Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 10/7/2021City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Development Issues Meeting (DIM) SPRINGFIELD rw1 i Required Project Information (Applicant: Prospective Brad Rogers Applicant Name: complete this section) Phone: 541-915-4883 Company: Rogers Holdings LLC Fax: Address: PO Box 70448, Springfield OR 97475 Prospective Applicant's Rep.: Rodd Hansen, AIA phone: 541-687-7800 Company: Rodd Hansen Architect, LLC Fax: Address: 1551 Oak St, Ste A, Eugene OR 97401 Property Owner: Brad Rogers Phone: 541-915-4883 Company: Rogers Holdings LLC Fax: Address: PO Box 70448, Springfield OR 97475 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-03-25-41 TAX LOT NOS : 400 Property Address: 1600 28th St Size of Property: 2.05 Acres ❑x Square Feet ❑ Description of If you are filling. this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: Partition and Si Plan Review Existing Use: light indu ial # of Lots/Parcels: 2 Av . Lot/Parcel Size: 1 acre sf Densit : N/A du/acre Prospective Applicant: A Date: v Sig I • l�dl oG2(� Print Required Project Information (City Intake Staff. complete this section) Case No.: 911 WV2W - kti Date: I Reviewed by: 1"M1 !� Application Fee: $ I N / •00 Technical Fee: $0 Postage Fee: $0 TOTAL FEES: $ II i -0 PROJECT NUMBER: Revised 5/21/13 KL 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 x❑ 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. ❑x 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. x❑ 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 pian. 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. x❑ Drawn in ink on quality paper no smaller than 11" x 17" x❑ 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' ❑x 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 x❑ 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 Canch rNGINEE RING - 5 -1997 October 7, 2021 RE: DIM QUESTIONS 1600 28- ST (TM 17-03-25-41, TL 400) Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. 21-602 The subject site is underdeveloped with a large gravel/grass area in the western half. The property owner is considering construction of a new structure and parking area for relocation of Trak Powersports (formerly Ramsey -Waite) from their Glenwood site. The project will consist of a new building (approx. 15,000 sf) and associated parking; sketches of two layout concepts are included in this application. It is the property owner's desire to have the new development be an entirely independent entity from the existing development on the site. To facilitate this a partition to separate the two areas is desired. The property and the lands to the north and west is zoned Light -Medium Industrial (LMI); the lands to the south are zoned Major Retail Commercial (MRC); and the lands to the east are zoned Heavy Industrial (HI). The property owner wants to understand the amount of time from project commencement to occupancy. The questions below will help the design team understand the necessary scope which can then be developed into a timeline. 1. Land use process a. What Use Category from Table 3.2-410 is applicable to this project? b. Will an MDS Major application be acceptable? c. Does staff have recommendations on the timing of the partition and MDS applications? Will the MDS need to encompass the entire site if the partition plat is not recorded or can it be limited to the area of new development if a tentative partition is submitted concurrently? d. If it needs to encompass the entire site, will the currently developed portion need to be updated to reflect all current code criteria? e. What is the current average timeline for review and approval of an 1bIDS Major (or whatever other application type is stated as required in b above)? f. Please review the order of applications between: Tentative Partition, Final Partition, Tentative MDS, Final MDS and building permits. In particular, may the Final MDS and building permits be submitted concurrently? EUGENE -SPRINGFIELD PHILOMATH 310 Sn, Street, Springfield, OR 97477 1 p: 541.746.0637 1 �.branchengineenng.conn DIM Questions 1600 28e St io/7/2021 g. The area of proposed development appears to be within the 2- and 5 -year Time of Travel Zones for the Maia and SP wells. Please confirm if this triggers the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District (DWP). It. If the DWP is triggered, please review the limitations it places on materials Bud storage. i. For calculation of bicycle parking, will "General retail" or "Industrial and wholesale" be more applicable from Table 4.6-3? j. For calculation of vehicular parking, will 'Retail trade and services" or "...other primary industrial uses" be more applicable from Table 4.6-2? k. Considering the primary stock for the business is vehicular in nature, will it be permissible to have a stock display area between the building and the street? The stock will be brought inside each night. Would the stock display area need to meet parking standards or are other standards more applicable? 2. Public Services a. Will the curves in Olympic Street limit the access point for the new development? b. Will street lights be required for Olympic Street? c. Will flow control requirements apply to the site, or will the development just need to meet water quality before connecting with public stormwater? d. Can the site connect with what appears to be a public wastewater manhole/lateral at the SW corner of the site? Are as-builts available? 3. Fire a. Will an access route need to fully surround the building? b. If an access route does not need to fully surround the building, will a turnaround be needed? c. What is the required distance to a hydrant? Does it appear that a new hydrant will be needed? 4. Miscellaneous a. Will street trees be required along Olympic Street? b. Please confirm Olympic Street is a Minor Arterial and 281" Street is a Major Collector. S. Has staff observed any red flags? Does staff have any input regarding comparative approvability between the two layout concepts? Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 2 oft ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1 1 I I 1 11 \ 1 (YLLI LL1 Q O Z PR.'WIELNR/rL TiLE�&lE P.a.l �I ® aRG",Z—Zk m4L6 " AN 7 1 I I I \ - I \ - 1 \ I 1 - 1 \ \ 1 nne. W W LLl a Q Z I ARCHITECTURAL 51TE PLAN ia'x�c�uwi TIRE:SItE fiAN 7 ®ARCLITECTUR L SITE PL51TE PLAN frre r. N` VW W z oZ C