The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication Applicant 6/12/2023DocuSign Envelope ID: BFEAE41C-2D904CB9-A1C6-888F532E5586 City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 SITE PLAN REVIEW — TYPE 2 SPRIN FIMD so LAL Application ❑ Site Plan Review Completeness Check )s( Site Plan Review Submittal E Final Site Plan Submittal Required Project Information (Applicant: Applicant Name: Heidi Larwick 777 Complete this Section) Phone: 541 654 4095 Company: Connected Lane County Email:heidi@connectedlane.org Address: 22 W 7th, Eugene, OR 97401 Applicant's Rep: John Stapleton Phone: 541 762 1614 Company: PIVOT Architecture Email: jstapleton@pivotarchitecture.com Address: 44 West Broadway, Eugene, OR 97401 Property Owner:Allie Camp, Development Director Phone: 541 726 3700 Company: City of Springfield Email: acamp@springfield-or.gov Address: 225 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 1703350000307 TAX LOT NO(S): Property Address (if applicable): 303 South 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 Size of Property: 117.3 no Acres ❑ Sq. Ft. Units Per Acre: Proposed Project Name: Booth Kelly SparkLab Tenant Infill Proposal: Tenant Improvements to Suite 150. Re -grading approximately 500 SF of paving to create an ADA accessible entry. Existing Use: Mixed Use Commercial Development New Impervious Area (Sq. Ft.): None Required Project Information (City Intake Staff: Associated Applications: Complete This Section) Placard: Case No: Date: Reviewed By: Application Fee: $ Tech Fee: $ Notice Fee: $ TOTAL FEE: $ PROJECT NO: DocuSlyn Envelope ID: 8FEAE410-2D904CB9-At C6-888F532E5586 jwner aignazu • I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. I affirm the information identified by the City as necessary for processing the application is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the information as submitted. This statement serves as written notice pursuant to the requirements of ORS 227.178 pertaining to a complete application. Owner: IAA.1 IAVWI(k 11 W WC30CBB<80_. Signature Heidi Lerwick Print Date: 6/4/2023 Owner: Date:Inly I/ Signatur Print POTMEMORANDUM Project: Spark at Booth Kelly (2219.00) Date: 4/17/23 To: Mark CC: Heidi Lerwick From: John Stapleton, PIVOT Architecture Subject: Site Plan Review Narrative Overview: The City of Springfield, acting as landlord for the Booth Kelly development, entered into an agreement to lease Suite 150 to the educational non profit Connected Lane County. Connected intends to run educational programs serving Springfield student as they gain job skills and enter the work force. A commercial building permit was submitted and approved by the Springfield building department (Permit 811-22-002540-STR) and the work was started. The team became aware that a Site Review was required for this change of occupancy (the space is changing from S to E Occupancy). Additionally, the entrance to the building was not ADA accessible, and the development team determined that the ADA and Code required this entry to be made accessible. The preference of the Landlord was that all of these improvements (both the tenant improvements and the ADA upgrade) be completed under the Tenant's contract. This is agreeable to the Tenant, but it is important to note that the exterior improvements are the purview of the Landlord, and the inter improvements the Tenant, per the lease agreement. Once it was determined that the Site Review was required, a meeting was held with the Planning Official, Mark Rust. He indicated that given the very limited nature of the improvements, many of the documents called for in the Site Review completeness check list would contain no information, and thus would not be required. The list of documents (as the development team understands it) contains the following: • Overall Proposed Site Plan showing the location of Suite 150, and the area where the ADA improvements would be located. That is attached. • Narrative. See narrative below. Compliance with SDC 5.17.125 Criteria: (1) The proposed land use is a permitted use or is allowed as a discretionary use in the land use district. The property is Zoned Booth Kelly Mixed Use Plan District. Per Table 3.4.320 Educational Branch Facilities are a Permitted Use. The Base Zone Development Standards do not appear to apply in this case, as the proposed development is within an existing building and developed site. PIVOT Architecture 44Me Broadway Suie3 Eugwe,OR9741 1541.342.7281 piwtarchitecture.com MEMORANDUM 4/17/2023 (2) If a use is allowed as a discretionary use, in addition to meeting the standards below, a Discretionary Use application must be approved in conformance with the standards in SDC 5.9.100. Not Applicable, use is Permitted. (3) The proposal complies with the standards of the land use district of the subject property. The standards of the Booth Kelly Mixed Use Plan requirements do not appear to apply, aside from the allowed use, since the proposed development is within the existing building and previously developed site. (4) The proposal complies with any applicable approved master plan, master facilities plan, refinement plan, and/or special planned district. The standards of the Booth Kelly Mixed Use Plan requirements do not appear to apply, aside from the allowed use, since the proposed development is within the existing building and previously developed site. (5) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.2, Infrastructure Standards - Transportation. The standards of the Transportation Infrastructure requirements do not appear to apply, aside from the allowed use, since the proposed development is within the existing building and previously developed site. (6) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.3, Infrastructure Standards - Utilities. (7) The standards of the Utility Infrastructure requirements do not appear to apply, aside from the allowed use, since the proposed development is within the existing building and previously developed site. (8) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.4, Landscaping, Screening, and Fence Standards. Per the discussion with the Planning Official, as a tenant of the Booth Kelly buildings, this project does not need to demonstrate compliance with Section 4.4.100, as those elements are part of the overall Booth Kelly building and site development. (9) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.5, On -Site Lighting Standards. Per the discussion with the Planning Official, as a tenant of the Booth Kelly buildings, this project does not need to demonstrate compliance with Section 4.5.100, as those elements are part of the overall Booth Kelly building and site development. (10) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.6, Motor Vehicle Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Parking Standards. Per the discussion with the Planning Official, as a tenant of the Booth Kelly buildings, this project does not need to demonstrate compliance with Section 4.6.100, as those elements are part of the overall Booth Kelly building and site development. (11) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.7, Specific Development Standards. Section 4.7. 100 does not appear to apply to a branch educational facility as proposed in this development. Page 2 of 3 MEMORANDUM 4/17/2023 (12) The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.8, Temporary Use Standards. (6443) Section 4.8 does not appear to apply to a branch educational facility as proposed in this development. The tenant improvements a2 intended as permanent installations, as defined by the OSSC. End of Memorandum. Page 3 of 3