Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 06 17 AIS Gateway Residential Care Discretionary UseAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: June 3, 2014 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird/DPW Staff Phone No: 726-3784 S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Estimated Time: 20 Minutes ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY USE APPROVAL – MCKENZIE LIVING LAND LLC, APPLICANT ACTION REQUESTED: Planning Commission approval of a Discretionary Use request (TYP314-00004). ISSUE STATEMENT: The Planning Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing and decide whether or not to approve a Discretionary Use request for a 25-bed residential care facility at 6452 A Street in the Thurston neighborhood. The site has an existing 15- bed residential care facility that is currently configured for 11 residents. A second 10-bed facility is proposed on the adjoining vacant parcel. At build-out, the proposed facility could accommodate up to 25 residents and both buildings will share staffing and amenities. In accordance with SDC 3.2-210, residential care facilities with more than 15 residents require Discretionary Use approval. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report and Findings for Discretionary Use Attachment 2: Site Parking Analysis Attachment 3: Applicant’s Discretionary Use Request DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting the Discretionary Use for an existing building at 6452 A Street and an adjoining parcel that is vacant and not assigned a municipal address (Map 17-02-34-42, Tax Lots 3900 & 4000). The site is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is designated LDR in accordance with the adopted Metro Plan diagram. In conjunction with the Discretionary Use request the applicant is proposing to construct a 10-bed residential care facility to “mirror” the existing 11-bed facility. The proposed residential care facility is detailed in a Site Plan Review application submitted for review under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010), contingent upon approval of the subject Discretionary Use request. Staff concludes that this request, as determined in the findings of fact in the attached staff report complies with the Discretionary Use criteria of approval listed in SDC 5.9-120. Such findings, determinations and recommendations are provided to the Planning Commission in support of a decision to approve this Discretionary Use application. Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission Discretionary Use Request (McKenzie Living Land, LLC) Hearing Date: June 3, 2014 Case Number: TYP314-00004 Applicant: Mark Kinkade, McKenzie Living Land, LLC Site: 6452 A Street and adjoining vacant parcel (Map 17-02-34-42, Tax Lots 3900 & 4000) Request The application was submitted on May 13, 2014 and the public hearing on the matter of the Discretionary Use request is scheduled for June 3, 2014. The City conducted a Development Review Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request on May 27, 2014. Site Information/Background The property that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located at 6452 A Street and includes an adjoining vacant parcel that is not municipally addressed. In combination, the two parcels are approximately 0.40 acre in size. The west half of the site contains an existing 15-bed residential care facility that is currently configured for 11 residents (see Photos 1-3). The existing building was approved in 1996 as a 15-unit residential care facility on a 0.2 acre site (Permit #960669). Staff advises that the existing building exceeds the 45% lot coverage provisions of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 3.2-215. To accommodate the excess building coverage, the east half of the site was maintained as vacant, undeveloped space and a deed restriction was recorded against the properties. The applicant is now proposing to adjust the property line between the two adjoining parcels, such that the west half of the site containing the existing building will be enlarged to ensure the 45% lot coverage maximum is not exceeded. Consequently, a smaller building is proposed for the east half of the site – again, to ensure the lot coverage maximum is not exceeded. The proposed Property Line Adjustment has been submitted under separate cover (Case TYP114-00008). The facility has frontage on A Street generally between 64th Place and 65th Street. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Review application under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) for a 10-bed residential care facility on the east half of the site. The proposed building would essentially mirror the existing facility and allow for shared staffing and amenities. In accordance with SDC Section 3.2-210, Discretionary Use approval is required for residential care facilities with more than 15 residents. The proposed development would accommodate up to 25 residents at build-out. Notification and Written Comments Notification of the June 3, 2014 public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on May 16, 2014. Notification was also published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on May 21, 2014. Public notification was also sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on May, 2014 for the companion Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214- 00010). Attachment 1, Page 1 of 10 Photo 1 – Site Air Photo Photo 2 – Magnified Aerial View SITE SITE Main Street 64th Place 65th Street 64th Street A Street 65th Place B Street A Street 64th Place 65th Street Attachment 1, Page 2 of 10 Photo 3 – Street View Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract Zoning Map Legend Low Density Residential (LDR) Public Land and Open Space (PLO) Medium Density Residential (MDR) SITE A Street B Street 64th Place 65th Street 65th Place Main Street Attachment 1, Page 3 of 10 Criteria of Approval Section 5.9-100 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Discretionary Use requests. The Criteria of Discretionary Use approval are: SDC 5.9-120 CRITERIA A. The proposed use conforms with applicable: 1. Provisions of the Metro Plan; 2. Refinement plans; 3. Plan District standards; 4. Conceptual Development Plans or 5. Specific Development Standards in this Code; B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering: 1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable); 2. Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation; 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and 4. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through the: 1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks); 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable; 3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or 4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval conditions. Attachment 1, Page 4 of 10 D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. Proposed Findings In Support of Discretionary Use Approval Criterion: Discretionary Use criteria of approval: A. The proposed use conforms with applicable; 1. Provisions of the Metro Plan; Finding: The property is currently zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the adopted Metro Plan diagram. The applicant is not proposing to change the current zoning or designation for the subject site. Conclusion: The request meets this criterion. 2. Refinement plans; Finding: There is no adopted Refinement Plan for this area of Springfield. Therefore, the Metro Plan diagram remains the prevailing land use plan diagram for this site. Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable. 3. Plan District standards; Finding: Residential care facilities for more than 15 residents are listed uses in the Low-, Medium- and High-Density Residential districts, subject to additional land use approvals. For the LDR District, this type of facility requires a Discretionary Use permit in addition to Site Plan Review approval. Finding: To address the land use approval requirements for a residential care facility in the LDR District, the applicant has submitted for Discretionary Use approval (TYP314-00004). A Type II Site Plan Review application also has been submitted under separate cover (TYP214-00010), and is subject to review and approval as a Director’s Decision pending the determination of a Discretionary Use permit. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 10 Conclusion: The request meets this criterion. 4. Conceptual Development Plans or Finding: There is no specific Conceptual Development Plan for this area of Springfield. Therefore, the Metro Plan diagram remains the prevailing land use plan diagram for this site. Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable. 5. Specific Development Standards in this Code; Finding: Should the Planning Commission approve this Discretionary Use request, the applicant will need to obtain approval for the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010). Staff advises that the specific development standards of the Low Density Residential District (SDC Section 3.2-215), Multi-Unit Design Standards (SDC Section 3.2-240) and Group Care Facilities (SDC Section 4.7-155) need to be addressed through the Site Plan Review approval. Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion. B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering: 1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions, light, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safety, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable); Finding: The property requested for Discretionary Use approval is two adjoining residential lots that comprise approximately 0.4 acre in total site area. The size of the property, available area for creating off-street parking and site landscaping, and its location adjacent to a developed urban transportation network should adequately accommodate the proposed use. Finding: The property requested for Discretionary Use approval is zoned and designated LDR and is across the street from more intensive MDR residential development between Main Street and the south side of A Street. Staff observes that the proposed facility is within a transitional area from multi-family housing development to the south and single-family residential development to the north. Finding: Staff conducted a site visit to the existing facility on March 21, 2014. Staff observed that the existing residential care facility is inconspicuous and appears to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. As depicted in the site photo above (Photo 3) the care facility is a single-story residential-style building not unlike a large single family home. Finding: Constructing and operating a 25-bed residential care facility on the combined properties is not expected to generate any type of prolonged, significant adverse impact to the neighborhood, such as glare, dust, noise, emissions or vibrations. It is expected there could be occasional daytime noise and activity during construction of the facility. Attachment 1, Page 6 of 10 However, this should be of relatively short duration and is not unlike ordinary house construction. Finding: The proposed residential care facility is to be developed with off-street parking spaces to prevent congestion on the fronting public street (A Street). Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review submitted for approval under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. 2. Adequate and safe circulation exists for vehicular access to and from the proposed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as well as pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation; Finding: The site has frontage on A Street, which is classified as a local street in the City’s transportation network. Safe and efficient access to and from the site can be provided via the public street system and a proposed driveway on the east half of the site. Finding: Regular and frequent Lane Transit District bus service (#11 Thurston route) is available to serve the proposed development site. The nearest transit stop is on the north side of Main Street just west of 64th Place. A pedestrian walkway at the south end of 64th Place allows for a direct connection from Main Street to the subject property on A Street. Staff estimates the total walking distance is approximately 800 feet. Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/drainage areas and wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and Finding: There are no wetlands, riparian areas or other natural features on the site that warrant protection. Staff observes that at least five mature trees are located on the vacant east half of the property, and these will require removal prior to site development. In accordance with provisions of the City’s Development Code (Section 5.19-100), up to five trees at least 5-inches in diameter or larger can be removed from a property in any 12-month period. Removal of more than five qualifying trees would require the applicant to obtain a Tree Felling Permit. Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to, utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure. Finding: The site is inside the Springfield City limits so urban sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater services are available to serve the property along the street frontage. The applicant is proposing to manage a portion of the stormwater runoff on the site and to direct excess drainage to the public stormwater system in A Street. Attachment 1, Page 7 of 10 Finding: The property has frontage on a developed public street and no additional street improvements are warranted or required to serve the proposed residential care facility. Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. C. Any adverse effects of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through the: 1. Application of other Code standards (including, but not limited to: buffering from less intensive uses and increased setbacks); Finding: The site has an existing perimeter screening fence and the applicant is proposing to set back the new building approximately 22 feet from the front property line, 7 feet from the side (east) property line, and 19 feet from the rear property line. The building setbacks exceed the minimum requirements of the City’s Development Code for residential dwellings (ref. SDC 3.2-215). Finding: The building is proposed to be a single story design with provision for a small second-story unit to be used by administrative staff. The proposed design essentially mirrors the existing facility on the west half of the site. Staff observes that the proposed building height, design and overall size should not be obtrusive or cause an imposition to the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Finding: The proposed building will need to meet the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225. Compliance with solar setback requirements will be determined through the Site Plan Review and Building Permit process. Finding: The applicant is proposing to construct a new facility designed for 10 residents, bringing the total number of potential residents to 25. Additionally, the facility operates with administrative staff on-site 24 hours a day. Therefore, the total parking requirement in accordance with SDC Table 4.6-2 is about 17 spaces (one for every four residents, and one per employee on the busiest shift). Because the residents do not drive or own personal cars, the applicant is requesting a modified parking requirement for the facility. A parking analysis has been provided by Dan Haga, PE of Branch Engineering in support of reducing the on-site parking requirement (see attached). To meet the expected parking demand, the applicant is proposing to construct eight on-site parking spaces, utilize on-street parking along the street frontage, and to promote employee use of transit, carpooling and walking/bicycling. Staff advises that modification to the parking requirements will be recorded against the property title and monitored as a condition of the Site Plan Review approval (Case TYP214-00010). Finding: In accordance with provisions of the adopted Metro Plan, residential care facilities provide an important service to the community, and are designed and intended to be highly compatible with other residential land uses. Therefore, no specific buffering or separation requirements are made a part of this decision. Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. Attachment 1, Page 8 of 10 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable; Finding: The applicant will be required to satisfy the conditions of approval for this Discretionary Use Request, if any, and the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) prior to obtaining Final Site Plan approval and building permits for this project. Finding: The Site Plan Review application and decision (Case TYP214-00010) is hereby made a part of the record for this decision by reference. Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. 3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or Finding: Staff is not recommending any conditions of Discretionary Use approval. Recommended conditions as may be required to address specific site development issues, including provision of adequate on-site vehicle parking, will be described in the Site Plan Review approval (Case TYP214-00010). Finding: Based on the testimony submitted at the public hearing, the Planning Commission may decide to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Discretionary Use request. Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. 4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards and/or approval conditions. Finding: The applicant is not requesting concurrent approval of the Site Plan submitted for the proposed residential care facility (Case TYP214-00010). Additionally, the applicant is not requesting alternate design criteria or proposing to exceed cited Code standards for this facility. Conclusion: As described herein and in the Site Plan Review approval submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00010) the proposal meets this criterion. D. Applicable Discretionary Use criteria in other Sections of this Code: 1. Wireless telecommunications systems facilities requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A-C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.3-145. 