The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023 06 21 Discretionary Use Permit COMPLETEAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/21/2023 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATIONAL FACILITY ON A 0.42 ACRE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 8TH AND G STREETS, CASES 811-23-000059-TYP2 & 811-23-000060-TYP3 ACTION REQUESTED: Conclude the public hearing opened on June 6, 2023 and conduct deliberations on the proposed development of a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building on a vacant site. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted a request for Discretionary Use Permit and Site Plan Review for two adjoining, vacant residentially zoned lots at the northwest corner of the intersection of 8th and G Streets. The applicant is requesting the Discretionary Use Permit to facilitate construction of an early childhood education facility on the site. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application for Discretionary Use Permit 2. Application for Site Plan Review 3. Planning Commission Final Order Exhibit A: Site Map and Legal Description Exhibit B: Staff Report and Recommendations for Discretionary Use Permit Exhibit C: Staff Report and Recommendations for Site Plan Review 4: Written Comments Submitted into Record (Exhibits A-J) 5: Traffic Call Log and Accident Reports from Springfield Police Department (Exhibits A-F) DISCUSSION: The subject property is vacant and has not been assigned a municipal street address (Assessor’s Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800). The applicant is requesting the Discretionary Use Permit to facilitate construction of a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building with associated driveway, parking lot, outdoor play area, stormwater management facilities and site landscaping. The property is currently zoned R-1 in accordance with the Low Density Residential plan designation as shown on the adopted Metro Plan diagram. Within the R-1 Residential district, educational facilities are listed as a Discretionary Use and are subject to Site Plan Review. The applicant has submitted an accompanying Site Plan Review application that has been elevated to a Type 3 review by the Director. The Site Plan Review application is being presented to the Planning Commission for concurrent review (File 811-23-000059-TYP2). The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on the request for Discretionary Use Permit and Site Plan Review at the regular meeting on June 6, 2023. The public hearing was continued to the June 21, 2023 meeting to allow for submittal of additional testimony and staff response. An email was received from Michael McIlrath after the Planning Commission staff report was published but prior to the public hearing meeting (Attachment 4, Exhibit I) and Mr. McIlrath also submitted verbal and written testimony at the public hearing meeting (Attachment 4, Exhibit J). The Planning Commission is requested to close the public hearing and record and to conduct deliberations on the request for Discretionary Use permit and Site Plan Review. The Planning Commission is requested to vote on approving, modifying or denying the Discretionary Use permit and Site Plan Review after completion of deliberations. City of Springfield Development & Public Works 22S Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Discretionary Use SPNIN FI Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this section) Applicant Nam77 e: EC Cares Phone: 541-346-1000 Company: University of Oregon Fax: Address: 1585 E 13th Ave, Eugene, OR 97403 Applicant's Re .. Lorri Nelson phone; 541-485-1003 Company: Rowell Brokaw Architects Fax: Address: 1203 Willamette Suite 210, Eugene, OR 97401 lorri@rowellbrokaw.com Property Owner: Springfield School District 319 Phone:541-726-3201 Company: Fax: Address: 640 A Street, Springfield OR, 97477 brettyancey@spnogfiek1.k12.or.us ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-03-35-12-06800 TAX LOT NOS : 6700, 6800 Property Address: Not Assigned - G Street, Springfield, OR Size of Property: 18,240 Acres Square Feet Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application,. Proposal: Place two -classroom modular on site with playground& extend utilities to building. Existing Use: UNDEVELOPED Si natures: Please si n and nrint vour name and date in the a ro riate box on the next nPrip. Required Project Information (CitV Intake Staff., complete this section) Associated Applications: Signs: Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Application Fee: II II qq Technical Fee: $ iob Iff// ( Posta a Fee: $ I` fg — C TOTAL FEES: $ 5.1( l" o PROJECT NUMBER: 3 " G-QUORtf/I' 1', Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian i of 4 Attachment 1, Page 1 of 21 Signatures The undersigned acknowledges that the information in this application is correct and accurate. Applicant: ( ems Date: 2023-03-21 Signature If the applicant is not the owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to am in Date: 2023-03-21 he Signature Brett Yancy Revise! 1/1/08 Molly Markarian 2 of 4 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 21 SPR / DISCRETIONARY USE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARES (ECC — Springfield) NARRATIVE R0INELL 2023-03-23 B n O VA The existing site is a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, adjacent to the Springfield High School. The site is owned by the school district. All utilities are nearby for connection. The project includes site preparation, utility connection and placement of a modular building on the site. It also includes construction of new ramps / stairs, playground area, covered play structure (Alternate #1) and 3 parking spaces on site (one ADA and two standard). EC Cares will occupy the building. They are an organization within the University of Oregon College of Education that provides early intervention and early childhood special education to infants, toddlers and preschool age children in Lane County. Each classroom will have one full time staff members and 1-3 part time staff on site during the day with no regularly planned activities at night. Children will be dropped off at the street curb via private vehicle or district bus. The drop-off area will be marked with signage and painted curb. The modular building will consist of two classrooms, two offices, storage, prep kitchen for warming snacks and restrooms. The modular will not include a sprinkler system. It will have a stand alone fire alarm system. There are no plans for expansion at this time. 111 Attachment 1, Page 3 of 21 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE ASPHALT WOOD PLAYGROUND CHIPS FESTORMWATERAREA IRRIGATED i1PLANT BED - IRRIGATED UTILITY EASEMENT CONCRETE PAVING EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN 4- _ TO BE REMOVED ASPHALT WOOD PLAYGROUND CHIPS FESTORMWATERAREA IRRIGATED i1PLANT BED - IRRIGATED GATES CONCRETE MOW BAND WMEET REE, T P. Flay til m 1" = 30'-0" EC Cares - Springfield o, 15, 30' 2023-03- 23 POWELLBRO} AW LAWN - IRRIGATED EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO 4- _ TO BE REMOVED NEW STALL FENCE GATES CONCRETE MOW BAND WMEET REE, T P. Flay til m 1" = 30'-0" EC Cares - Springfield o, 15, 30' 2023-03- 23 POWELLBRO} AW Attachment 1, Page 4 of 21 TRASH CAN ENCLOSURE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARES (ECC — Springfield) 2023-03-23 Trash can enclosure will be similar to this — prefabricated metal. OLL B OKA'11i'`; 212 Attachment 1, Page 5 of 21 Projeet LED Decorative k Emergencyw/PC Catalog Number Die-cast aluminum housing in dark bronze powder - coated finish Polycarbonate lens and mirrored reflector Integrated photocell standard Self -diagnosing, self -testing unit 90 minute emergency operation _mow Push -to -test switch and charge indicator Rechargeable Ni -Cad battery ^ Y 5 -year limited warranty `- SPECIFICATIONS DIMENSIONS Input Line Frequency 60Hz LWPI 2BZACEMSDT850 6.3"x10.4"x3.86 Lamp Life (Rated) 50,000H, Minimum Starting Temp -20°C Maximum Operating temp 40oC CRI >_ 80 Lii ecoinc.com Manufactured by C cys""t"U0.1"Ou.. Attachment 1, Page 6 of 21 WN1 LEDPI 1,550 Indent, ITIN WPX LED MIKE 20V -37/ V WPKI IED P2 2,9001 ... dENW 40K 4000K Wall Packs 50K 5000K Dl BI... I ._ control surP,E( e l... NMI :krolhemplfon; cmvlthnary. I floe sn no a 0 5pDUg 1 OhlTRL oaJ ,r`ruz s upon y Introduction Specifications The WPX LED wall packs are energy-efficient, cost- effective, and aesthetically appealing solutions for both HID wall pack replacement and new construction opportunities. Available in three sizes, the WPX family delivers 1,550 to 9,2001umans with a wide, uniform distribution. The WPX full cut-off solutions fully cover the footprint of the HID glass wall packs that they From view side vjew replace, providing a neat installation and an upgraded appearance. Reliable IP66 construction and excellent LED lumen maintenance ensure a cops[ 0.1"(20.fion1 11.1^(E8.3Lm) 31'(8.1m) U're3dr) 0.6(1.6Dn) 6ubz(ze) long service life. Photocell and emergency egressWPX39.1"(13.1 Lm) n.r13t1 and as°Uastm) 4s^Ins<m) D.rp.zgn) 8.31bs(3) 1 battery options make WPX ideal for every wallWpx3gs(za.t en) 13.V(33ALm) s.r(t3]Lm) 4.a^pzoan) D.z°pADn) 11.011ahO mounted lighting application. WN1 LEDPI 1,550 Indent, ITIN 30K 3000K MIKE 20V -37/ V WPKI IED P2 2,9001 ... dENW 40K 4000K 347 347VI It LED 6,000lumil 47W 50K 5000K Dl BI... WNBLED UOntinne 9Nl control surP,E( e l... NMI :krolhemplfon; cmvlthnary. Note: The lumen output and input powerer shown in the ordering free are average representations of all configuration options. Specific values are available on request FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS til NDEDUSE The WPXoar- olpada aced caned bprovide acost-eReain WPMaMdenxsolaa, dar Me,para xno to SLAWLAmyervy avkring HlOID ii- encemki WPX1.WPHIaMWPX3arildeal for anon. wd up to 1 mia 25Gw antl4UMr HID luminaires respec4vel%ViPX luminainsdellmr aumfaan. wide diahibuhon. WPX', reRo kr-00°C [o 4g°C. CONSTRUCTIONWPXkatureadlecaauluminum main hotly unit optimal thermal managencm NatbotM1 enhanmx LED aKcaryand wema mmrynem life Tha irmmmma ora IPM rated, and sealed Edina[ nersommorernimnmmundeenGminauts. ELECTRICAL b'gMengineb) corgu abom mmist Onar-offi-VLEDs and LED lumen maimenarm e LW/tW,CW Mars. Colortemperz[we ICGW nlxionx o130',gK 4CP]K antl SWEKwith minimum CRIat FedmmL6kVxwge d=emusayslemiencrfch-cryGsimat TNDy. Allluminaireslore Pwtettion (Noe: WP%1 LED PI package comes your a RandaN surge pmaetion raring of 25kV.11 me be ordered with an optional 6. sml,endere, All pbotau rrI opmata on MVOLT(IXN-2/JYt input NM,,Th,,tandard WP%LF wall W,kluminoireswmewitM1M1eld.adjmtabledrivecurrem feaNre. This 6aL aallarm tuningthe o,W,tanentof the LED tldven to adjust the lumen cRput(Wdlm[he luminalm. EXAMPLE: WPX2 LED 40K MVOLT DDBXD blank) Ron, 008%D Wrkbmnze E4WH mugmrybalrerybatkup, C£Cmmprtam DWN%D WAlte 14W, Doc minl' Dl BI... E14WC control surP,E(e l... NMI :krolhemplfon; cmvlthnary. Dar 20 (mlWa PE Darrell a. 1. All WPX-11 packs come with 6kvial promeran standard, except Wool LED P1 patagewhichcomeswi162.Sky surae potectan standard. Add SPLV, notion W get WPX1 LED Pt ith daysurge proneemor Sample fomealre: WPXI IED P140KMWLTSPE)l DORM 2. Banery pack aptioaeon"., am WPXI.ndWFIM. 3. Battery pack options not availablewill 347Vand PE options. INSWLLATION WPXmonato oy,mr tom ova fantail elect alju on Wrt.Three t/B incM1 conduit porizcti onthreesadazallow(onurfe¢ contlukwlrlrg.Aporton rhe 6aNmrferiallwrs erfaideirroconduitdnpanxodausNardon[hav neuronallun onbm.Widngeaarar—SeiL. In-, omm mmpa0nen[mall eaaeaWPX laonly remmmendetl M'ma[ellMionSwidLLECsfacnydownrvarda. LISTINGSCSACodified m meetLLS. and Canadian Standards. 5u'Rable fawet dooda e. Read Oesi,rhathS ConsodWm® IOLCI quitsee product. Not ell emsions ofth6 product may be DLC qualified Prior "all I OLCOwiffad Pmduas Dit at 9P2rito confirm Wnich ve uareqlified. le toalDarkSkyka0 on pDA) HereSueal ofApproval FSacy roil lekrall moduNantilt page milhomg MOOK colortemp-sameonly WARRANttLxalimited w amr Tl the only anti padded and no boom youlteromentre,this Inerrea nshee any w only ofolry and .All other spasandlmplied wanantet aredifinala. Complete vanry e ma located at Lexie:Had,e9m- , msAer. soMfood 'HprLmod IILrMet. elo: actual pedmm maydiPera sdt of mcf-io and appllm Allvalm aealgndorgpioel value ad under Stanley coand.... t25° CLo Spe6neations cabaretto flange wtboutoatte. L/ il'sVI //a4 Work Use Bre. IzvfAR2 One Lithone Way ° Conyea, Wreao30012 ° Phone. 1.800705-SERVIrwhr •—Ichoniacon UGNT/NG I.W. Amie/erandeL ing, mc. Aurignta aeereed. COMMERCIALcHTDOOR Attachment 1, Page 7 of 21 Peiformance DataLumen Output Electrical Load Projected LED Lumen Maintenance DMreerence eetlmpolMedpeAomanmprgections Ina25°C ambient based 6000 hours of LE0 fasting 1RMed perIESNA LM 80-08 endprojec0.dperer the unan mand dTo miw LITeansonerba3usethelumenmaimenancefattmr wnesionamds tothe desired numberofoperatmg hours below. For heon maimenanw ulim nl.n OPera0ag Doers 3000N 1,53) Lumen Maintenance Fao[ar WPXI LED 100W 11W WPXI LED P2150W WPXIHDp1 11W 0.09 0.05 O.oS 004 0.03 MUMPZ 24W 020 0.12 0.10 009 0.07 WPX2 47W 039 1 0.23 1 0.20 1 0.17 0.14 WPX3 69W OSA 1 0.33 1 0.29 1 015 010 Projected LED Lumen Maintenance DMreerence eetlmpolMedpeAomanmprgections Ina25°C ambient based 6000 hours of LE0 fasting 1RMed perIESNA LM 80-08 endprojec0.dperer the unan mand dTo miw LITeansonerba3usethelumenmaimenancefattmr wnesionamds tothe desired numberofoperatmg hours below. For heon maimenanw ulim nl.n OPera0ag Doers 3000N 1,53) Lumen Maintenance Fao[ar WPXI LED 100W 11W HID Replacement Guide 3000N 1,53) a oolputfuc average anti iem temperatures from 0 50°C(32.122 - F OK 11 I.DS WPXI LED 100W 11W WPXI LED P2150W 24W WW 250W 4]W WPX3 400W 69W Lumen Ambient Temperature LAT) Multipliers WPXI LEO PI 3000N 1,53) a oolputfuc average anti iem temperatures from 0 50°C(32.122 - F OK 11 I.DS 400DX 1,568 SWm 1.602 WPXI Lon P2 3000X 2,198 4000X 2,912 5% 41`F 1.04 SWOE 2,954 10°( SOT 103 Wpm 3000X 5,119 15Y 591 1.02 COOK 5,896 ZOY 68T 1.01 SWCL 6,201 25C T 1.00 Wpm 3000X Dgm 30"c 86T 0.99 ME 9,269 35°C 95T 0.98 5000X 9,393 40°C 104°F 0.97 Emergency Egress Battery Packs The emergency battery backup Is Imegml to the luminaire — no eternal housing or back box is required. The emergency ordinary will power the luminaire For a minimum duration of 90 minutes and delber minimum ini0al output of 550lumers. eolh battery pack options are CEC compliant. StedH OT 4W 9WN WPX2LWT)KMVORE!.! DOAXU Co18Weathel -ZO°C 14W E14Wf WPN2 Lf040XMVOLifi4WCD0A%D P Toieaccordanepweith PESNA gre and LM -80 se da dsor doweload es0leslomhis product. vizithelithonia LighOng VIPx LEO homepage. Tested in LEGEND WPXI LED PI U.tk m 0.2k OSk Lab I I AM LED I. WPXI LED PZ I & WPX3 LLD Mpaati, aei9ht-12 feet. i i L/TNON/A one emonia Way - Cnnrem, George 3DD12 . Phone -.noon -205SERV n318l • .,•,•, uhonia _un,eV.leo UGHT/NG 0.1. nNiN Rrandb u9euns. i Al nshiseeehed e 01croy COMMERCIAL OUMOOR Attachment 1, Page 8 of 21 B Attachment 1, Page 9 of 21 City of Springfield Development & Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMPLETENESS REVIEW CHECKLIST Project Name: EC Cares Site Plan Review SPR[MGFIELD rKI0104 Iq OREGON Project Proposal: Construction of a 2,688 ft' modular classroom building with parking lot, playground, stormwater facilities, trash enclosure, and landscaping on a vacant residential site. Case Number: 811 -23 -000033 -PRE Project Address: NW corner of the intersection of 81h and G Streets Assessors Map and Tax Lot Number(s): Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800 Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-1) Overlay District(s): Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Applicable Refinement Plan: Refinement Plan Designation: Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (R-1) Completeness Check Meeting Date: March 3, 2023 Application Submittal Deadline: August 30, 2023 Associated Applications: 811 -22 -000252 -PRE (Development Issues Meeting) POSITION REVIEW OF NAME Project Planner Land Use PlanningAnd Limbird 726-3784 Transportation PlanningEngineer Transportation Michael Liebler 736-1034 Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Clayton MCEachern 736-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Building Official Building Chris Car enter 744-4153 1JJ [N_1 I11y1 rI t 1JuI i1R:i A'/1`il_1 I EC Cares Lorri Nelson University of Oregon Rowell Brokaw Architects 1585 E. 13th Avenue 1203 Willamette St., Suite 210 Eugene OR 97403 Eugene OR 97401 Revised 10/ 25/07 Attachment 1, Page 10 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEW CHECKLIST PLANNING o Application fee - discuss the applicable fees o Copy of the Site Plan reduced to 81/2"x 11" CompleteInc plate See Planning Note(s) El1 8 1/2" x 11" Copy of Site Plan o Copy of the deed and a preliminary title report issued within the past 30 days documenting ownership and listing all encumbrances. If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) Deed and Preliminary Title Report o Brief narrative explaining the purpose of the development, the existing use of the property, and any additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken. The narrative should also include the proposed number of employees and future expansion plans, if known. Complete Inc plate See Planning Note(s) 2 Brief Narrative o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) E U/ 3 Revised 10/25/07 Prepared by an Oregon Licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, or Engineer Proposed buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area applicable to the parking requirement for the proposed use(s)), setbacks from property lines, and distance between buildings Location and height of existing or proposed fences, walls, outdoor equipment, storage, trash receptacles, and signs Location, dimensions, and number of typical, compact, and disabled parking spaces; including aisles, wheel bumpers, directional signs, and striping Dimensions of the development area, as well as area and percentage of the site proposed for buildings, structures, parking and Attachment 1, Page 11 of 21 Revised 10/25/ 07 vehicular areas, sidewalks, patios, and other impervious surfaces N/A Observance of solar access requirements as specified in the applicable zoning district On-site loading areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation M Location, type, and number of bicycle parking spaces Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for common open spaces, recreational areas, and other similar public and semi-public uses 4 Location of existing and proposed transit facilities o Phased Development Plan Where applicable, the Site Plan application must include a phasing plan indicating any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. Phasing must progress in a sequence promoting street connectivity between the various phases of the development and accommodating other required public improvements, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water, and electricity. The applicant must indicate which phases apply to the Site Plan application being submitted. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) N/A Phased Development Plan o Landscape Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) 5 Drawn by a Landscape Architect 19 5 Location and dimensions of landscaping and open space areas to include calculation of landscape coverage 5 Screening in accordance with SDC 4.4-110 E 5 Written description, including specifications, of the permanent irrigation system 6 Location and type of street trees 5 List in chart form the proposed types of landscape materials (trees, shrubs, ground cover). Include in the chart genus, species, common name, quantity, size, spacing and method of planting Revised 10/25/ 07 Attachment 1, Page 12 of 21 o Architectural Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) o On -Site Lighting Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Exterior elevations of all buildings and structures proposed for the development site, including height Conceptual floor plans Note(s) Location, orientation, and maximum height of exterior light fixtures, both free standing and attached Type and extent of shielding, including cut-off angles and type of illumination, wattage, and luminous area 7 Photometric test report for each light source Planning Notes: 1. Please provide a reduced size copy of the site plan with the application submittal. 2. No project narrative was included with the submittal, aside from comments on the cover plan sheet. 3. Provide building elevation details for the proposed trash enclosure. Enclosure must be covered and hydraulically isolated. A floor drain plumbed to the sanitary sewer system will be required for the trash enclosure area. 4. Add a note that the nearest transit facility is approximately 250 feet west of the site at the NW corner of 7th and G Streets. 5. A detailed site landscaping plan is required with the site plan submittal. 6. Provide the type(s) of street trees to be planted along the site frontages. 7. Provide a photometric report for the proposed wallpack lights. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Subject site location is misidentified on the cover zoning map. Subject site is not 812 G Street, which is across the street to the east. An address assignment will be provided at a later time and it will be off 8`h Street based on the proposed driveway location. As discussed previously, site plan approval subject to a Discretionary Use permit for educational facilities in the R-1 residential district. Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 1, Page 13 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PRE -SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Engineer: Clayton McEachern Case#:811-23-000033-PRE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING o Site Assessment of Existing Conditions Complete Incomplete See PW Note(s) Prepared by an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer Vicinity Map The name, location, and dimensions of all existing site features including buildings, curb cuts, trees and impervious surface areas, clearly indicating what is remaining and what is being removed. For existing structures to remain, also indicate present use, size, setbacks from property lines, and distance between buildings 0 n/ a The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses and required riparian setback that are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map on file in the Development Services Department n/a The 100 -year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adapted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in SDC 3. 3- 200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department Physical features including, but not limited to trees S" in diameter or greater when measured 4 1/1 feet above the ground, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, riparian areas, wetlands, and rock outcroppings 3 Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer must be submitted concurrently if the Soils Survey indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table Revised 10/25/ 07 Attachment 1, Page 14 of 21 o Improvement and Public Utilities Plan must be in compliance with the regulations of SDC Sections 5.17-100, 4.1-100, 4.2-100, and 4.3-100 and must include the following information: Complete Incomplete See PW o Grading and Paving Plan Complete Incomplete See PW Notes) 5 3 Note(s) Prepared by an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer Location and width of all existing and proposed easements 4 Location of existing and required power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units, and similar public facilities 6 Location and size of existing and proposed utilities on and adjacent to the site, including sanitary sewer mains, stormwater management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the proposed connection points o Grading and Paving Plan Complete Incomplete See PW Notes) 5 3 3 3 Prepared by an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer Planting plan prepared by an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be retained Existing and proposed spot elevations and contours lines drawn at 1 foot intervals (for land with a slope over 10 percent, the contour lines may be at 5 foot intervals) Amount of proposed cut and fill o Stormwater Management System Study - provide four (4) copies of the study with the completed Stormwater Scoping Sheet attached. The plan, calculations, and documentation must be consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Complete Inc plete See PW Note(s) 3 Scoping Sheet and attached Stormwater Management System Study Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 1, Page 15 of 21 PIN Notes: 1. There is an existing driveway dip near the existing pole not shown. In the proposed plans there are several new dips to be installed along the sidewalk on G Street for loading/unloading buses. This will need to be explicitly approved by transportation. Typically ROW cannot be used for loading/unloading for adjacent private development. 2. Project is in the 20 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ). 3. A stormwater study is submitted with this application. 4. What is the status of the existing overhead wire crossing the site? It is shown remaining on the utility plan, this is not allowed per the development code. It appears the only service on this line is to the adjacent private property? 5. Planting/landscaping plan is required for rain garden and for the new street trees required along G Street. 6. It appears the trash enclosure does not have sanitary drain installed, this must be covered and drain to sanitary. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Per the general notes no pre -con meeting is required for this project as no PIP is required. Revised 10/ 25/07 Attachment 1, Page 16 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Transportation Engineer/ Planner: Michael Liebler P. E. Case#: 23-000033 Applicant: EC Cares TRANSPORTATION o Right -of -Way Approach Permit application must be provided where the property has frontage on a Lane County or an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility. Complete Incomplete See Transportation Note(s) 0 NA Copy of ROW Approach Permit Application o Traffic Impact Study - four (4) copies of a study prepared by a Traffic Engineer in accordance with SDC 4.2-105 A.4. Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) allow the City to analyze and evaluate the traffic impacts and mitigation of a development on the City's transportation system. In general, a TIS must explain how the traffic from a given development affects the transportation system in terms of safety, traffic operations, access and mobility, and immediate and adjoining street systems. A TIS must also address, if needed, City, Metro Plan and state land use and transportation policies and objectives. Complete Incomplete See Transportation Note(s) NA Traffic Impact Study o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Transportation Note(s) Access to streets, alleys, and properties to be served, including the location and dimensions of existing and proposed curb cuts and curb cuts proposed to be closed o Improvement and Public Utilities Plan Complete Inplete See Transportation Note(s) El Location and type of existing and proposed street lighting Location, width, and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks, sidewalk ramps, pedestrian access ways, and trails Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 1, Page 17 of 21 Location, widths (of paving and right-of- way) and names of all existing and proposed streets, alleys, dedications, access easements or other right-of-ways within or adjacent to the proposed development, including ownership and maintenance status, if applicable 1) Location of existing and required traffic control devices Transportation Notes: 7. Applicant must provide school bus zone signage in coordination with the Springfield School District transportation division requirements. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 1, Page 18 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PRE -SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Deputy Fire Marshal: Gilbert Gordon Case #: 23 -00033 -PRE FIRE o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Fire Note(s) On-site vehicular circulation o Improvement and Public Utilities Plan Complete Incomplete See Fire Note(s) Location of existing and required fire hydrants and similar public facilities Fire Notes: 8. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Access and water supply pre-existing; within code requirements Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 1, Page 19 of 21 ANY REQUIRED ADDITIONAL MATERIALS, APPLICATIONS OR PERMITS IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OR APPLICATIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONSIDER UTILIZING EITHER THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING OR THE PRE - APPLICATION REPORT FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION: Applicable Not Applicable Where a multi -family development is proposed, any additional materials to demonstrate compliance with SDC 3.2-240 Riparian Area Protection Report for properties located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any Water Quality Limited Watercourses WQLW) or within 100 feet of the top of bank of any direct tributaries of WQLW A Geotechnical Report prepared by an engineer must be submitted concurrently if there are unstable soils and/or a high water table present Where the development area is within an overlay district, address the additional standards of the overlay district If five or more trees are proposed to be removed, a Tree Felling Permit as specified in SDC 5.19-100 E A wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands must be submitted concurrently where there is a wetland on the property Any required federal or state permit must be submitted concurrently or evidence the permit application has been submitted for review Where any grading, filling or excavating is proposed with the development, a Land and Drainage Alteration permit must be submitted prior to development Where applicable, any Discretionary Use or Variance as specified in SDC 5.9-100 and 5.21-100 An Annexation application, as specified in SDC 5.7-100, where a development is proposed outside of the city limits but within the City's urban service area and can be serviced by sanitary sewer Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 1, Page 20 of 21 THIS APPLICATION IS: COMPLETE FOR PROCESSING INCOMPLETE AND NEEDS MISSING INFORMATION NOTED ABOVE 1; 4, d Planner March 3, 2023 This is not a decision on your application. Springfield Development Code Section 5.4- 105 and Oregon Revised Statutes 227. 178 require the City take final action on a limited land use decision within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. The 120 -day processing period for this application begins when all the missing information is submitted or when you request that the City proceed without the information. You must indicate by either signing this form or by submitting a written response to the City within seven days of the date of this form asserting your intentions regarding the provision of the missing information. If you indicate herein or in your written response that the missing information will be submitted, then you have 180 days from the date the application was submitted for Pre -Submittal Review to provide the City with the missing information. If you refuse to submit the missing information, then upon receipt of the full application packet and processing fee, the City will deem the application complete for purposes of starting the 120 - day clock and begin processing the application. No new information may be submitted after the start of the 120 -day period unless accompanied by a request for an extension of the 120 -day processing time. Upon receipt of a request for extension, the City may extend the 120 -day period for a reasonable period of time. The City may also require additional fees if the new information is submitted after the Notification to Surrounding Property Owners is sent out and a second notification is required or if the new information substantially affects the application proposal and additional review is required. I, the owner/applicant, intend to submit all missing items indicated herein to the City within the 180 -day timeline. Owner/Applicant's Signature Date Revised 10/ 25/ 07 Attachment 1, Page 21 of 21 City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Site Plan Review SPii1NOF1la - 6w Application Site Plan Review Pre-Submittal:Major Site Plan Modification Pre -Submittal: LJSitePlanReviewSubmittal: LFIMior Site Plan Modification Submittal: Required Project Information (Applicant: complete this section) Applicant Name: EC Cares Phorie: 541-346-1000 Company: University of Oregon Email: Address: 1585 E 13th Ave, Eugene, OR 97403 Applicant's Rep.: Lom Nelson Phone: 541465-1003 Company: Rowell Brokaw Architects Email: lorri@rowellbrokaw.c Address: 1203 Willamette Suite 210, Eugene, OR 97401 Pro a Owner: Springfield School District 319 Phone: 541-726-3201 Company: Email. bren.yamay@spnngfie1d.kl2.or.0 Address: 640A Street, Springfield OR, 97477 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-03-35-12-06800 TAX LOT NOS : 6700,6800 Property Address: Not Assigned - G Street, Springfield, OR Proposed No. of NASizeof Property: 18,240 Acres Square Feet X I Dwellina Proposed Name of Project: EC CARES -G STREET Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: Place two -classroom modular on site with playground & extend utilities to building. Existing Use: UNDEVELOPED New Impervious Surface Coverage (Including Bldg. Gross Floor Area): 11,158 sf sf Si natures: Please sin and Drint your name and date in the a31?ro Required Project Information (City Intake Staff., Associated Applications: riate box on the next a e. complete this section) Signs: Pre -Sub Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: p Case No.: I' J I h a 2 Date::J Reviewed by: 1 Application Fee:[$ .5'' yyg l Technical Fee: $ d u'" i 1.nPosttrra e Fee: $Jo') TOTAL FEES: $ Go b PROJECT NUMBER.%N-; — Revised 1/7/14 KL v of 11 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 21 Signatures The undersigned acknowledges that the information in this application is correct and accurate. Applicant: ( ems Date: 2023-03-21 Signature If the applicant is not the owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to am in Date: 2023-03-21 he Signature Brett Yancy Revise! 1/1/08 Molly Markarian 2 of 4 Attachment 2, Page 2 of 21 SPR / DISCRETIONARY USE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARES (ECC — Springfield) NARRATIVE R0INELL 2023-03-23 B n O VA The existing site is a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, adjacent to the Springfield High School. The site is owned by the school district. All utilities are nearby for connection. The project includes site preparation, utility connection and placement of a modular building on the site. It also includes construction of new ramps / stairs, playground area, covered play structure (Alternate #1) and 3 parking spaces on site (one ADA and two standard). EC Cares will occupy the building. They are an organization within the University of Oregon College of Education that provides early intervention and early childhood special education to infants, toddlers and preschool age children in Lane County. Each classroom will have one full time staff members and 1-3 part time staff on site during the day with no regularly planned activities at night. Children will be dropped off at the street curb via private vehicle or district bus. The drop-off area will be marked with signage and painted curb. The modular building will consist of two classrooms, two offices, storage, prep kitchen for warming snacks and restrooms. The modular will not include a sprinkler system. It will have a stand alone fire alarm system. There are no plans for expansion at this time. 111 Attachment 2, Page 3 of 21 LEGEND PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE ASPHALT WOOD PLAYGROUND CHIPS FESTORMWATERAREA IRRIGATED i1PLANT BED - IRRIGATED UTILITY EASEMENT CONCRETE PAVING EXISTING SIDEWALK TO REMAIN 4- _ TO BE REMOVED ASPHALT WOOD PLAYGROUND CHIPS FESTORMWATERAREA IRRIGATED i1PLANT BED - IRRIGATED GATES CONCRETE MOW BAND WMEET REE, T P. Flay til m 1" = 30'-0" EC Cares - Springfield o, 15, 30' 2023-03- 23 POWELLBRO} AW LAWN - IRRIGATED EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO 4- _ TO BE REMOVED NEW STALL FENCE GATES CONCRETE MOW BAND WMEET REE, T P. Flay til m 1" = 30'-0" EC Cares - Springfield o, 15, 30' 2023-03- 23 POWELLBRO} AW Attachment 2, Page 4 of 21 TRASH CAN ENCLOSURE EARLY CHILDHOOD CARES (ECC — Springfield) 2023-03-23 Trash can enclosure will be similar to this — prefabricated metal. OLL B OKA'11i'`; 212 Attachment 2, Page 5 of 21 Projeet LED Decorative k Emergencyw/PC Catalog Number Die-cast aluminum housing in dark bronze powder - coated finish Polycarbonate lens and mirrored reflector Integrated photocell standard Self -diagnosing, self -testing unit 90 minute emergency operation _mow Push -to -test switch and charge indicator Rechargeable Ni -Cad battery ^ Y 5 -year limited warranty `- SPECIFICATIONS DIMENSIONS Input Line Frequency 60Hz LWPI 2BZACEMSDT850 6.3"x10.4"x3.86 Lamp Life (Rated) 50,000H, Minimum Starting Temp -20°C Maximum Operating temp 40oC CRI >_ 80 Lii ecoinc.com Manufactured by C cys""t"U0.1"Ou.. Attachment 2, Page 6 of 21 WN1 LEDPI 1,550 Indent, ITIN WPX LED MIKE 20V -37/ V WPKI IED P2 2,9001 ... dENW 40K 4000K Wall Packs 50K 5000K Dl BI... I ._ control surP,E( e l... NMI :krolhemplfon; cmvlthnary. I floe sn no a 0 5pDUg 1 OhlTRL oaJ ,r`ruz s upon y Introduction Specifications The WPX LED wall packs are energy-efficient, cost- effective, and aesthetically appealing solutions for both HID wall pack replacement and new construction opportunities. Available in three sizes, the WPX family delivers 1,550 to 9,2001umans with a wide, uniform distribution. The WPX full cut-off solutions fully cover the footprint of the HID glass wall packs that they From view side vjew replace, providing a neat installation and an upgraded appearance. Reliable IP66 construction and excellent LED lumen maintenance ensure a cops[ 0.1"(20.fion1 11.1^(E8.3Lm) 31'(8.1m) U're3dr) 0.6(1.6Dn) 6ubz(ze) long service life. Photocell and emergency egressWPX39.1"(13.1 Lm) n.r13t1 and as°Uastm) 4s^Ins<m) D.rp.zgn) 8.31bs(3) 1 battery options make WPX ideal for every wallWpx3gs(za.t en) 13.V(33ALm) s.r(t3]Lm) 4.a^pzoan) D.z°pADn) 11.011ahO mounted lighting application. WN1 LEDPI 1,550 Indent, ITIN 30K 3000K MIKE 20V -37/ V WPKI IED P2 2,9001 ... dENW 40K 4000K 347 347VI It LED 6,000lumil 47W 50K 5000K Dl BI... WNBLED UOntinne 9Nl control surP,E( e l... NMI :krolhemplfon; cmvlthnary. Note: The lumen output and input powerer shown in the ordering free are average representations of all configuration options. Specific values are available on request FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS til NDEDUSE The WPXoar- olpada aced caned bprovide acost-eReain WPMaMdenxsolaa, dar Me,para xno to SLAWLAmyervy avkring HlOID ii- encemki WPX1.WPHIaMWPX3arildeal for anon. wd up to 1 mia 25Gw antl4UMr HID luminaires respec4vel%ViPX luminainsdellmr aumfaan. wide diahibuhon. WPX', reRo kr-00°C [o 4g°C. CONSTRUCTIONWPXkatureadlecaauluminum main hotly unit optimal thermal managencm NatbotM1 enhanmx LED aKcaryand wema mmrynem life Tha irmmmma ora IPM rated, and sealed Edina[ nersommorernimnmmundeenGminauts. ELECTRICAL b'gMengineb) corgu abom mmist Onar-offi-VLEDs and LED lumen maimenarm e LW/tW,CW Mars. Colortemperz[we ICGW nlxionx o130',gK 4CP]K antl SWEKwith minimum CRIat FedmmL6kVxwge d=emusayslemiencrfch-cryGsimat TNDy. Allluminaireslore Pwtettion (Noe: WP%1 LED PI package comes your a RandaN surge pmaetion raring of 25kV.11 me be ordered with an optional 6. sml,endere, All pbotau rrI opmata on MVOLT(IXN-2/JYt input NM,,Th,,tandard WP%LF wall W,kluminoireswmewitM1M1eld.adjmtabledrivecurrem feaNre. This 6aL aallarm tuningthe o,W,tanentof the LED tldven to adjust the lumen cRput(Wdlm[he luminalm. EXAMPLE: WPX2 LED 40K MVOLT DDBXD blank) Ron, 008%D Wrkbmnze E4WH mugmrybalrerybatkup, C£Cmmprtam DWN%D WAlte 14W, Doc minl' Dl BI... E14WC control surP,E(e l... NMI :krolhemplfon; cmvlthnary. Dar 20 (mlWa PE Darrell a. 1. All WPX-11 packs come with 6kvial promeran standard, except Wool LED P1 patagewhichcomeswi162.Sky surae potectan standard. Add SPLV, notion W get WPX1 LED Pt ith daysurge proneemor Sample fomealre: WPXI IED P140KMWLTSPE)l DORM 2. Banery pack aptioaeon"., am WPXI.ndWFIM. 3. Battery pack options not availablewill 347Vand PE options. INSWLLATION WPXmonato oy,mr tom ova fantail elect alju on Wrt.Three t/B incM1 conduit porizcti onthreesadazallow(onurfe¢ contlukwlrlrg.Aporton rhe 6aNmrferiallwrs erfaideirroconduitdnpanxodausNardon[hav neuronallun onbm.Widngeaarar—SeiL. In-, omm mmpa0nen[mall eaaeaWPX laonly remmmendetl M'ma[ellMionSwidLLECsfacnydownrvarda. LISTINGSCSACodified m meetLLS. and Canadian Standards. 5u'Rable fawet dooda e. Read Oesi,rhathS ConsodWm® IOLCI quitsee product. Not ell emsions ofth6 product may be DLC qualified Prior "all I OLCOwiffad Pmduas Dit at 9P2rito confirm Wnich ve uareqlified. le toalDarkSkyka0 on pDA) HereSueal ofApproval FSacy roil lekrall moduNantilt page milhomg MOOK colortemp-sameonly WARRANttLxalimited w amr Tl the only anti padded and no boom youlteromentre,this Inerrea nshee any w only ofolry and .All other spasandlmplied wanantet aredifinala. Complete vanry e ma located at Lexie:Had,e9m- , msAer. soMfood 'HprLmod IILrMet. elo: actual pedmm maydiPera sdt of mcf-io and appllm Allvalm aealgndorgpioel value ad under Stanley coand.... t25° CLo Spe6neations cabaretto flange wtboutoatte. L/ il'sVI //a4 Work Use Bre. IzvfAR2 One Lithone Way ° Conyea, Wreao30012 ° Phone. 