICES 370 Q STREET SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477 (541) 302-9830 FAX 1 (541 ) 610-1 805 Narrative Statement and Questions for a I \ . Development Issues Meetmg Property Owner KDIrt, LLC Applicant's Represenative: Karl ~1ueller Metro: Planning 370 Q Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 Map/Tax Lot: 17-02-31-31 TL 2200 Area of Request FIve Q5) Acres chan1e the zoning of a portion of the subject property from low denSIty reSIdentIal (LDR) to Meditm DenSIty ReSIdential (MDR). Proposal: Narrative Statement The property subject to this pevelopment Issues Meeting is a five acre parcel owned by KDirt, LUC The applIcant would like to rezone the rear two undeveloped acres of tHe subject property from LDR to MDR and has requested thIS Development Issues meetmg to clanfy Issues surrounding this potential applIcatlOn. The property is currently splIt zoned. The front portion of the property is developed WIth Knecht's fabilItIes and the rear portion ofthe lot is vacant. The forward portion of the ~ubJect property IS zoned Community CommercIal and IS shown ~s Commercial on the Metro Plan diagram. The I rear portlOn of the subject property IS zoned LDR and appears to be shown as Commercial on the Metr6 Plan diagram. The property IS also located in an area covered by the MIdfSpnngfield Refinement Plan. The front portion of the property IS snown as CommercIal and the rear portion of the subject property IS shown ak Low Density Residential. Two public streets stub to the subject property I The MId-Spnngfield Refinement Plan sets forth cntena for DesIgnatmg ResidentIal Land Crltena for DeSignating Resldentzal Land 1. Generally the Medium DenSIty Resldentzal (MDR) plan designatIOn shall be applzed under the followzng circumstances Date Received: MAY 202008 Original submittal e to serve as a buffer between smgle family and commercial uses along mam street; The applicant believes that the proposed zone change is consIstent with the general siting requirements for Medium Density Residential area It is the applicant's view that the subject property is a large underdeveloped parcel immediately adjacent to commercially designated land on Main Street. Also, the subject property is west of 420d Street. Finally, the applicant believes the site is appropriate for medium density residentIal uses because it could serve as a buffer between the intensive level of commercial development on the front portion of the subject property This will be discussed further in the analysis of the Low Density Residential siting requirements. The Refinement Plan provides: 2. Generally the Low Density Resldential (LDR) Plan designation shall be apphed under the followmg Clrcumstances a to large areas of land that are clearly single-family m character; b to areas that have not been seriously affected by pockets of industrial or commercial development, c. to areas that are not located dlrectly on Main S,treet d To areas that are deslgnated [for LDR on the Metro Plan diagram) The applicant believes given these siting requirements MDR is arguably more appropriate designation. The area in which the subject property is located is not clearly single family in character. The subject property is heavily developed wIth conflicting commercial uses. The commercial development on the front portion of the subject property has seriously and directly impacted the subject property. These impacts seriously undermine the desirability of the site for single family residential development. Few people would desire to own a single family home with such severe impacts as a result of commercial development out the back door. The existing development pattern makes the LDR portion of the subject property more appropnate for MDR development that would provide a transitional residentIal zone between the commercial uses to the south and the single family residences to the north. The applicant also finds support for the proposed action in the Residential policies of the Metro Plan. Supporting policies include: A.IO Promote higher residentIal density Inside the U G B . . . . The applicant believes that MDR will promote and facilitate higher density development within the UGB. A.II Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or commercial services. . . Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 Original Submittal The applicant submits that the proposed MDR development is near commercial services. A.13 Increase overall residential area by :reating more opportunities for effectively designed infill; The applicant believes the proposal would provide an opportunity for effectively designed infill. A17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type, density, size, cost and location. The proposal would provide a choice in housing type and density. A23 Reduce impacts of higher density rf>sidential; development by considering site. . . regulation. Any future development would be subject to a Site Review process and would have rigorous setback and other such requiremerhs that would minimize impacts consistent with this policy. A30 Balance the need to provide a sufficient amount of land to accommodate affordable housing with the community's goals to maintain compact urban form. The applicant submits that the site could pr10vide affordable medium density residential housing and through increased on-sIte density furthers the goal of maintaining a compact urban form. The applicant has identified numerous Re~nement and Metro Plan policies that support the request and has not identified any policies that directly conflict with the proposed zonmg. Questions: 1. Though the applicant finds support for the proposal in the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan preliminary discussions have not been favorable. Does staff believe the Refinement Plan or Metro Plan policies prohibit or discourage the proposal? If so which policies? AJe there siting requirement the applicant has failed to identify that prohibit the p~oposal? 2. Should the applicant decide to proceed with the proposal would a partition be required prior to/concurrent with tHe other application or not required at all? 3. Are there any other large undeveloped parcels fitting the siting requirements for MDR in the Mid-Springfield area? Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 Original submittai 4. The only Metro Plan language cited by staff in our preliminary investigation as prohibiting the proposed actIOn is the language on page II-G-2 that provides: Certain land uses are not of metropolitan wide significance in terms of size or location because of their special nature or limited extent. Therefore, it is not advisable to account for most of them on the Metro Plan diagram. . . . Does Springfield staff believe that thiS language prohibits the proposed zone change? Could the language be interpreted to mean that a Metro Plan diagram is not required as part of this land use application-particularly given the following language further in the paragraph: [The diagram] is not intended to invalidate. . . uses which are not sufficiently intensive or large enough to be included on the Metro Plan diagram. 5. What land use application would be required should the applicant desire to proceed? Date Received: MAY 2 0 2008 Original Submittal. 17-02-31-31 T a.x Lot 2200 3402 Ma.in Street