2. Alternative design standards for multifamily development are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 3.2-245. 3. Fences requiring Discretionary Use approval are exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.4-115.C. Attachment 1, Page 9 of 10 4. The siting of public elementary, middle and high schools requiring Discretionary Use approval is exempt from Subsections A – C above, but shall comply with the approval criteria specified in Section 4.7-195. Finding: The proposed residential care facility is not a wireless telecommunications facility. Therefore, Criterion D.1 is not applicable. Finding: The applicant is not proposing alternative design standards for the residential care facility. Therefore, Criterion D.2 is not applicable. Finding: The applicant is not proposing a new or modified fence that exceeds the standard provisions of SDC 4.4-115. Therefore, Criterion D.3 is not applicable. Finding: The proposed facility is not a school and does not require siting approval. Therefore, Criterion D.4 is not applicable. Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion. Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the application and supporting evidence submitted by the applicant for the Discretionary Use request. Based on the above-listed criteria, staff recommends support for the request as the proposal meets the stated criteria for Discretionary Use approval. Additionally, approval of the Discretionary Use would facilitate the approval of the Site Plan Review application for a residential care facility submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00007). Conditions of Approval SDC Section 5.9-125 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Discretionary Use request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from the code section is cited below: 5.9-125 CONDITIONS The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Discretionary Use approval to be granted. Staff has reviewed the Discretionary Use request and supporting information provided by the applicant, and it is the opinion of staff that conditions of approval are not warranted. The proposed residential care facility has been reviewed and recommended conditions of approval are to be described in the Site Plan Review application for this development submitted under separate cover (Case TYP214-00007). The Planning Commission may choose to apply conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Discretionary Use criteria. Additional Approvals The subject Discretionary Use request is the necessary first step for the applicant to proceed with development plans for the site. The companion Site Plan Review application (Case TYP214-00007) is intended to address the specific Development Code and detailed site planning requirements for the proposed residential care facility. Attachment 1, Page 10 of 10 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 4 Attachment 2, Page 2 of 4 Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4 Attachment 2, Page 4 of 4 Attachment 3, Page 1 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 3 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 4 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 5 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 6 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 7 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 8 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 9 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 10 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 11 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 12 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 13 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 14 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 15 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 16 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 17 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 18 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 19 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 20 of 21 Attachment 3, Page 21 of 21 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY USE + CASE NO. TYP314-00004 + FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, + AND ORDER NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The applicant submitted a Discretionary Use request for a 25-bed residential care facility at 6452 A Street and the adjoining vacant lot (Assessor’s Map 17-02-34-42, Tax Lots 3900 & 4000). The site is within the Low Density Residential (LDR) District and the Springfield Development Code Section 3.2-210 lists residential care facilities serving 15 or more residents as a Discretionary Use in the LDR District. The Discretionary Use request requires action by the Planning Commission before successive land use actions can be approved for the site. 1. On May 13, 2014 the following application for a Discretionary Use was accepted: Allow for a residential care facility serving up to 25 residents in the Low Density Residential District, Case Number TYP314-00004, Mark Kinkade, McKenzie Living Land LLC, applicant. 2. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 5.4-105 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2-115 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On June 3, 2014 a public hearing on the Discretionary Use request was held. The Development and Public Works Department staff notes including criteria of approval, findings and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the requested Discretionary Use application is consistent with the criteria of Section 5.9-120 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusions in the attached staff report (Exhibit A) attached hereto. ORDER It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that Case Number TYP314-00004, Discretionary Use Request, be approved. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2014. _______________________________ Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1