1.800705-SERVIrwhr •—Ichoniacon UGNT/NG I.W. Amie/erandeL ing, mc. Aurignta aeereed. COMMERCIALcHTDOOR Attachment 2, Page 7 of 21 Peiformance DataLumen Output Electrical Load Projected LED Lumen Maintenance DMreerence eetlmpolMedpeAomanmprgections Ina25°C ambient based 6000 hours of LE0 fasting 1RMed perIESNA LM 80-08 endprojec0.dperer the unan mand dTo miw LITeansonerba3usethelumenmaimenancefattmr wnesionamds tothe desired numberofoperatmg hours below. For heon maimenanw ulim nl.n OPera0ag Doers 3000N 1,53) Lumen Maintenance Fao[ar WPXI LED 100W 11W WPXI LED P2150W WPXIHDp1 11W 0.09 0.05 O.oS 004 0.03 MUMPZ 24W 020 0.12 0.10 009 0.07 WPX2 47W 039 1 0.23 1 0.20 1 0.17 0.14 WPX3 69W OSA 1 0.33 1 0.29 1 015 010 Projected LED Lumen Maintenance DMreerence eetlmpolMedpeAomanmprgections Ina25°C ambient based 6000 hours of LE0 fasting 1RMed perIESNA LM 80-08 endprojec0.dperer the unan mand dTo miw LITeansonerba3usethelumenmaimenancefattmr wnesionamds tothe desired numberofoperatmg hours below. For heon maimenanw ulim nl.n OPera0ag Doers 3000N 1,53) Lumen Maintenance Fao[ar WPXI LED 100W 11W HID Replacement Guide 3000N 1,53) a oolputfuc average anti iem temperatures from 0 50°C(32.122 - F OK 11 I.DS WPXI LED 100W 11W WPXI LED P2150W 24W WW 250W 4]W WPX3 400W 69W Lumen Ambient Temperature LAT) Multipliers WPXI LEO PI 3000N 1,53) a oolputfuc average anti iem temperatures from 0 50°C(32.122 - F OK 11 I.DS 400DX 1,568 SWm 1.602 WPXI Lon P2 3000X 2,198 4000X 2,912 5% 41`F 1.04 SWOE 2,954 10°( SOT 103 Wpm 3000X 5,119 15Y 591 1.02 COOK 5,896 ZOY 68T 1.01 SWCL 6,201 25C T 1.00 Wpm 3000X Dgm 30"c 86T 0.99 ME 9,269 35°C 95T 0.98 5000X 9,393 40°C 104°F 0.97 Emergency Egress Battery Packs The emergency battery backup Is Imegml to the luminaire — no eternal housing or back box is required. The emergency ordinary will power the luminaire For a minimum duration of 90 minutes and delber minimum ini0al output of 550lumers. eolh battery pack options are CEC compliant. StedH OT 4W 9WN WPX2LWT)KMVORE!.! DOAXU Co18Weathel -ZO°C 14W E14Wf WPN2 Lf040XMVOLifi4WCD0A%D P Toieaccordanepweith PESNA gre and LM -80 se da dsor doweload es0leslomhis product. vizithelithonia LighOng VIPx LEO homepage. Tested in LEGEND WPXI LED PI U.tk m 0.2k OSk Lab I I AM LED I. WPXI LED PZ I & WPX3 LLD Mpaati, aei9ht-12 feet. i i L/TNON/A one emonia Way - Cnnrem, George 3DD12 . Phone -.noon -205SERV n318l • .,•,•, uhonia _un,eV.leo UGHT/NG 0.1. nNiN Rrandb u9euns. i Al nshiseeehed e 01croy COMMERCIAL OUMOOR Attachment 2, Page 8 of 21 B Attachment 2, Page 9 of 21 City of Springfield Development & Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMPLETENESS REVIEW CHECKLIST Project Name: EC Cares Site Plan Review SPR[MGFIELD rKI0104 Iq OREGON Project Proposal: Construction of a 2,688 ft' modular classroom building with parking lot, playground, stormwater facilities, trash enclosure, and landscaping on a vacant residential site. Case Number: 811 -23 -000033 -PRE Project Address: NW corner of the intersection of 81h and G Streets Assessors Map and Tax Lot Number(s): Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800 Zoning: Low Density Residential (R-1) Overlay District(s): Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Applicable Refinement Plan: Refinement Plan Designation: Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (R-1) Completeness Check Meeting Date: March 3, 2023 Application Submittal Deadline: August 30, 2023 Associated Applications: 811 -22 -000252 -PRE (Development Issues Meeting) POSITION REVIEW OF NAME Project Planner Land Use PlanningAnd Limbird 726-3784 Transportation PlanningEngineer Transportation Michael Liebler 736-1034 Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Clayton MCEachern 736-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Building Official Building Chris Car enter 744-4153 1JJ [N_1 I11y1 rI t 1JuI i1R:i A'/1`il_1 I EC Cares Lorri Nelson University of Oregon Rowell Brokaw Architects 1585 E. 13th Avenue 1203 Willamette St., Suite 210 Eugene OR 97403 Eugene OR 97401 Revised 10/ 25/07 Attachment 2, Page 10 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION COMPLETENESS REVIEW CHECKLIST PLANNING o Application fee - discuss the applicable fees o Copy of the Site Plan reduced to 81/2"x 11" CompleteInc plate See Planning Note(s) El1 8 1/2" x 11" Copy of Site Plan o Copy of the deed and a preliminary title report issued within the past 30 days documenting ownership and listing all encumbrances. If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) Deed and Preliminary Title Report o Brief narrative explaining the purpose of the development, the existing use of the property, and any additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken. The narrative should also include the proposed number of employees and future expansion plans, if known. Complete Inc plate See Planning Note(s) 2 Brief Narrative o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) E U/ 3 Revised 10/25/07 Prepared by an Oregon Licensed Architect, Landscape Architect, or Engineer Proposed buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area applicable to the parking requirement for the proposed use(s)), setbacks from property lines, and distance between buildings Location and height of existing or proposed fences, walls, outdoor equipment, storage, trash receptacles, and signs Location, dimensions, and number of typical, compact, and disabled parking spaces; including aisles, wheel bumpers, directional signs, and striping Dimensions of the development area, as well as area and percentage of the site proposed for buildings, structures, parking and Attachment 2, Page 11 of 21 Revised 10/25/ 07 vehicular areas, sidewalks, patios, and other impervious surfaces N/A Observance of solar access requirements as specified in the applicable zoning district On-site loading areas and vehicular and pedestrian circulation M Location, type, and number of bicycle parking spaces Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for common open spaces, recreational areas, and other similar public and semi-public uses 4 Location of existing and proposed transit facilities o Phased Development Plan Where applicable, the Site Plan application must include a phasing plan indicating any proposed phases for development, including the boundaries and sequencing of each phase. Phasing must progress in a sequence promoting street connectivity between the various phases of the development and accommodating other required public improvements, including but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water, and electricity. The applicant must indicate which phases apply to the Site Plan application being submitted. Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) N/A Phased Development Plan o Landscape Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) 5 Drawn by a Landscape Architect 19 5 Location and dimensions of landscaping and open space areas to include calculation of landscape coverage 5 Screening in accordance with SDC 4.4-110 E 5 Written description, including specifications, of the permanent irrigation system 6 Location and type of street trees 5 List in chart form the proposed types of landscape materials (trees, shrubs, ground cover). Include in the chart genus, species, common name, quantity, size, spacing and method of planting Revised 10/25/ 07 Attachment 2, Page 12 of 21 o Architectural Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Note(s) o On -Site Lighting Plan Complete Incomplete See Planning Exterior elevations of all buildings and structures proposed for the development site, including height Conceptual floor plans Note(s) Location, orientation, and maximum height of exterior light fixtures, both free standing and attached Type and extent of shielding, including cut-off angles and type of illumination, wattage, and luminous area 7 Photometric test report for each light source Planning Notes: 1. Please provide a reduced size copy of the site plan with the application submittal. 2. No project narrative was included with the submittal, aside from comments on the cover plan sheet. 3. Provide building elevation details for the proposed trash enclosure. Enclosure must be covered and hydraulically isolated. A floor drain plumbed to the sanitary sewer system will be required for the trash enclosure area. 4. Add a note that the nearest transit facility is approximately 250 feet west of the site at the NW corner of 7th and G Streets. 5. A detailed site landscaping plan is required with the site plan submittal. 6. Provide the type(s) of street trees to be planted along the site frontages. 7. Provide a photometric report for the proposed wallpack lights. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Subject site location is misidentified on the cover zoning map. Subject site is not 812 G Street, which is across the street to the east. An address assignment will be provided at a later time and it will be off 8`h Street based on the proposed driveway location. As discussed previously, site plan approval subject to a Discretionary Use permit for educational facilities in the R-1 residential district. Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 2, Page 13 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PRE -SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Engineer: Clayton McEachern Case#:811-23-000033-PRE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING o Site Assessment of Existing Conditions Complete Incomplete See PW Note(s) Prepared by an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer Vicinity Map The name, location, and dimensions of all existing site features including buildings, curb cuts, trees and impervious surface areas, clearly indicating what is remaining and what is being removed. For existing structures to remain, also indicate present use, size, setbacks from property lines, and distance between buildings 0 n/ a The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses and required riparian setback that are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map on file in the Development Services Department n/a The 100 -year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adapted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in SDC 3. 3- 200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development Services Department Physical features including, but not limited to trees S" in diameter or greater when measured 4 1/1 feet above the ground, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, riparian areas, wetlands, and rock outcroppings 3 Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical Report prepared by an Engineer must be submitted concurrently if the Soils Survey indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or a high water table Revised 10/25/ 07 Attachment 2, Page 14 of 21 o Improvement and Public Utilities Plan must be in compliance with the regulations of SDC Sections 5.17-100, 4.1-100, 4.2-100, and 4.3-100 and must include the following information: Complete Incomplete See PW o Grading and Paving Plan Complete Incomplete See PW Notes) 5 3 Note(s) Prepared by an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer Location and width of all existing and proposed easements 4 Location of existing and required power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units, and similar public facilities 6 Location and size of existing and proposed utilities on and adjacent to the site, including sanitary sewer mains, stormwater management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the proposed connection points o Grading and Paving Plan Complete Incomplete See PW Notes) 5 3 3 3 Prepared by an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer Planting plan prepared by an Oregon licensed Landscape Architect where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be retained Existing and proposed spot elevations and contours lines drawn at 1 foot intervals (for land with a slope over 10 percent, the contour lines may be at 5 foot intervals) Amount of proposed cut and fill o Stormwater Management System Study - provide four (4) copies of the study with the completed Stormwater Scoping Sheet attached. The plan, calculations, and documentation must be consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Complete Inc plete See PW Note(s) 3 Scoping Sheet and attached Stormwater Management System Study Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 2, Page 15 of 21 PIN Notes: 1. There is an existing driveway dip near the existing pole not shown. In the proposed plans there are several new dips to be installed along the sidewalk on G Street for loading/unloading buses. This will need to be explicitly approved by transportation. Typically ROW cannot be used for loading/unloading for adjacent private development. 2. Project is in the 20 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ). 3. A stormwater study is submitted with this application. 4. What is the status of the existing overhead wire crossing the site? It is shown remaining on the utility plan, this is not allowed per the development code. It appears the only service on this line is to the adjacent private property? 5. Planting/landscaping plan is required for rain garden and for the new street trees required along G Street. 6. It appears the trash enclosure does not have sanitary drain installed, this must be covered and drain to sanitary. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Per the general notes no pre -con meeting is required for this project as no PIP is required. Revised 10/ 25/07 Attachment 2, Page 16 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST Transportation Engineer/ Planner: Michael Liebler P. E. Case#: 23-000033 Applicant: EC Cares TRANSPORTATION o Right -of -Way Approach Permit application must be provided where the property has frontage on a Lane County or an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility. Complete Incomplete See Transportation Note(s) 0 NA Copy of ROW Approach Permit Application o Traffic Impact Study - four (4) copies of a study prepared by a Traffic Engineer in accordance with SDC 4.2-105 A.4. Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) allow the City to analyze and evaluate the traffic impacts and mitigation of a development on the City's transportation system. In general, a TIS must explain how the traffic from a given development affects the transportation system in terms of safety, traffic operations, access and mobility, and immediate and adjoining street systems. A TIS must also address, if needed, City, Metro Plan and state land use and transportation policies and objectives. Complete Incomplete See Transportation Note(s) NA Traffic Impact Study o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Transportation Note(s) Access to streets, alleys, and properties to be served, including the location and dimensions of existing and proposed curb cuts and curb cuts proposed to be closed o Improvement and Public Utilities Plan Complete Inplete See Transportation Note(s) El Location and type of existing and proposed street lighting Location, width, and construction material of all existing and proposed sidewalks, sidewalk ramps, pedestrian access ways, and trails Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 2, Page 17 of 21 Location, widths (of paving and right-of- way) and names of all existing and proposed streets, alleys, dedications, access easements or other right-of-ways within or adjacent to the proposed development, including ownership and maintenance status, if applicable 1) Location of existing and required traffic control devices Transportation Notes: 7. Applicant must provide school bus zone signage in coordination with the Springfield School District transportation division requirements. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 2, Page 18 of 21 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PRE -SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Deputy Fire Marshal: Gilbert Gordon Case #: 23 -00033 -PRE FIRE o Site Plan Complete Incomplete See Fire Note(s) On-site vehicular circulation o Improvement and Public Utilities Plan Complete Incomplete See Fire Note(s) Location of existing and required fire hydrants and similar public facilities Fire Notes: 8. Additional comments not related to the completeness of the application: Access and water supply pre-existing; within code requirements Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 2, Page 19 of 21 ANY REQUIRED ADDITIONAL MATERIALS, APPLICATIONS OR PERMITS IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL STANDARDS OR APPLICATIONS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT SHOULD CONSIDER UTILIZING EITHER THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUES MEETING OR THE PRE - APPLICATION REPORT FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION: Applicable Not Applicable Where a multi -family development is proposed, any additional materials to demonstrate compliance with SDC 3.2-240 Riparian Area Protection Report for properties located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any Water Quality Limited Watercourses WQLW) or within 100 feet of the top of bank of any direct tributaries of WQLW A Geotechnical Report prepared by an engineer must be submitted concurrently if there are unstable soils and/or a high water table present Where the development area is within an overlay district, address the additional standards of the overlay district If five or more trees are proposed to be removed, a Tree Felling Permit as specified in SDC 5.19-100 E A wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Division of State Lands must be submitted concurrently where there is a wetland on the property Any required federal or state permit must be submitted concurrently or evidence the permit application has been submitted for review Where any grading, filling or excavating is proposed with the development, a Land and Drainage Alteration permit must be submitted prior to development Where applicable, any Discretionary Use or Variance as specified in SDC 5.9-100 and 5.21-100 An Annexation application, as specified in SDC 5.7-100, where a development is proposed outside of the city limits but within the City's urban service area and can be serviced by sanitary sewer Revised 10/25/07 Attachment 2, Page 20 of 21 THIS APPLICATION IS: COMPLETE FOR PROCESSING INCOMPLETE AND NEEDS MISSING INFORMATION NOTED ABOVE 1; 4, d Planner March 3, 2023 This is not a decision on your application. Springfield Development Code Section 5.4- 105 and Oregon Revised Statutes 227. 178 require the City take final action on a limited land use decision within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. The 120 -day processing period for this application begins when all the missing information is submitted or when you request that the City proceed without the information. You must indicate by either signing this form or by submitting a written response to the City within seven days of the date of this form asserting your intentions regarding the provision of the missing information. If you indicate herein or in your written response that the missing information will be submitted, then you have 180 days from the date the application was submitted for Pre -Submittal Review to provide the City with the missing information. If you refuse to submit the missing information, then upon receipt of the full application packet and processing fee, the City will deem the application complete for purposes of starting the 120 - day clock and begin processing the application. No new information may be submitted after the start of the 120 -day period unless accompanied by a request for an extension of the 120 -day processing time. Upon receipt of a request for extension, the City may extend the 120 -day period for a reasonable period of time. The City may also require additional fees if the new information is submitted after the Notification to Surrounding Property Owners is sent out and a second notification is required or if the new information substantially affects the application proposal and additional review is required. I, the owner/applicant, intend to submit all missing items indicated herein to the City within the 180 -day timeline. Owner/Applicant's Signature Date Revised 10/ 25/ 07 Attachment 2, Page 21 of 21 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON FINAL ORDER FOR: REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ] 811-23-000060-TYP3 AN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATIONAL FACILITY ON VACANT PROPERTY ZONED R-1 ] 811-23-000059-TYP2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 8TH AND G STREETS ] (ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-03-35-12, TAX LOTS 6700 & 6800) ] NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL Proposed Discretionary Use Permit and Site Plan to: ▪ Allow for construction of a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building with on-site parking lot, outdoor play areas, vegetated stormwater facilities and site landscaping on two adjoining, vacant residentially-zoned lots. The subject property is generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A to this Order. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to SDC 5.1.425-440. On June 6, 2023, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing which it continued to June 21, 2023. It then conducted deliberations on the proposed Discretionary Use Permit and accompanying Site Plan Review application. The staff report, written comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing meeting were entered into the record. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the proposed Discretionary Use Permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the criteria of SDC 5.9.120. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact, conclusions and recommended condition as stated in the staff report and findings attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Order. On the basis of this record, the proposed Site Plan Review application, as conditioned, is consistent with the approval standards of SDC 5.17.125. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact, conclusions and recommended conditions as stated in the staff report and findings attached hereto as Exhibit C to this Order. ORDER/RECOMMENDATION It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that Case Number 811-23-000060-TYP3, Discretionary Use Permit and Case Number 811-23-000059-TYP2, Site Plan Review, be approved with conditions as noted in Exhibits B and C. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on June 21, 2023. ____________________________ ____________________ Planning Commission Chairperson Date ATTEST AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 3, Page 1 of 41 811-23-000060-TYP3 – DISCRETIONARY USE PERMIT FOR PROPOSED EDUCATIONAL FACILITY ON VACANT LOT NORTHWEST CORNER OF G STREET AT 8TH STREET (MAP 17-03-35-12, TL 6700 & 6800) SITE CONTEXT MAP G Street 7th Street SITE 8th Street 9th Street Springfield High School Exhibit A, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 41 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lot 6700: Lots 16, 17, 18 and that portion of the vacated North 2.0 feet of G Street adjacent on the South, Block 108, Plat of WASHBURNE’S SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S ADDITION to Springfield as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 73, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County, Oregon. Also Including: South ½ of alley adjacent on the North to Lots 16, 17 & 18 in Block 108, WASHBURNE’S SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S ADDITION to Springfield, Lane County, Oregon by Vacation Ordinance #5837 & 5838 for 1998. Tax Lot 6800: Lots 19 and 20 and that portion of the vacated North 2.0 feet of G Street adjacent on the South, Block 108, Plat of WASHBURNE’S SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S ADDITION to Springfield as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 73, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County, Oregon. Also Including: South ½ of alley adjacent on the North to Lots 19 and 20 in Block 108, WASHBURNE’S SUBDIVISION OF THE SPRINGFIELD INVESTMENT AND POWER COMPANY’S ADDITION to Springfield, Lane County, Oregon by Vacation Ordinance #5837 & 5838 for 1998. Exhibit A, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 3, Page 3 of 41 Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission Discretionary Use Request (EC Cares) Hearing Opened Date: June 6, 2023 Report Date: June 16, 2023 Case Number: 811-23-000060-TYP3 Applicant: EC Cares – University of Oregon Applicant’s Representative: Lorri Nelson, Rowell Brokaw Architects Site: Northwest corner of 8th and G Streets in Springfield (Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800) Request The applicant is requesting a Discretionary Use permit to facilitate construction of a modular classroom building for a preschool. The application was submitted on March 30, 2023 and the City conducted a Development Review Committee meeting on the Discretionary Use request and accompanying Site Plan Review on April 18, 2023. