Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 6/4/2020City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Development Issues Meeting (DIM) SPpINGP16� 'Required Project Information (Applicant: complete this section) Prospective Applicant Name: Hamid Madani Phone: Company: Fax: Address: PO Box 40008 Eugene, OR 97404 F1. vim,- . d Prospective sed Truett Applicant's Rep.: 541-302-9830 Phone: Company: Metro Planning, Inc. Fax: Address: 846 A Street Springfield, OR 97477 * Pro ert Owner: same as Applicant above phone: Company: Fax: Address: ASSESSOR'S MAP NO:17-03-34-44 TAX LOT NOS : 300 Property Address: 4521 Franklin Blvd Size of Pro ert 1.5 Acres ® S uare Feet ❑ mow, Description of If you are filling In this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: zone change/plan amendment Existing Use: # ofLots/Parcels: Av . Lot/Parcel Size: sf Density: du acre Prospective Applicant: Date: Signature Print Case No.: '��Q Date: �i -i ao-ao Reviewed b : Application Fee: $ Technical Fee: 0 Postage Fee: $0 TOTAL FEES: PROJECT NUMBEOI-,I),00—OQ��� Revised 5/21/13 Kit 1 of 3 Development Issues Meeting Process The purpose of a Development Issues Meeting is to give an applicant the opportunity to discuss his/her development proposal with the development review staff of the City. The discussion can be general or specific, depending on the details provided with the application. A Development Issues Meeting provides information to an applicant related to the current development conditions and standards of the City. The Development Issues Meeting is not a land use decision and does not confer any development rights, establish any conditions, or bind the applicant or the City to any course of action. The meeting conveys the status of known development opportunities and constraints. The status may change over time as development conditions or standards change. 1. Applicant Submits a Development Issues Meeting Application • The application must conform to the Development Issues Meeting Submittal Requirements Checklist on page 3 of this application packet. Development issues meetings are conducted every Thursday. • We strive to conduct the development issues meetings within three to four weeks of receiving the application. • The applicant's proposal is circulated to the relevant staff in preparation for the meeting. 2. Applicant and the City Conduct the Development Issues Meeting • The applicant and any design team should attend the development issues meeting. • The meeting is scheduled for one hour. • Staff attending the meeting will be prepared to discuss the issues raised in the submittal by the applicant. Other issues raised during the meeting may also be discussed. The meeting is informal and the City will issue no staff report. Revised 5/21/13 KL 2 of 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 & Public Works 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. ❑ Four (4) Copies of the Proposed Plan - 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) 5.12-120, Land Divisions - Partitions & Subdivisions - Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements or 5.17-120, Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements. ❑ 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' ❑ 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 development 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 common open spaces DIMS Related to Land Divisions ❑ Approximate location, number and dimensions of proposed lots ❑ How streets in the proposal area connect with existing streets DIMS Related to Site Plan Review ❑ Proposed and existing buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area), setbacks from property lines, distance between buildings, and height ❑ Area and percentage of the site proposed for buildings, structures, driveways, sidewalks, patios and other impervious surfaces ❑ Parking and circulation plan Revised 5/21/13 KL 3 of 3 Narrative Statement and Questions for a Development Issues Meeting The applicant is requesting this meeting to clarify issues related to changing the refinement plan designation and zoning to GMUC to take advantage of street frontage on the west for commercial development. Ultimately, the applicant would like to develop the site with a 5000 square foot restaurant building. The property is identified as 4521 Franklin Boulevard (LC #17-03-34-44 TL 300). The property is approximately 1.5 acres in size. The property is annexed to the City of Springfield. The property was formerly used as a mobile home park but has been unused for more than 24 months. The property is zoned and designated GMUE under the Glenwood Refinement Plan. The property has street frontage on McVeigh Hwy to the west and 1 gth Street on the north. There is a shared an access with the property to the east along your southerly boundary. The acre property to the east of your property is zoned and designated GMUC. The Criteria of Approval for Metro/Ref Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are located at SDC 5.14- 100 and SDC 5.22-100. This document follows up on the email correspondence between city staff and the applicant and seeks to clarify issues related to the desired development. Questions for Development Issues Meeting 1. The initial email thread indicates a minimum lot size area of 5 acres in the requested zoning district and suggests and suggests clarification of the exemption process and what documentation is sufficient to enable an exemption on the basis the neighbors are not willing to assemble a five acre parcel. This question seeks to clarify that matter. 2. Does city planning staff view the requested district as requiring a text amendment to the applicable refinement plan? My understanding is that the application refinement plan amendment is a discrete process, planning commission hearing/ recommendation and city council approval and the zone change is also a discrete process requiring planning commission approval. Is this understanding correct? Are there inventory issues that could negatively effect this development or is that not an issue since the existing and requested zoning are employment district? 3. The email correspondence brings up transportation issues. Are there capacity issues on Mcvay Hwy that could impact the ability of staff to make a positive determination on the application? Are there significant differences between traffic generated under a reasonable worst-case scenario development for GMUE as opposed to GMUC? 4. The email thread indicates that there is discrepancy between the city and county records. The applicant would like to clarify the alignment of the right of way with the deeded property. 5. Is there any public, specific plan regarding the 19'h street extension including planned row width, location, required improvements, etc.? Is there any indication that the existing shared access is insufficient for continued service of this parcel and the one to the south.