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing on the request for Discretionary Use permit at the regular meeting on June 6, 2023. The Commission continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on June 21, 2023 at 7:00 pm to allow for submittal of additional testimony and allow the applicant and staff to respond. Site Information/Background The property that is the subject of the Discretionary Use request is located on the north side of G Street between 7th and 8th Streets. The site abuts the Springfield High School campus along the northern edge. The site is currently vacant and is zoned R-1 which is consistent with the Low Density Residential plan designation as shown on the adopted Metro Plan Diagram. The property is currently vacant and has frontage on G Street along the southern boundary and a stub of 8th Street along the eastern boundary. An abandoned curb cut and driveway approach is located near the midpoint of the property frontage on G Street. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Review application under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2) for the proposed modular classroom building and associated site improvements including a driveway access onto 8th Street, parking lot, outdoor play areas and site landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission conclude the public hearing and closes the record at the regular meeting on June 21, 2023. Staff recommends approval of the Discretionary Use permit subject to the recommended condition of approval contained herein. Exhibit B, Page 1 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 4 of 41 Zoning Map Legend R-1 Residential R-2 Residential Public Land & Open Space (PLO) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Washburne Historic District Photo 1 – Site Air Photo Figure 1 – Zoning Map Extract SITE G Street SITE 9th Street G Street Springfield High School Springfield High School 7th Street 8th Street 7th Street 9th Street 8th Street 10th Street 6th Street Exhibit B, Page 2 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 5 of 41 Notification and Written Comments The Planning Commission voted unanimously at the June 6, 2023 regular meeting to continue the public hearing to the June 21, 2023 regular meeting. Notification of the initial June 6, 2023, public hearing for both the Discretionary Use permit and Site Plan Review application was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on May 5, 2023. Notification was also published in the legal notices section of The Chronicle on May 11, 2023. Public hearing notices were posted in the following public locations: on both the G Street and 8th Street frontages of the subject property; in the public notices bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall; on the City’s webpage; and on the digital display in the Development & Public Works office. Public notification was also sent to all property owners and tenants/residents within 300 feet of the site on April 20, 2023 for just the Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2) as part of the standard comment period notice for a Site Plan application. All public comments have been provided to the Planning Commission for consideration and are in the record of this application. Testimony Provided at Public Hearing: Curtis Phillips provided verbal testimony at the June 6 public hearing meeting reiterating his concerns about traffic and speeding along G Street. Mr. Phillips spoke neither in favor of nor opposed to the proposal. Mr. Phillips requested mitigation for traffic speeds on G Street in the form of a speed bump or a stop sign to slow vehicles down, especially with special needs children attending the proposed pre-school. Michael McIlrath provided verbal testimony at the June 6 public hearing meeting. He spoke in opposition to the proposal. Mr. McIlrath expressed concerns about the “haste” in which the applications have been brought forward and alleged that staff had been “directed” to work with the School District to approve the proposal. Mr. McIlrath stated that the 1997 vacation of the mid-block alley between G Street and the high school campus affirmed the boundary between the school and the adjacent residential area. Mr. McIlrath also submitted written comments, diagrams and photos at the public hearing meeting. In a historical image included with his submittal, Mr. McIlrath pointed out that there was an open space buffer between the high school and the residential area to the south along G Street. [Staff Note: The historical image in question is taken from a 1969 document that shows the newly-constructed Springfield High School in 1946]. The public hearing submittal is included herein as Attachment 4, Exhibit J. Staff Response to Public Hearing Testimony: No new issues were presented at the public hearing meeting because both speakers reiterated previously conveyed concerns about traffic, suitability of the site for the proposed use, and perceived accelerated timelines for review. Evaluation of the traffic issues raised by Mr. Phillips is found in Criterion B below. At the June 6 public hearing meeting staff explained that the multiple mailed notifications sent for the applications could have caused confusion among recipients and therefore recommended continuing the public hearing to the June 21 meeting. Continuing the public hearing was offered as a remedy to a potentially confusing notification process. The Planning Commission granted the continuance for the public hearing. All written submittals received between the time of initial notification of the Site Plan Review sent on April 20, 2023 up to and including the comments received at the June 6 public hearing have been included in the June 21 Planning Commission meeting materials as Attachment 4, Exhibits A-J. In his verbal testimony to the Planning Commission on June 6, Mr. McIlrath expressed concerns about the “boundary” between the high school and the adjacent residential neighborhood to the south being the mid-block alley vacated in 1997. The Springfield High School has changed significantly – both in terms of location and configuration – since its initial construction. However, none of this testimony is relevant to the criteria of approval or has bearing on the proposal which is for a preschool on a vacant lot adjacent Exhibit B, Page 3 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 6 of 41 to the high school campus. The proposal is not to expand the high school onto the subject property. In this report and at the public hearing meeting on June 6 staff has explained that the current R-1 zoning precludes any high school uses on the site, either under the Discretionary Use approval or otherwise. The contents of the written materials provided by Mr. McIlrath are discussed in Criterion B below. 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; those criteria 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; Exhibit B, Page 4 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 7 of 41 (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. 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; Approval Criterion: School siting is discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan. Metro Plan Policies G.22 – G.24 require coordination between the School District and the City regarding land use planning and siting of school facilities. Finding: The property is currently zoned R-1 Residential in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in the adopted Metro Plan diagram. The applicant is not proposing to change the current zoning or designation for the subject site. Finding: Provisions of the Metro Plan contemplate non-residential uses such as schools, streets, parks and government facilities in land designated for residential use. Approximately 32% of residentially-designated land is typically developed with non-residential uses (Metro Plan Residential Land Supply and Demand Finding #8). Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is consistent with Policy G.22(a) of the Metro Plan whereby the City and School District are coordinating the need for new school facilities and sufficient land to site them. The land use planning and coordination specified by Policy G.22(a) is evidenced by the Discretionary Use permit and Site Plan review submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the City as approving authority. The proposed modular classroom building is to be located on vacant land owned by the School District and it performs a key function in addressing preschool educational needs for children within the district, as detailed in the EC Cares summary included in the AIS packet as Attachment 4, Exhibit H. Approval Criterion: The adopted comprehensive plan applicable to the site is the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. Finding: As the adopted buildable lands inventory that supports the Springfield Comprehensive Plan - Residential Land and Housing Element, the Residential Housing Needs Analysis identifies the need for new and expanded school facilities as population increases. The findings of the Residential Housing Needs Analysis align with earlier findings and conclusions contained in the Metro Plan and restated in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan regarding planning and integration of schools within residential areas and responding to changing needs as population increases. However, there are no specific policies or Exhibit B, Page 5 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 8 of 41 requirements of the adopted Springfield Comprehensive Plan that apply to the proposed development. Finding: Respondent McIlrath asserts that the proposed busing of students to the classroom building is contrary to the provisions of TransPlan and Metro Plan policies which encourage neighborhood focused uses that reduce vehicle trips (ref. Attachment 4, Exhibit G). While this principle might be true for certain types of commercial and mixed-use developments – especially in frequent transit corridors – the proposed classroom building does not violate any Metro Plan policies. The Metro Plan (Section III-G-10) contemplates and supports the need for flexibility in school facility use and siting due to fluctuations in student populations in different areas of the District and anticipates a reliance on busing to keep student numbers in line with facility capacity. The proposed classroom building will rely on busing of students to the facility which is consistent with School District practice and long supported by the City’s adopted comprehensive plans. Springfield has replaced the former Metropolitan Transportation System Plan or “TransPlan” with the City’s own Transportation System Plan or TSP for the local Springfield transportation system. There are no policies or recommendations arising from the City’s TSP (last updated in 2020) that affect this project. There are no regional projects or policies in TransPlan that are applicable to this site. Moreover, the proposed modular classroom building in no way violates the provisions of the City’s adopted TSP or regional policies of TransPlan. Conclusion: The request meets this criterion. 2. Refinement plans; Finding: The subject site is not within an adopted neighborhood refinement plan area. Approval Criterion: Metro Plan Policies G.22 – G.24 are restated as Policies G.21 – G.23 in the adopted Eugene-Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP), which is a functional refinement plan of the Metro Plan. Finding: The relationship between the Metro Plan and the PFSP is described on Page I-5 of the Metro Plan. The proposed modular classroom building is consistent with the policies of the PFSP whereby the School District and City are coordinating the land use planning and siting of school facilities. This policy has been met through the applicant’s submittal of land use applications in support of the facility on vacant property owned by the School District. The City is similarly meeting its commitment to process the applications under the provisions of the Development Code. Conclusion: The request meets this criterion. 3. Plan District standards; Finding: The subject site is not within an adopted Plan District. Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable to this request. Exhibit B, Page 6 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 9 of 41 4. Conceptual Development Plans or Finding: There are no Conceptual Development Plans currently applicable to the subject site. Conclusion: This criterion is not applicable to this request. 5. Specific Development Standards in this Code; Approval Criterion: SDC Table 3.2.210 specifies that “educational facilities: elementary and middle schools” are a Discretionary Use in the R-1 district and are subject to Site Plan Review. Finding: The use of “preschool” is not listed in the Springfield Development Code. The term Elementary school or Middle School is not defined in the SDC. The term “school” is defined in SDC 6.1.100 as “A building where individuals gather to receive educational instruction, either public or private, except as otherwise specifically defined in this code. School does not include a child care facility as defined in this chapter.” In accordance with SDC 6.1.105(G) where words are not defined direction is given to rely on other sources including State laws, and dictionaries in common usage. The term “preschool” as defined in the online Merriam-Websters dictionary as “a school for children usually younger that those attending elementary school or kindergarten.” Finding: For the purpose of the proposed use, it is found that the use is a school and is allowed in the R-1 district as a discretionary use because it is an educational facility. Finding: The requirements of SDC 4.7.195 are also evaluated in more detail in the accompanying Site Plan Review application submitted under separate cover (File 811-23- 000059-TYP2). As discussed in the accompanying Site Plan Review application, those findings are incorporated by reference here, it is found that SDC 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11) only apply to schools that are 10,000 square feet or larger. Finding: To address the land use approval requirements for an educational facility in the R- 1 Residential District, the applicant has submitted this request for Discretionary Use approval. The Site Plan Review process is typically a Type 2 decision under SDC 5.17.110(A)(1)(d). However, under SDC 5.1.415(B), the Director may elevate review of a Type 2 decision to Type 3 review “due to the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary review.” The Director has determined that the Site Plan Review application is appropriate for concurrent review as a Type 3 decision given the concurrent application for Discretionary Use approval. Approval Criterion: SDC 5.9.115(A) requires that new Discretionary Uses are reviewed and approved under Type 3 procedure concurrently with or prior to approval of a Site Plan Review. Finding: With approval of the Discretionary Use request, the applicant will need to obtain approval for the accompanying Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (File 811- 23-000059-TYP2). The detailed site development plans, including vehicle access and parking, bus drop off zone, underground utilities, playground structures, street frontage Exhibit B, Page 7 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 10 of 41 improvements and site landscaping need to be addressed through the Site Plan Review process. After the completion of the public hearing process, the Planning Commission can concurrently approve the Site Plan Review application with the Discretionary Use request. Concurrent or subsequent approval of the Site Plan Review submitted as File 811-23-000059- TYP2, with any conditions necessary to meet the criteria of approval, is hereby made a condition of approval to satisfy Approval Criterion SDC 5.9.115(A). Finding: In his submitted comments and at the public hearing meeting on June 6, respondent McIlrath has expressed concerns about the review and approval process for the Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review being “rushed” and “hasty”. Mr. McIlrath identified the May 4 deadline for submittal of written comments as being insufficient due to delays in mailing. The mailed notice stating a May 4 deadline was for comments specific to the Site Plan Review application (File 811-23-000059-TYP2). The subsequent mailed and published notice provided for the June 6 public hearing includes both the Site Plan Review and Discretionary Use permit (File 811-23-000060-TYP3), indicating the record on the staff reports is open until closed at or following the public hearing. All comments submitted by Mr. McIlrath between April 25 and June 6 are included with this staff report (Attachment 4, Exhibits B, C, E, G, I and J). To the extent that the first Site Plan Review notice caused any confusion regarding the deadline for submitting comments related to the proposed development, City staff recommended the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until the next regular meeting on June 21 to allow additional time for public comment. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing meeting to June 21. Finding: Regarding the issue of sufficient time for review and comment, the applications were submitted on March 30, 2023 and considered complete on April 18, 2023 and the City has met all required public notification timelines for Type 3 Site Plan Review and Type 3 Discretionary Use permit. Under Oregon state law, the City must issue a decision on a complete land use application within 120 days, including the provision for any local appeals. The public hearing for this application was opened on June 6, 2023 and continued to June 21, 2023 which is day 64 of the approval timeline. This is consistent with the approval timeline for similar Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review applications. The public hearing being continued to June 21 provides additional opportunity for the public and the applicant to submit comments and for staff to provide supplemental information on police traffic reports from G Street. The approval process for these applications is consistent with the requirements of the Springfield Development Code, and the City’s adopted and acknowledged Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Plan. Recommended Condition of Approval: 1. To satisfy SDC 5.9.115(A), concurrent with or subsequent to approval of the Discretionary Use Permit the applicant must obtain Planning Commission approval for the Site Plan Review initiated by Case 811-23-000059-TYP2. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal meets this criterion. Exhibit B, Page 8 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 11 of 41 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 proposed modular building on the property is to accommodate an early childhood education program provided by EC Cares. In response to issues raised by respondent McIlrath in his submitted comments, the Discretionary Use permit process is the approval process used to confirm that a proposed use will not be conspicuously different from – or impose adverse effects on – existing uses adjacent to the property and in the immediate vicinity. By submitting the Discretionary Use permit and having the request scheduled for public hearing before the City’s Planning Commission, the applicant has met this requirement for “conditional use permit” identified by respondent McIlrath in the April 25 comments (note that these comments were submitted before Mr. McIlrath received notice of the Discretionary Use application). Parking Approval Criterion: In accordance with SDC 4.6.125, the parking requirements for modular classroom buildings are one per classroom plus one per 100 ft2 of assembly area. Finding: Comments submitted by respondents describe concerns about parking issues created or exacerbated by the proposed classroom building. Currently, the property frontage along 8th Street has painted curbs that prohibit parking. There is on-street parking along G Street frontage. Finding: There is no assembly area within the modular building, therefore the parking requirement under SDC 4.6.125 is two spaces. The parking requirement is satisfied with the proposed three-space, on-site parking lot. Additional review of the site parking is contained in Section 9 of the accompanying Site Plan Review (File 811-23-000059-TYP2). Finding: The applicant is proposing to replace the G Street parking frontage with a dedicated school bus loading and unloading area. Approximately 88 feet of curb line will be required for two bus loading spaces as depicted on Sheet L-1.0 of the applicant’s submittal. With delineation of two bus loading spaces, there is approximately 60 feet of curb line remaining along the property frontage that could accommodate up to three parallel parking spaces at the western edge of the site. Three vehicle parking spaces are being provided on-site which approximates the impact of a two-classroom modular building. The provision of three on- site parking spaces meets the requirements under SDC 4.6.125 and therefore the proposed development will be sufficient to mitigate any potential adverse impact on the availability of on-street parking in the neighborhood. Finding: To the extent that the proposed modular classroom building displaces existing on- street parking available for public use, if the lots were developed with any type of outright permitted residential use, including middle housing, there could be one or more driveways installed to access off-street parking for residents, which would reduce the available space of on-street parking. The demand for the on-street parking would likely be higher from new Exhibit B, Page 9 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 12 of 41 residents using the curb line for their own parking if no off-street parking was provided. In either development scenario the existing on-street parking would be diminished or displaced. Outright permitted residential development on the lots meeting R-1 district standards, including middle housing, would not require any type of land use approval and would proceed directly to building permit. Permitted R-1 development would thus have a greater impact on the availability of on-street parking than the proposed Discretionary Use. Finding: The opportunity to use available on-street parking for students, parents, or nearby residents is not a guarantee or a right since it exists within the public right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to retain some on-street parking along the property frontage. This information in combination with the finding above about similar impact for residential uses leads to the conclusion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed use. Finding: At the public hearing, respondents expressed concerns about the proposed school bus zone along the G Street frontage of the site. The use of the public right-of-way for exclusive school bus use was raised as an adverse impact. There is an existing LTD bus stop one block to the west at 7th and G Street that precludes on-street parking in that area. In addition, on a daily basis, public school buses pick up students throughout the R-1 (and other land use districts) by stopping within the public right-of-way. For these reasons the proposed bus loading zone is like other uses of the public right of way in the R-1 zoning district and will not have adverse impacts on the neighboring land uses. Finding: In the written materials submitted on June 6, respondent McIlrath provided photos of vehicles parked along G Street. According to the notations provided with the photos, some were static (i.e. unoccupied) parked vehicles – possibly high school students or neighborhood residents – and some were occupied vehicles. The occupied vehicles were indicated to be parents waiting to pick up students from the high school. The pictures do not show obvious parking problems, conflicts or infractions. Traffic Finding: Comments submitted by respondent McIlrath demands a traffic impact study for the proposed modular classroom building. Respondent McIlrath points to the requirement under SDC 4.7.195(A)(11) for a Traffic Impact Study to be provided for a school. The proposed modular classroom building is being reviewed through a Type 3 process. However, because the modular classroom building is about 2,677 ft2 it does not meet the criteria for requiring the Specific Development Standards of SDC 4.7.195, therefore these standards are not applicable. Finding: Comments submitted by respondents describe concerns about traffic congestion and safety. Vehicles are not typically travelling at high speeds through the area when there is traffic congestion Respondent McIlrath points to vehicles being backed up for two blocks or more at the four- way stops at 7th and G Streets when school is just starting or has just let out. Observations and complaints about congestion are incongruous with respondents’ requests for additional stop signs and speed bumps along G Street because these traffic control measures are likely to increase congestion. Introducing another stop control at 8th and G Street to make it a four- Exhibit B, Page 10 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 13 of 41 way stop will further congest the G Street corridor during busy times in mornings and afternoons on school days. The City’s Transportation Planning Engineer states that one of the most effective ways to address congestion is to provide a grid system of streets that allow for vehicles to travel in all directions to and from the site. This condition exists at the proposed development site because there is a two-way stop at the 8th and G Street intersection allowing for travel east, south and west and there is a four-way intersection at 7th and G Street. The Transportation Planning Engineer states that stop signs are not an effective traffic calming measure when they are installed without being warranted by existing traffic volumes or conflicts, because they lead to an increase in mid-block speeding, disregarding of the stop sign installation, and/or diversion of traffic to adjacent streets because some drivers will try to avoid the traffic control feature. For these reasons, installing a four-way stop at 8th and G Streets would not effectively mitigate any increase in congestion or traffic conflicts caused by the Discretionary Use approval. Finding: Respondent Phillips suggests a speed bump or stop sign as a remedy for speeding as a separate concern from traffic congestion. The City’s Transportation Planning Engineer and the City’s Traffic Engineer have reviewed the requests for a speed bump and/or a stop sign to mitigate traffic speeds and state that they disagree that these will provide a remedy. As stated in the prior finding, installing a stop sign at an intersection that does not warrant this treatment will have adverse impacts, including potential increase in mid-block speeding. Finding: There are no speed bumps on any of the surface streets in this area of Springfield. These speed control devices are typically used on private sites such as manufactured home parks or commercial shopping centers where there is mixing of significant pedestrian and vehicle traffic and there is a desire to prevent higher speed, shortcutting traffic. There is no evidence in the record that shows that there would be a similar level of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts as exist on a private shopping center, that would justify a speed bump adjacent to the proposed development. The feature constructed at Dos Rios/Two Rivers School is not a speed bump and is discussed below under Pedestrian Safety. Finding: The Springfield Police Department provided call log and incident information for the three-block section between 7th and G Street and 10th and G Street for the period of January 1, 2019 to May 31, 2023 (Attachment 5, Exhibit A). Five traffic accident reports were also sent (Attachment 5, Exhibits B-F). According to the compiled information, a total of 38 incidents were recorded during this period. Of these incidents, no accidents involving pedestrians were reported. The most serious accident – in terms of reported damage – was a collision between a private vehicle and an LTD bus that occurred in the intersection of 10th and G Street. A total of eight motor vehicle accidents were reported and six of the eight were at or near the 4-way stop intersection of 10th and G Street. Of the remaining two accidents, one occurred on a Saturday in the 700 block of G Street and the other was a sideswipe to a parked vehicle in the 900 block of G Street. No accidents were noted at the intersection of 8th and G Street. Finding: Of the 30 other traffic-related incidents that were logged between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023, five occurred on the weekend and 16 occurred in the evening or overnight hours when no schools were operating (i.e. between 5:00 pm and 7:00 am). This leaves nine calls over three years for traffic issues occurring during school hours. Of these nine calls, Exhibit B, Page 11 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 14 of 41 four occurred at the intersection of 10th and G Street, three occurred at or near the four-way stop at 7th and G Street, one occurred at 9th and G Street and one occurred at 8th and G Street. The reported traffic stop on 8th and G Street was at around noon on Wednesday, December 15, 2021. No further details of the traffic stop were provided. Based on the police call logs and accident reports for the three-block segment of G Street between 7th and 10th Streets, the intersection of 8th and G Street had the fewest occurrences of calls overall and especially during school operating hours of Monday – Friday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm. Finding: Based on the information provided by the Springfield Police Department identified above, there is no existing safety issue present at or in the vicinity of 8th and G Street that would warrant a traffic impact analysis to assess the traffic safety impacts of the proposed preschool use. Pedestrian Safety Finding: Operation of the classroom building will be largely consistent with the operating hours of other schools in the vicinity. Most of the students will arrive at the facility by bus, which reduces the total amount of private vehicle trips associated with the classroom building. It is not expected that the early childhood educational facility will generate vibrations, odors, emissions, glare, dust or other adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Finding: The property requested for Discretionary Use approval is zoned R-1 and it borders an existing residential dwelling on the west boundary only. On the north the site abuts the Springfield High School campus, and on the east and south it has frontage on public streets (8th and G Streets). Finding: There will be daytime noise and activity during construction of the new site improvements, which includes relocation of perimeter fencing, construction of a new driveway approach and parking lot, installation of utilities, and siting of the modular building. However, short duration noise spikes are not regulated through the Springfield Development Code and are mitigated by daytimebackground noise from nearby school activities, traffic on G Street and public transit operations already occurring along the site frontage. Nighttime construction of a private facility is not permitted without a special noise permit approved by the City Council. Additionally, the proposed site work should not require extensive excavation or prolonged use of heavy equipment or machinery that would introduce new or excessive noise to the site. According to the response to written comments provided by EC Cares, upon completion of the classroom building, the preschool will follow a specialized program of instruction based on the specific needs of students and have activities occurring both indoors and outdoors. Finding: Comments submitted by respondents describe concerns about speeding along G Street, which represents an existing condition. These comments are anecdotal and are not supported by any speed studies, police data or other traffic information submitted into the record. Respondents also expressed concerns that preschool aged children, especially those with special needs, would be particularly vulnerable at crossings if vehicle speeds were not addressed. Exhibit B, Page 12 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 15 of 41 Finding: There is an absence of traffic speed data for G Street and the respondents did not request or conduct a speed study in support of these allegations. To determine whether a speeding problem exists during busy periods, the City’s Traffic Operations and Engineering Section conducted a speed study on May 25, 2023 at the time of school release (2:49 pm – 3:30 pm). A radar gun was used to record vehicle speeds on G Street between 8th and 9th Streets. The entire length of G Street between 3rd Place and 14th Street is posted as a 25 mph zone. During the course of the speed study 97 passenger vehicles were recorded. The speed study found that the average speed of vehicles was 25 mph and the 85th percentile speed (i.e. speed at which at least 85% of the vehicles were under) was 29 mph. Finding: The traffic incident information provided by the Springfield Police Department and discussed in the “Traffic” section above confirms there are no elevated risks for pedestrians at this location. In his written submittal, respondent McIlrath provided photos of children and teens crossing the streets near the intersection of 8th and G Streets. Again, there are no obvious issues or concerns noted in the photographs: the pedestrians are crossing at the corners and traffic (including school buses) are yielding to them as should be expected. Based on the information provided by the police, staff observations and recorded data at the site, and submittals by respondent McIlrath there is no elevated risk to pedestrians at the 8th and G Street intersection. The evidence shows that construction and operation of a preschool at the corner of 8th and G Street - where students are bused to the site – will not increase the risk to pedestrians crossing 8th or G Street. Finding: Comments submitted by respondents recommend traffic calming or traffic control measures such as speed bumps and stop signs to mitigate speeding. Respondents point to the “speed bump” at Dos Rios/Two Rivers Elementary School as a viable measure. The “speed bump” on G Street in front of Dos Rios/Two Rivers School is an elevated pedestrian crossing that functions in part as a speed control and in part as a crosswalk. The Transportation Planning Engineer states that the elevated crossing was installed because it represents a mid- block pedestrian connection between the parking lot on the south side of the street and the main school entrance on the north side of the street. There is more pedestrian traffic associated with Dos Rios/Two Rivers School because hundreds of students attend the school and the parking lot served by the elevated crossing is frequently used for parent pick-up and drop-off of students from private vehicles. Finding: Students will be bused to the proposed site and dropped off curbside on the north side of G Street. Based on the applicant’s submittal and testimony provided at the public hearing on June 6, the proposed school would be served exclusively or almost exclusively by busing. From the bus drop off zone on the G Street frontage the students can walk directly to the school entrance without crossing a street. It is not expected that many students (or any at all) would be arriving to the site on foot or unaccompanied. Therefore, an elevated pedestrian crossing is not necessary or warranted for the subject site. Finding: Comments submitted by respondents identify speeding vehicles as hazards to pedestrian safety that warrant four-way stops and crosswalks along G Street. Under Oregon law, every intersection is a crosswalk whether it is marked/striped or not. There are existing, striped crosswalks at 7th and G Street and 10th and G Street where there are also four-way stop traffic controls. No striped crosswalks are provided on G Street at 8th or 9th Streets. Exhibit B, Page 13 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 16 of 41 Finding: Respondent McIlrath contends that installing a driveway for the facility on 8th Street will obstruct pedestrian travel to and from the high school. The proposed site parking lot for the facility contains three parking spaces and the driveway is located on the lower classification street of the two street frontages in accordance with SDC 4.2.120(B). Installing a second driveway to serve the property along G Street is prohibited because it is a collector street with higher traffic and pedestrian volumes. A driveway from G Street would increase congestion by creating a new traffic conflict point on G Street. Conversely, the proposed driveway on 8th Street has better sight lines, avoids conflicts with the bus loading zone and consolidates conflict points on the local street to one location which is in line with driver and pedestrian expectations. The driveway will experience very few vehicle trips because it is solely used for the three proposed on-site parking spaces. Finding: Respondent McIlrath expressed concerns that the applicant’s statements about busing of students, limiting vehicle trips and parking demand associated with the site and other operational matters should be considered “provisional.” The characteristics of the modular classroom building and its proposed use as a preschool is the focus of this application; no other uses are proposed or would be allowed. If EC Cares were to abandon the facility another educational program for preschool or elementary education could occupy the building under the provisions of the Discretionary Use permit. However, the Springfield High School could not expand onto the site because high schools are not allowable in the R- 1 District – even with a Discretionary Use permit. A rezoning of the property would be required if high school activities were proposed – a land use action requiring another public review and comment period and a public hearing. Similarly, the site characteristics could not be changed in the future without requiring additional development review, such as by modification to the Discretionary Use permit. Conclusion: The proposal meets this sub-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 G Street along the southern boundary and on 8th Street along the eastern boundary. The site is located on the northwest corner of a street intersection that provides for vehicle and bicycle access from nearby local and major streets that connect to the entire city and region. The segment of G Street along the property frontage is signed as a 25 mph zone because it is designed and intended as a low-speed neighborhood collector street that primarily conveys traffic to and from existing residences and educational facilities on G Street. Finding: The subject site is less than one mile from Fire Station #4 at 1475 Fifth Street, which provides for rapid emergency response via 5th and G Streets. Finding: Lane Transit District operates Routes 17 (5th Street/Hayden Bridge) and 18 (Mohawk) which run past the proposed development site on G Street. There are existing transit stops for both east- and west-bound riders located one block west of the subject property near the intersection of 7th and G Streets. Exhibit B, Page 14 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 17 of 41 Finding: Between Pioneer Parkway East and 14th Street, G Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph and has striped crosswalks at key intersections, including 7th and G Street and 10th and G Street which are proximate to the subject site. Under Oregon state law, all street intersections are crosswalks – whether marked or not – so there are pedestrian connections to the site from all directions. Finding: Both site frontages are improved with public sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to install pedestrian walkways from G Street to the modular building allowing for students dropped off by bus or arriving on foot to access the main entrance. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install a new driveway on 8th Street to serve the classroom building and associated parking lot. Under SDC 4.2.120(B), a site must take driveway access from the lower classification street where a site has frontage on more than one street and the streets have different functional classifications. Because G Street is classified as a collector street, the proposal meets this requirement by taking access from the local street (8th Street). In responses to written comments, the proposed driveway has been confirmed to be located on a street with sight lines in conformance with SDC 4.2.130, Vision Clearance Area, and SDC Table 4.2.4, Minimum separations between a driveway and the nearest intersection curb return on the same side of the street. The proposed driveway is expected to experience minimal traffic due to the small size of the parking lot (i.e. three spaces), and is not anticipated to interfere with pedestrian movements along the fronting sidewalk or traffic movement on 8th Street. Finding: The findings included under Criteria 1 in the “Parking,” “Traffic,” and “Pedestrian Safety” demonstrate that there is existing safe and adequate on-site and off-site vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access and facilities. 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 regulated wetlands or riparian areas within the project area. Finding: Respondent McIlrath describes the northern edge of the proposed development site as a former natural boundary between the developed portion of Springfield and the City limits at 10th and G Streets, and that drainage channels that directed runoff to the river used to run within the alley along the northern edge of the subject property. Even if there was a previous drainage channel in the past, there are no remaining natural or manmade surface drainage features or wooded areas within the project area. Drainage in this neighborhood has been formalized through a system of catch basins within the public street system and a network of underground pipes that direct runoff to public stormwater outfalls – in this case, the Willamette River. This criterion pertains only to the existing features of the site and does not require restoration of any previously-existing features. There are no existing natural stormwater management or drainage areas on the site. Exhibit B, Page 15 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 18 of 41 Finding: The site is currently vacant and is seeded with turf grass. There are no wooded areas on the site. Conclusion: 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 just outside the northern edge of the Washburne Historic District and was previously developed with residential dwellings. Public utilities are available on the site periphery including water, electricity, telecommunications and sanitary sewer. The applicant will be responsible for managing stormwater drainage on the site. The topic of adequate public facilities and services is addressed in more detail in the accompanying Site Plan Review (File 811-23-000059-TYP2) under Standard of Approval 6; those findings and any conditions are incorporated by reference here. Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended Condition 1 requiring concurrent or subsequent approval or conditional approval of the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2), 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 proposed modular classroom building is similar to a residential dwelling in terms of size and scale (i.e. approximately 2,677 ft2 and single-story). The applicant is proposing to orient the building to the G Street frontage and provide driveway and parking access from 8th Street. The northern boundary abuts the Springfield High School campus and the property on the east side of 8th Street across from the development site is a vacant lot that is also owned by the Springfield School District. Therefore, the site abuts a less intensive use on only the western boundary. Finding: The applicant is proposing to retain an existing fence along the western boundary of the site where it adjoins a residential property. A five-foot wide landscaping strip is proposed along the western edge of the site and active play areas are focused on the northern and eastern edges of the site (i.e. away from the adjoining residential property). The proposed landscaping buffering and increased building and play area setbacks from the western boundary mitigates any potential impact to the adjoining residential use. The existing G Street buffers the proposed use from the residential properties to the south. Finding: It is not expected that the proposed use will generate unusual noise, odors or emissions, aside from occasional noise and activity associated with children playing outside. The modest size of the facility combined with the anticipated number of students limits the potential for noise that is detectable from less intensive uses in the vicinity. Exhibit B, Page 16 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 19 of 41 Finding: The proposed modular building and associated improvements meet the applicable setbacks from perimeter property lines and abutting land uses as evidenced by the findings and conclusions in the accompanying Site Plan Review application under Standard of Approval 3 (File 811-23-000059-TYP2), which findings are incorporated herein by reference. Finding: The applicant is proposing to use wall-mounted, residential-style light fixtures for the modular building. The proposed lighting should be similar to fixtures used elsewhere in the adjacent residential neighborhood. No light towers or pole-mounted lights are proposed on the site. Therefore, it is not expected there will be any adverse effects from lighting on the subject site. Conclusion: The proposal meets this criterion. 2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable; Finding: The applicant will be required to satisfy the conditions of approval for this Discretionary Use Permit and the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2) prior to or concurrently with obtaining Final Site Plan approval and building permits for this project. Any Site Plan Review conditions are incorporated herein by reference. Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended Condition 1 requiring approval of the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (File 811-23-000059-TYP2), the proposal meets this criterion. 3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority; and/or Finding: No other conditions of Discretionary Use approval are being recommended. Recommended conditions required to address specific site development and operational issues are described in the accompanying Site Plan Review approval (Case 811-23-000059- TYP2). Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended condition listed above, 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 requesting concurrent approval of the Site Plan Review submitted for the modular classroom building (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2). However, the applicant is not requesting alternate design criteria or proposing to depart from the cited Code standards for this facility. Conclusion: As described herein and with the recommended Condition 1 requiring approval of the Site Plan Review submitted under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2), the proposal meets this criterion. Exhibit B, Page 17 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 20 of 41 Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria of Discretionary Use under SDC 5.9.120. Conditions of Approval SDC 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. The proposed modular classroom building has been reviewed and additional recommended conditions of approval are described in the companion Site Plan Review application for this development submitted under separate cover (Case 811-23-000059-TYP2). This Discretionary Use Permit will need to be approved before approval can be issued for the accompanying Site Plan Review. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. To satisfy SDC 5.9.115(A), concurrent with or subsequent to approval of the Discretionary Use Permit the applicant must obtain Planning Commission approval for the Site Plan Review initiated by Case 811-23-000059-TYP2. Exhibit B, Page 18 of 18 Attachment 3, Page 21 of 41 TYPE 3 TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, staff report & RECOMMENDATIONS Project Name: EC (Early Childhood) Cares Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Construct a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building and associated driveway, parking lot, playground, site landscaping and stormwater management facilities for a pre-school on a vacant residential property near downtown Springfield. Case Number: 811-23-000059-TYP2 Project Location: 700 Block of G Street (Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800) Zoning: R-1 Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) (Metro Plan) Overlay Districts: Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Completeness Check Meeting Date: March 3, 2023 Application Submitted Date: March 30, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Dates: June 6 and 21, 2023 Associated Applications: 811-22-000252-PRE (Development Initiation Meeting); 811-23-000033-PRE (Completeness Check Meeting); 811-23-000060-TYP3 (Discretionary Use Permit) APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant: Luke Helm EC Cares – University of Oregon 1585 E. 13th Avenue Eugene OR 97403 Applicant’s Representative: Lorri Nelson Rowell Brokaw Architects 1203 Willamette Street, Suite 210 Eugene OR 97401 Project Engineer: Anna Backus, PE KPFF Consulting Engineers 800 Willamette St., Suite 400 Eugene OR 97401 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034 Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036 Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-2293 Building Official Building Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153 SITE 7th Street 8th Street G Street B Street Springfield High School 7th Street 9th Street Exhibit C, Page 1 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 22 of 41 Page 2 of 20 Site Information: The proposed project site is a vacant, rectangular-shaped parcel that is located at the northwest corner of G Street and 8th Street. The subject property is comprised of two adjoining lots that are owned by the Springfield School District. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building along with a new driveway and parking lot off 8th Street, pedestrian walkways, outdoor play areas, site landscaping, bus drop off area along G Street and vegetated stormwater management facilities on the vacant property. The subject site is located adjacent to and east of 724 G Street but the property has not yet been assigned a municipal street address (Map 17-03-35-12, Tax Lots 6700 & 6800). The property is zoned R-1 Residential in accordance with the low- density plan designation shown on the Metro Plan diagram. Thus, current zoning is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan designation. The extreme northeast corner of the property is within the mapped 5-10 year time of travel zone and the remainder of the property is within the 10-20 year time of travel zone for the Q Street drinking water wellhead. RECOMMENDATION: This Type 2 Site Plan Review application has been elevated to a Type 3 decision at the discretion of the Director in accordance with SDC 5.1.415(B). This report is a recommendation for approval to the Planning Commission. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans or as conditioned herein. The Planning Commission decision is a Type 3 land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the Planning Commission decision is final. (See Page 17 for a summary of the conditions of approval.) REVIEW PROCESS: The application is being reviewed under the Site Plan Review approval standards of SDC 5.17.125. The Director has elevated this application to a Type 3 review in accordance with provisions of SDC 5.1.415(B) because the applicant has applied for a concurrent Discretionary Use permit under separate cover (File 811-23-000060-TYP3). Procedural Finding: The subject application was submitted on March 30, 2023 and considered complete on April 18, 2023. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 6 and continued the public hearing to June 21, 2023 which is day 64thof the 120 days mandated by Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 227.178 for issuing a final decision at the local level. Procedural Finding: Applications for Type 2 and 3 Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-day comment period on the application for Type 2 applications and a 20-day public hearing notification for Type 3 applications (SDC 5.1.425). This application was initially distributed to adjacent property owners and occupants as a Type 2 land use action with a 14- day comment period. The application was subsequently elevated to a Type 3 land use action and provided with a 20- day public hearing notification period. The applicant and parties submitting testimony during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision (See Written Comments below). This application was subsequently elevated to a Type 3 Land Use Decision at the discretion of the Director and is tied to the Type 3 Discretionary Use permit submitted under separate cover (File 811-23-000060-TYP3). Notification of the June 6public hearing meeting for the Discretionary Use permit included reference to the Site Plan Review application. Based on the foregoing, two notices and opportunities to comment were provided for the subject Site Plan Review application and all comments received during both notification periods are addressed in the Discretionary Use permit report. Requirement for Final Site Plan: As stated in SDC 5.17.130, the Final Site Plan must comply with the requirements of the Springfield Development Code and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise must be in conformance with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) must not be changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Modification. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1.425, notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on April 20, 2023. Public hearing notification for the combined Type 3 Discretionary Use Exhibit C, Page 2 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 23 of 41 Page 3 of 20 and Site Plan Review was mailed to adjacent property owners/occupants on May 5, 2023. Staff responded to several telephone calls and emails regarding the proposal and written comments were received from four respondents. The written comments and staff responses are addressed in the staff report and recommendations for Discretionary Use permit, File 811-23-000060-TYP3. SITE PLAN APPROVAL STANDARDS: SDC 5.17.125(A), Site Plan Approval Standards states, “The Director must approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed Site Plan Review application based on the following standards.” The subject application has been elevated to a Type 3 review by the Director because it has been submitted concurrently with a request for Discretionary Use permit under separate cover (File 811-23-000060-TYP3). Therefore, the Planning Commission is the approval authority for this decision. 1. The proposed land use is a permitted use or is allowed as a discretionary use in the land use district. Approval Standard 1.1: SDC Table 3.2.210 specifies that “educational facilities: elementary and middle schools” area Discretionary Use in the R-1 district and are subject to Site Plan Review. Finding: The use of “preschool” is not listed in the Springfield Development Code. The term Elementary school or Middle School is not defined in the SDC. The term “school” is defined in SDC 6.1.100 as “A building where individuals gather to receive educational instruction, either public or private, except as otherwise specifically defined in this code. School does not include a child care facility as defined in this chapter.” In accordance with SDC 6.1.105(G) where words are not defined direction is given to rely on other sources including State laws, and dictionaries in common usage. The term “preschool” as defined in the online Merriam-Websters dictionary is “a school for children usually younger that those attending elementary school or kindergarten.” Finding: For the purpose of the proposed use, it is found that the use is a school and is allowed as a Discretionary Use in the R-1 district as an educational facility. The applicant has submitted a Discretionary Use permit for the facility under separate cover, File 811-23-000060-TYP3. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 1. 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. Approval Standard 2.1: Prior or concurrent approval of the Discretionary Use permit is necessary for the Site Plan Review to be approved. Finding: The applicant has submitted a Discretionary Use permit under separate cover (File 811-23-000060- TYP3). The Planning Commission reviewed both the Discretionary Use permit and accompanying Site Plan Review at the public hearing meeting opened on June 6 and at the continued public hearing on June 21, 2023. The Planning Commission conducted deliberations and adopted the Discretionary Use permit on June 21, 2023. Prior or concurrent approval of the Discretionary Use permit is necessary for Approval Standard 2.1 to be met and for the Site Plan Review to be approved. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 2. 3. The proposal complies with the standards of the land use district of the subject property. Finding: The subject site is comprised of two adjoining, vacant residential lots that have frontage on 8th Street along the eastern boundary and G Street along the southern boundary. The total site area is approximately 0.42 acres (18,240 ft2) and the applicant is proposing to construct a 2,677 ft2 modular classroom building with associated improvements including a driveway and parking lot accessed from 8th Street; bus drop off lane on G Street; pedestrian walkways from G Street to the building entrance; outdoor play areas; vegetated stormwater management facilities; and site landscaping. Exhibit C, Page 3 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 24 of 41 Page 4 of 20 Approval Standard 3.1: SDC 3.2.215 requires that parcels within the R-1 district must be at least 1,000 ft2 for townhomes; 3,000 ft2 for single-unit or duplex dwellings; 5,000 ft2 for tri-plex dwellings; 5,000 ft2 for cottage clusters; and 7,000 ft2 for fourplexes. There are no minimum lot frontage requirements. Finding: There are no specific dimensional standards for non-residential uses in the R-1 District. However, the subject site has approximately 152 feet of frontage on G Street and 120 feet of frontage on 8th Street which exceeds the requirements for any residential use in the district. Approval Standard 3.2: SDC 3.2.220 requires a 10-foot front and rear side yard setback for primary structures in the R-1 District. Side yard setbacks are 5 feet in the R-1 District. Finding: The proposed modular building is set back more than 10 feet from all perimeter property lines which meets this requirement. Approval Standard 3.3: SDC 3.2.225 limits the total building coverage to 45% for the R-1 District. Finding: The proposed modular classroom building will occupy approximately 15% of the site, which is less than the 45% coverage requirement for residential dwellings and accessory structures as listed in SDC 3.2.225. Approval Standard 3.4: SDC 3.2.230 limits the maximum height of buildings within the R-1 district to 35 feet. Finding: The proposed single-story building is approximately 12 feet high as measured at the roof peak which meets this requirement. Approval Standard 3.5: SDC 3.2.235 describes measures for determining dwelling unit density in residential districts. Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is not designed or intended for residential occupancy. Therefore, the minimum dwelling unit density provisions of SDC 3.2.235 are not applicable to this proposal. Approval Standard 3.6: SDC 3.2.240 describes special development standards for panhandle lots. Finding: The proposed development site is comprised of two rectangular lots that have combined frontage on G Street and 8th Street. The development site is not classified as a panhandle lot or parcel. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 3.2.240 are not applicable to this proposal. Approval Standard 3.7: SDC 3.2.245 – 3.2.275 describes special development standards for various dwelling unit types including middle housing forms. Finding: The proposed modular classroom is not classified as a single-unit dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, or a form of middle housing. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 3.2.245-275 are not applicable to this proposal. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 3. 4. The proposal complies with any applicable approved master plan, master facilities plan, refinement plan, and/or special planned district. Finding: The subject site is not within an adopted refinement plan area. Additionally, the property is not within an approved Master Plan area and is located outside the Washburne Historic District. Approval Standard 4.1: SDC 3.3.235 establishes development standards for sites within the mapped Time of Travel Zones for Springfield’s Drinking Water wellheads. Exhibit C, Page 4 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 25 of 41 Page 5 of 20 Approval Standard 4.2: SDC 3.3.220(C)(3) states that tax lots having parts lying within more than one Time of Travel Zone are governed by the standards of the more restrictive zone. SDC 3.3.220 governs sites within the 0- 1 year, 1-5 year, 5-10 year and 10-20 year Time of Travel Zones. Finding: The subject property is within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay district (DWP). The extreme northeast corner of the site is within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone and the remainder of the property is within the 10-20 year Time of Travel Zone for the Q Street drinking water wellhead. For the purpose of this review, the subject property is considered to be within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone in accordance with SDC 3.3.220(C)(3). Approval Standard 4.3: SDC 3.3.235(C) establishes development standards for properties within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone. SDC 3.3.235(C)(1) allows for the storage, handling, treatment, use, production or otherwise keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) is allowed upon compliance with containment and safety standards specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City. Approval Standard 4.4: SDC 3.3.240 states that the approving authority may attach conditions of approval that will minimize negative impacts of regulated substances on groundwater and ensure that the facility or the proposed development can fully meet the standards specified in SDC 3.3.235. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: on-site monitoring wells, Wellhead Protection Area signs, special storm water facilities or other conditions to address specific risks associated with the proposed development. Finding: The Drinking Water Source Protection Coordinator has reviewed the proposed development and determined that the proposed modular classroom building should not contain hazardous materials that, in aggregate, pose a risk to groundwater. Therefore, a Drinking Water Protection permit is not required for this proposed development. Finding: As a water quality protection measure, SUB Drinking Water Protection recommends that a Wellhead Protection Area sign be placed at the trash enclosure in accordance with SDC 3.3.240. These signs are available from SUB Water for a nominal cost and the applicant can contact Amy Chinitz at amyc@subutil.com or call 541- 744-3745. Recommended Condition of Approval: 1. The Final Site Plan must provide for installation of a SUB Wellhead Protection Area sign at the outdoor trash enclosure to meet the requirements of SDC 3.3.240. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 4. 5. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.2, Infrastructure Standards-Transportation. Standard of Approval 5.1: SDC 4.2.105(B) requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) when a development is expected to generate 100 peak hour vehicle trips or 1,000 daily vehicle trips as determined by the 11th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, or when traffic safety, street capacity.or multimodal concerns may be associated with the proposed development. Finding: The first of the criteria in (1) is for a Peak Hour Threshold. The second in (2) is for an Average Daily Traffic Threshold. For the subject proposal, the development is expected to generate fewer than 25 peak hour trips and less than 70 total vehicle trips based on a two-classroom modular building for 30 students with 2-3 staff. This does not account for the proposed student busing which will reduce the peak hour and daily vehicle trips. Because the worst-case scenarios of no busing with 30 students arriving separately using “Day Care” or “Elementary School” ITE trip generation rates does not approach the threshold levels for requiring a TIS, neither of the criteria are met to trigger a TIS. A third criteria in (3) is for a Variance or Known Issues Threshold. A variance has not been submitted for this application. Comments have been submitted identifying concerns about Exhibit C, Page 5 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 26 of 41 Page 6 of 20 traffic safety and capacity but these are not supported by submitted evidence, staff data collection or traffic reports provided by the Springfield Police Department. The Discretionary Use permit (File 811-23-000060-TYP3) evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed site development on parking, traffic and pedestrian safety and found there was no known issue that rendered the site unsuitable for the preschool or created an adverse impact that required mitigation. The findings in the Discretionary Use permit under the criteria SDC 4.2.105(B) are incorporated herein by reference. Standard of Approval 5.2: SDC 4.2.105(G)(2) requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City’s street system and that development has unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage must be fully improved to City specifications. Standard of Approval 5.3: SDC 4.2.105 states that improvement requirements for local and collector streets include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, planter strip, street trees, street lighting, and stormwater management facilities. Standard of Approval 5.4: SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) states that sidewalks must be separated from the curb by the planting strip. Alternatively, sidewalks may be proposed to not meet this standard when necessary for connectivity, safety, or to comply with street design requirements subject to approval by the approving authority. In this case, the approving authority is the Planning Commission. Standard of Approval 5.5: SDC 4.2.140 states that street trees are required to be planted or replaced for every 30 feet of frontage except where required streetlights or approved driveway approaches are located. Street trees are also set back from intersections to preserve vision clearance areas. Finding: The subject site is currently vacant so the construction of a modular classroom building will introduce new traffic onto the City’s street system. Therefore, Standard of Approval 5.2 applies to this proposal. Finding: The southern boundary of the site has frontage on G Street, which is classified as a neighborhood collector street. The eastern boundary of the site has frontage on 8th Street, which is classified as a local street. Therefore, Standard of Approval 5.3 applies to this proposal. Finding: The southern boundary of the project site has frontage on G Street, which is classified as a neighborhood collector street. The public collector street abutting the subject site is developed to neighborhood collector street standards with curb, gutter, setback sidewalk, street trees, paving and street lighting. Curbside parking is available on both sides of the street and there are no striped bicycle lanes. The subject property has one street tree that has deteriorated and is proposed to be removed, so two new trees are to be installed with the project as depicted on Sheet L-1.0. The proposed street trees and frontage improvements meet the requirements of SDC 4.2.105 and Figure 4.2-N. The proposal satisfies Standards of Approval 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 for the G Street frontage. Finding: The eastern boundary of the project site has frontage on a stub of 8th Street, which is classified as a local street. The public local street abutting the subject site is developed to urban standards with curb, gutter, setback sidewalk, planter strip and three new street trees that were installed by the Friends of Trees organization in Spring 2023. The applicant is proposing to construct a new curb cut and driveway approach onto 8th Street to serve the on-site parking lot. An Encroachment Permit for work within the public right-of-way will be required for this driveway construction and the permit can be obtained from the City’s Development & Public Works Department. Upon completion of the work the site frontage will meet the requirements of SDC 4.2.105. The proposal satisfies Standards of Approval 5.2, 5.3 and 5.5 for the 8th Street frontage. Finding: The applicant is proposing to modify the planter strip along the G Street frontage of the site. Therefore, Standard of Approval 5.4 applies to the proposal. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install concrete panels within the planter strip along G Street to allow for students begin dropped off at the curb line by bus to cross the landscaping areas. The applicant is proposing the additional curbside panels to improve safety and connectivity for students and persons with disabilities being Exhibit C, Page 6 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 27 of 41 Page 7 of 20 dropped off at the curbside allowing them to proceed onward to the public sidewalk and connecting walkways to the school entrance. In addition to improving safety and connectivity, the curbside panels will prevent erosion of the planter strip from pedestrian traffic between the curb line and sidewalk. Staff recommends approval of the additional concrete panels within the bus zone planter strip as a suitable alternative standard as contemplated by SDC 4.2.135(C)(3). Finding: The applicant is advised that a sidewalk permit will be required to cover the additional concrete work proposed along the G Street frontage. Finding: The proposed site driveway on 8th Street is depicted at or near the location where a street tree was recently installed by the Friends of Trees organization. It is recommended that the newly-installed street tree is relocated to the G Street frontage of the property to satisfy one of the two developer-provided street trees as shown in the applicant’s Planting Plan, Sheet L-2.0.. Alternatively, the applicant can contact the Friends of Trees organization and have them remove the tree and relocate it elsewhere within the neighborhood to prevent loss of the tree when the driveway is installed. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, this proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 5. 6. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.3, Infrastructure Standards-Utilities. Sanitary Sewer Approval Standard 6.1: SDC 4.3.105(B) requires that sanitary sewers must be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers must provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Approval Standard 6.2: SDC 4.3.105(C) requires that sanitary sewers must be designed and constructed in conformance with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). Approval Standard 6.3: SDC 4.3.105(D) states the City Engineer must approve all sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems prior to development approval for an application proposing or requiring new sanitary sewer construction Approval Standard 6.4: SDC 4.3.105(F) states the sanitary sewer system must be separated from any stormwater sewer system. Where outdoor or partially exposed floor drains are provided, Chapter 3.02.4.e of the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Section 3.6 of the City of Eugene Stormwater Management Manual require that loading docks, material transfer areas and trash enclosures must be covered and hydraulically isolated from potential stormwater runoff and directed to the sanitary sewer system. Finding: The applicant is proposing to connect the new building to an existing 10-inch public sanitary sewer line that runs east-west just outside the northern property line. A connection to the public sewer line is depicted on the applicant’s utility plan (Sheet C4.0). The applicant will need to add a cleanout for the sanitary sewer lateral serving the proposed building in conformance with Detail 4-4a of the City’s Standard Construction Specifications. Finding: The proposed sewer connection location does not match City records for an existing sewer lateral serving this property. The applicant can either use the existing sewer lateral (requiring a plumbing permit) or install a new tap and lateral to the sewer main (requiring an additional encroachment permit). Finding: The proposed building has a trash enclosure with an overhead cover and residential-style rollout bins. A floor drain is noted and depicted on Sheet C4.0 of the civil plans. The proposed trash enclosure equipped with a floor drain that is plumbed to the sanitary sewer system meets the requirements of the SDC 4.3.105(F). Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6. Exhibit C, Page 7 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 28 of 41 Page 8 of 20 Stormwater Management Approval Standard 6.5: SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) requires that a stormwater management system must be installed to serve each new development within the city limits. Approval Standard 6.6: SDC 4.3.110(A)(3) states the stormwater management system must be designed and constructed in conformance with SDC 4.3.110(B) - Stormwater Study Standards. Approval Standard 6.7: SDC 4.3.110(A)(5) states that any development that creates or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area and discharges to the storm system must install storm water controls that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into the city stormwater system. The storm system must be constructed consistent with the City’s EDSPM. Section 3.03 of the City’s EDSPM requires that private stormwater facilities provide for suitable ongoing maintenance to ensure the long-term functionality of the system. Approval Standard 6.8: SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii) requires that a Stormwater Study provides a hydrological site map showing existing and proposed stormwater pipes and channels including sizes and cross-section details. Finding: The existing site is vacant and seeded with turf grass so it is almost entirely pervious surface. The proposed modular building, parking lot and playground will create more than 5,000 ft2 of new impervious surface so the applicant has prepared and submitted a stormwater study for the project. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) & (B) the applicant is installing a stormwater management system to manage site drainage. Overflow from the constructed stormwater system must be directed to the nearest public system, which is located in 8th Street. Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) & (B) the applicant is proposing to construct a rain garden and soakage trench to address typical rainfall frequency events as determined by SDC Table 4.3.1. However, there is no apparent connection to the public stormwater system for overflow, which does not comply with approval standard 6.7. An overflow connection to a weephole in the curb line along 8th Street is feasible to construct and therefore will be made a condition of approval necessary to comply with this standard. Finding: The existing public stormwater system is just outside the northern edge of the Washburne Historic District and it has limited capacity. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B) and the EDSPM, the applicant has prepared and submitted a hydrologic analysis and stormwater calculations showing that the proposed rain garden and soakage trench will limit the peak stormwater discharge rates to the predeveloped 2-year storm event for both the 2 and 25-year post-developed storm event. Finding: The applicant is proposing to use vegetative treatment and infiltration of runoff from the site to address stormwater quality. These include a rain garden in the northeast corner of the site and a filter strip adjacent to the walkway at the building entrance. An overall landscaping and planting plan has been provided for the site which includes planting lists for the proposed stormwater facilities. Finding: The applicant has provided a Stormwater Study with hydrological site map. The map shows the dimensions but not the cross-section of the proposed filter strip. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii), a detailed cross-section of the filter strip must be provided. The cross-section detail must be consistent with the standards for Filter Strip facilities as shown in Appendix B of the Eugene Stormwater Management Manual, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Finding: To address the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), the applicant has provided an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for the rain garden, soakage trench and filter strip meeting the standards of EDSPM 3.03.1. Because the installed stormwater management system is intended to serve the development site in perpetuity, a notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement that commemorates the applicant’s obligations for maintaining the private drainage facilities needs to be recorded against the property. The recorded notice Exhibit C, Page 8 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 29 of 41 Page 9 of 20 ensures that the maintenance obligations remain in place irrespective of changes in property ownership and/or tenancy. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 2. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must provide an overflow connection from the rain garden to a weephole in the curb line of 8th Street. 3. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must include a cross-section detail for the vegetated filter strip. The cross section must show compliance with the standards listed on the Filter Strip detail attached to this decision as Attachment A. 4. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), prior to approval of the Final Site Plan the applicant must record a Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement consistent with Appendix 3A-1 of the City’s EDSPM against the subject property and provide evidence thereof to the City. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6. Water Quality Protection Finding: The subject site is not located near a Water Quality Limited Watercourse, or within or adjacent to a riparian protection area. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.3.115 are not applicable to this proposal. Natural Resource Protection Areas Finding: The subject site does not contain any inventoried natural resources. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.3.117 are not applicable to this proposal. Underground Placement of Utilities Approval Standard 6.9: SDC 4.3.125 requires that whenever possible, all utility structures, facilities and equipment must be placed underground. Finding: There is an existing power pole along the G Street frontage of the property with an overhead wire that runs northward into the site. The applicant is proposing to remove the power pole, guy wires and overhead service line and install new underground utility connections to the modular building. Finding: The proposal meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.125 for placement of utilities underground and thereby satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6. Electric System Approval Standard 6.10: SDC 4.3.127(A) and (B) requires that electrical systems are available and have the capacity to serve the proposed development. Finding: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the electrical system within the Springfield City limits north of the Mt. Vernon Road alignment, which includes this site. Finding: SUB Electric advises that a new electrical service will be required for the proposed building. There is an existing power pole and transformer on G Street at the southwest corner of the property. The current design would take a power drop from the existing pole-mounted transformer and run the electrical line northward inside the western boundary of the property and then eastward along the northern edge of the site to a transformer located near the midpoint of the northern site boundary. Underground electrical service lines would run Exhibit C, Page 9 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 30 of 41 Page 10 of 20 southward from the transformer to the proposed modular building as depicted on Sheet E100 of the applicant’s submittal. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6. Water System and Fire Protection Approval Standard 6.11: SDC 4.3.130(A) requires that each development area must be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish an adequate water supply to the development with sufficient access for maintenance. Finding: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield City limits. Finding: The applicant is proposing to extend a 2-inch potable water line from the existing 8-inch water main that runs along the property frontage in G Street. The applicant is not proposing to install a sprinkler system within the building. The proposed domestic water service meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.130(A). Finding: There is an existing public fire hydrant at the southeast corner of the property at the intersection of 8th and G Streets. The fire hydrant is within the optimal 400-foot hose lay distance to serve the proposed building. Finding: The proposal satisfies the requirements of SDC 4.3.130(B). Conclusion: The existing SUB Water facilities are adequate to serve the site and the proposed building water services satisfy this sub-criterion of Standard of Approval 6. Public Easements Approval Standard 6.12: SDC 4.3.140(A) states the applicant must make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area, as necessary. Approval Standard 6.13: SDC 4.3.140(A) states that public utility easements must be shown on plat or in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approval Standard 6.14: SDC 4.3.140(A)(3) requires that the minimum width of public utility easements is 7 feet. Finding: The underground and overhead utilities outside the edges of the site are located within the public right- of-way or within existing public utility easements. The applicant is not proposing to create any other public easements along the property frontages, and none are required. Finding: The proposed development site is already platted. In this case, to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.140(A) any proposed utility easements must be shown on the applicant’s Final Site Plan. Easements for individual utilities, such as electrical lines, can be less than the 7-foot minimum width required by SDC 4.3.140(A)(3). As an example, underground electrical service lines can be placed within a 5-foot wide easement. Finding: Easements can affect the amount and type of development that can occur on a site. At-grade improvements such as paving and landscaping are usually acceptable within easement areas. However, buildings and structures – including building projections such as eave lines or cantilevers – cannot encroach into or over a public easement. Finding: The underground electrical service line for the proposed modular building may require a dedicated electric easement running inside and parallel with the western boundary of the site and a second easement for the Exhibit C, Page 10 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 31 of 41 Page 11 of 20 service lines within the interior of the site. The final configuration of the easements will need to be coordinated with SUB Electric. If electrical easements are required for installation of electrical service lines to the development site these must be depicted on the Final Site Plan. Finding: As conditioned herein, the proposal meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.140(A). Recommended Condition of Approval: 5. The Final Site Plan must show the location and dimensions of any recorded electrical easements provided for Springfield Utility Board facilities. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 6. 7. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.4, Landscaping, Screening, and Fence Standards. Approval Standard 7.1: SDC 4.4.105(B)(2) requires street trees in the public right-of-way as specified in SDC 4.2.140. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install two new street trees along the property frontage on G Street, which meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(B)(2). As previously stated herein, there are three recently-installed street trees along the 8th Street frontage of the site. One of the street trees appears to conflict with the location of the proposed driveway so it will need to be relocated. The other two street trees can be retained and satisfy these requirements for frontage improvements. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.1. Approval Standard 7.2: SDC 4.4.105(B)(3) requires curbside planter strips in the public right-of-way as specified in SDC 4.2.135. Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(B)(3), the applicant is proposing to retain the existing curbside planter strips in 8th Street and G Street. Finding: SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) requires that sidewalks must be separated from the curb by the planting strip. Alternatively, SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) allows for sidewalks to be proposed that do not meet this standard when necessary for connectivity, safety, or to comply with street design requirements subject to approval by the approving authority, which in this case is the Planning Commission. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install additional concrete panels along the G Street frontage to accommodate students dropped off by school buses and direct them to the building entrance. Because the concrete panels will increase safety and connectivity for preschool age students and persons with disabilities and also protect against pedestrian impacts to the planter strip, these are acceptable along the G Street frontage of the site as allowed by SDC 4.2.135(C)(3) and this decision. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.2. Approval Standard 7.3: SDC 4.4.105(D)(1) states that all required setback areas and other locations required by the zoning district are to be landscaped. Finding: The required setbacks for the R-1 Residential district are the front, side and rear yards of the property. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(D)(1), the applicant is proposing to landscape the front, street side yard and interior side yard of the site with turf grass, stormwater plantings, ornamental shrubs, and hardscape elements including playground surface, and walkways. There are no standards that specifies how much of the required setbacks areas must be landscaped with planted areas. As discussed below under SDC 4.4.105(E), whatever planning areas that are proposed must be covered by 65% living plant materials within 5 years of planting. The rear yard along the north property line is proposed to be improved with landscaping elements including hardscaping for the playground area, which are allowable in the R-1 Residential District. There is also Exhibit C, Page 11 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 32 of 41 Page 12 of 20 a covered structure area for the playground area - similar in many respects to residential patios and accessory structures such as a gazebo or shed. The eave of the structure extends 18” into the rear yard setback along the north property line as allowed. Required setback areas do not have to be vegetated if they are improved with alternative surfaces that do not exceed the maximum impervious surface provisions of SDC 3.2.225(B). Under SDC 3.2.225(B), there is no maximum impervious surface coverage for lots larger than 4,500 ft2, only a maximum of 45% building coverage. The site development area is 18,240 ft2 and the proposed 2,677 ft2 building footprint represents 14.6% of the site area which meets SDC 3.2.225(B). Finding: The applicant’s site plan identifies covered and tiled hard surfaces equipped with stormwater drainage facilities along with surfaces covered with wood chips. The covered and tiled hard surfaces in combination with the modular building, walkways and parking lot comprise a total of 10,110 ft2 of impervious surface. The proposed hardscape improvements and wood chip areas are to be used as outdoor play spaces for children. The proposed setback landscaping meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(D)(1). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.3. Approval Standard 7.4: SDC 4.4.105(D)(2) requires parking lot planting areas. Approval Standard 7.5: SDC 4.4.105(F) requires one tree and five shrubs for each 100 ft2 of parking lot planting area. Finding: According to the applicant’s planting plan, there is approximately 228 ft2 of planting area at the southwest and southeast corners of the parking lot. Within the parking lot planting areas, the applicant is proposing to install two trees, 28 shrubs and 15 ornamental plants. The proposed parking lot planting meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(D)(2) & (F). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standards 7.4 and 7.5. Approval Standard 7.6: SDC 4.4.105(E) requires that at least 65 percent of each required planting area must be covered with living plant materials within 5 years of the date of installation. SDC 4.4.105(E) also requires a minimum of two trees, ten shrubs, and lawn or groundcover for each 1,000 ft2 of required landscaping. Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(E), the applicant must demonstrate that the required planting areas will have 65% coverage within 5 years of planting. The applicant’s site landscaping plan provides for more than 65% coverage of vegetated areas within less than 5 years following installation. The “required planting areas” is not specified in terms of how much of the landscape area, as discussed above in SDC 4.4.105(D)(1), with in the required setbacks must be planted with planted material verses other surface treatments such as hardscape. The other required planting area is that area within the proposed parking area. As discussed below, staff finds that the standard above for 65% coverage in 5 years will be met based on the proposed planning plan. Finding: The applicant’s site landscaping plan provides for a total of five ornamental trees, 148 shrubs, 163 ornamental plants and manicured turf grass for all areas of the site not improved with buildings or hard surfaces. According to the applicant’s site plan, approximately 4,500 ft2 of the site is to be landscaped. Of this total area, about 2,986 ft2 or 66.3% of the landscaping area will be turf grass which is considered to provide 100% vegetative coverage at time of initial installation. Finding: The rear yard along the north property line is not planted and instead contains hardscape play surfaces as described in Approval Standard 7.3 above. The rear yard along the western property line is proposed be all planted with lawn, for 100% vegetative cover in this area. The total net area of the required planting areas is approximately 2,585 ft2 of which 1,980 ft2 or 76.6% is proposed to be turf grass or grass filter strip. After installation and establishment, 100% of the turf grass and grass filter strip areas are proposed to be vegetated. For the purposes of determining vegetative coverage, as proposed, staff finds the proposed vegetative areas will meet the requirement for at least 65% coverage within 5 years. Finding: All of the vegetation proposed along the west side yard (600 ft2) and south front yard (1,310 ft2) is turf grass so 100% of the required setback in these areas is considered vegetated upon installation. Of the east street Exhibit C, Page 12 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 33 of 41 Page 13 of 20 side yard setback, 70 ft2 of the required planting area is grass filter strip and would be considered 100% vegetated upon installation and establishment. The remaining landscaping areas are a combination of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants that will require more than one growing season to establish and cover more than 65% of the required planting area based on the planting plan, plant list and methods of planting found on the applicant’s site landscaping plan. Upon installation and after five growing seasons the combination of plants are expected to exceed the 65% vegetative coverage in these areas. Finding: The remaining 23.4% of the required planting areas are proposed to be planted with shrubs, trees and groundcover plants. Based on the proposed plants and planting scheme shown on Sheet L-2.0 of the applicant’s submittal, about 50% of the area will be covered with plants upon initial installation and establishment. The amount of vegetative coverage will gradually increase as plants become established, grow, and expand their breadth of coverage. Because the proposal already meets the minimum requirements for 65% vegetative coverage the exact amount of vegetative coverage at 5 years following installation is not estimated here but will be somewhere above 76.6%. Approval Standard 7.7: SDC 4.4.105(G) requires that all new landscaping areas be provided with an irrigation system or planted with drought-tolerant species. Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(G), all new landscaping areas are to be irrigated as stated on the applicant’s site landscaping plan. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.7. Approval Standard 7.8: SDC 4.4.105(H) allows for landscaped setbacks to be exempted from planting requirements where they abut required screening. Finding: There is no requirement for screening of the subject development, therefore the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(H) are not applicable. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.8. Approval Standard 7.9: SDC 4.4.105(I) allows for existing trees and landscaping to be retained on a site and for replacement of topsoil to be included in the planting installation plan. Finding: The applicant is not proposing to retain existing trees or landscaping on the site. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.4.105(I) are not applicable. Approval Standard 7.9 is not applicable to this proposal. Approval Standard 7.10: SDC 4.4.110(A)(4) requires screening for garbage and recycling receptacles. Finding: The applicant is proposing to keep the trash and recycling bins for the site in a covered and screened enclosure on the east side of the modular classroom building. The bins are to be screened with a slatted gate at the front of the enclosure, and solid walls on the other three sides. The proposed screening meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.110(A)(4). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.10. Approval Standard 7.11: SDC 4.4.115 describes the style, height and location of fencing allowable in residential, commercial and industrial districts. SDC 4.4.115(C)(1) requires that fences within the front yard setback are limited to four feet high if composed of wrought iron or chain link, or three feet high if composed of sight obscuring material (such as a wood panel fence). Finding: The subject site is within a residential district. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 4.4.115 apply to the site. Finding: There is existing chain link style fencing around the perimeter of the subject site. Portions of the fencing along the western boundary are inset approximately 5 feet from the actual property line. The fence along the eastern boundary is more than 4 feet high and is not set back from the property line as required by SDC 4.4.115(C)(1). Exhibit C, Page 13 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 34 of 41 Page 14 of 20 Finding: The applicant is proposing to remove and replace sections of the existing chain link fence surrounding the site. A section of 4-foot high chain link fencing is proposed to be installed just outside and parallel with the eastern boundary of the site within the 8th Street right-of-way. A right-of-way use agreement will be required for the placement of a boundary fence within the public right-of-way. Finding: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing chain link fence along the G Street frontage of the site and install segments of fence within the site interior to provide a secure play space in the rear of the site. The proposed interior fencing meets the requirements of SDC 4.4.115. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 7.11. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 7. 8. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.5, On-Site Lighting Standards. Approval Standard 8.1: SDC 4.5.105(C)(2) states that residential-style low wattage lighting used to illuminate driveways and yards are exempt from outdoor lighting standards provided they do not shine, glare, emit direct illumination or cast a shadow onto adjacent properties. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install building-mounted, residential-style lighting on the western, southern and eastern building facades. Finding: The proposed lighting meets the residential low wattage lighting standards for yards and driveways. As proposed, the site lighting meets the requirements of SDC 4.5.105(C)(2). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 8.1. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 8. 9. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.6, Motor Vehicle Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Parking Standards. Approval Standard 9.1: SDC 4.6.110(A)(2) requires that off-street parking spaces must be provided, consistent with requirements in SDC 4.6.125 and Table 4.6.2, unless excepted as allowed herein, for changes in use or the use category of an existing building or structure. Approval Standard 9.2: In accordance with SDC 4.6.125 and Table 4.6.2, the parking space requirement for educational facilities is one space per classroom. The proposed modular building has two classrooms. Approval Standard 9.3: Under OAR 660-012-0440(3), cities may not enforce parking mandates for developments on a lot or parcel that includes lands within ½ mile of a corridor with bus service arriving at least four times per hour during peak service. The City may use walking distance to measure distances under that rule. However, where vehicle parking is provided by an applicant it must meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.115 and 4.6.120. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 4.6.115 and 4.6.120 apply to the proposal. Finding: The subject property is within ½ mile walking distance of both the EmX bus rapid transit line running along Pioneer Parkway and the LTD Route 11 (Thurston) bus operating along Main Street, both of which are scheduled to arrive more than four times per hour or four times per hour during peak service. Therefore, the City cannot require any off-street parking spaces for this development. Finding: The proposed modular building has two classrooms. The applicant is proposing to construct a three- vehicle parking lot accessed via a driveway onto 8th Street. Two standard spaces and one ADA accessible space are proposed within the parking lot. The two standard parking spaces are proposed to be 9’x18’ and equipped with curb stops and the ADA accessible space is proposed to be 9’x18’ with an adjacent 8-foot accessible aisle. Exhibit C, Page 14 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 35 of 41 Page 15 of 20 The parking space dimensions meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.115 and 4.6.120. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standards 9.1 – 9.3. Finding: The City has exclusive authority to control the design, construction and operation of public streets under its jurisdiction as described in Chapter 3.208 et seq. of the Springfield Municipal Code. The City’s Transportation Division oversees operations on the existing City street system and reviews and approves proposals for new or modified streets and related improvements. Proposals for new or modified on-street parking or loading areas also are reviewed and approved by the City’s Transportation Division. Finding: The Springfield School District, through its school busing coordinator, manages the operations of school buses serving the district’s educational facilities, including determining the locations and configurations of approved school bus loading zones. Finding: The applicant is proposing to modify the curb line on G Street to allow for school bus parking and drop- off for students. The applicant is also proposing to provide a school bus staging/waiting space on G Street to the east of the intersection with 8th Street. The City’s Transportation Division and the Springfield School District’s school bus coordinator have reviewed the proposed configuration and support the parking and drop-off area along the subject site frontage on G Street. Finding: The proposed creation of an off-site parking space across 8th Street to the east is not supported because it does not meet the adjacency requirements of SDC 4.6.110(G) and would require students to cross an intersection to reach the school. To satisfy the approved school bus parking and drop-off configuration, the applicant’s final site plan must be reviewed to eliminate the Bus #3 space depicted on the northeast corner of G Street at 8th Street. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.4. Approval Standard 9.5: SDC 4.6.145(A) requires that bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be a powder coated staple or inverted-U rack as shown in Figure 4.6-B. Approval Standard 9.6: SDC 4.6.145(B) requires that bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be constructed and installed in accordance with SDC 4.6.150 and Figures 4.6-B and 4.6-C. Finding: To meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(A) and (B), the applicant is proposing to install two inverted U-shaped bicycle racks that will be permanently affixed to the pavement. A single rack for two bicycle parking spaces is to be installed on the east side of the building near the vehicle parking area. A second single rack for two bicycle parking spaces is to be installed on the northwest edge of the building near the outdoor play area. The placement of the bicycle racks meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(1). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standards 9.5 and 9.6. Approval Standard 9.7: SDC 4.6.145(C) states that all required long-term bicycle parking spaces must be sheltered from precipitation, in conformance with SDC 4.6.145(D)(3) and include lighting in conformance with the lighting standards in SDC 4.5.100. Finding: Neither bicycle parking rack is proposed to be covered. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(C) and 4.6.155(B), at least one bicycle parking space must be sheltered from precipitation and provided with lighting. There is building-mounted exterior lighting near the interior bicycle parking rack at the northwest corner of the building. Therefore, provision of a covering roof or canopy at this location would meet this requirement. Alternatively, the applicant must identify another location on the site equipped with a covering roof and illumination. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.7. Approval Standard 9.8: SDC 4.6.145(D) provides that no sheltering of short-term bicycle parking is necessary if fewer than 10 spaces are provided. Exhibit C, Page 15 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 36 of 41 Page 16 of 20 Finding: The applicant is not required to or proposing to install more than 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces. Therefore, SDC 4.6.145(D) which requires the sheltering of more than 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces is not applicable to this proposal. Approval Standard 9.8 is not applicable to this proposal. Approval Standard 9.9: SDC 4.6.145(E) requires that at least 10 percent of all bicycle parking spaces accommodate oversize bicycles. Finding: The applicant is proposing to install a single rack for two bicycle parking spaces on the northwest corner of the building near the staff and student entrance to the outdoor play area. The location and configuration of the bicycle parking rack would accommodate oversize bicycles, which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(E). The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.9. Approval Standard 9.10: SDC 4.6.150(A)(1)-(8) provides standards for bicycle facility improvements to prevent conflicts between bicycle parking areas and pedestrian and vehicle movements. Finding: The applicant is proposing to anchor the bicycle racks to paved areas on the site which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(1) for bicycle racks that are securely affixed to the ground. Finding: The bicycle racks are within 50 feet of the building entrance and more than 5 feet from the nearest vehicle parking space which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(2) and (4). Finding: The bicycle rack on the east side of the building is directly visible from the driveway entrance onto 8th Street and the public right-of-way on 8th Street. The bicycle rack is visible from the public right-of-way, which meets the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(3). Because it is visible from the main entrance, the requirements of SDC 4.6.150(A)(5) for signage directing bicyclists to the parking rack is not required for this proposal. Finding: The applicant is not proposing to locate bicycle parking inside a building, therefore the provisions of SDC 4.6.150(A)(6) are not applicable to this proposal. Finding: The applicant is not proposing to place the bicycle racks within the public right-of-way or in sidewalk or walkway areas where they would conflict with pedestrians. Therefore, the provisions of SDC 4.6.150(A)(7) are not applicable. Finding: The proposal is not for multi-unit housing. Therefore, the requirements of SDC 4.5.150(A)(8) are not applicable to the proposal. Finding: Based on the findings above, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.10. Approval Standard 9.11: In accordance with SDC 4.6.155(B) and Table 4.6.3, one bicycle parking space is to be provided for every 10 students in an educational facility. A minimum of four spaces are to be provided for all principal uses that generate a requirement for bicycle parking under SDC 4.6.155(A). Approval Standard 9.12: In accordance with SDC 4.6.155(B) and Table 4.6.3, bicycle parking spaces at schools must be at least 25% long-term (i.e. covered) and 75% short-term spaces. Finding: According to the applicant’s submittal, fewer than 40 students will be accommodated at the proposed classroom building so it generates the minimum 4-space bicycle parking requirement under SDC 4.6.155(B) and Table 4.6.3. The applicant’s proposed site plan provides for four bicycle parking spaces which meets this requirement. The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.11. Finding: As previously stated and conditioned above, the applicant must provide at least one covered bicycle space to meet the requirements of SDC 4.6.145(C) and 4.6.155(B). As conditioned below, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standard 9.12. Exhibit C, Page 16 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 37 of 41 Page 17 of 20 Finding: According to the applicant’s submittal, fewer than 40 students will be accommodated at the proposed classroom building so it generates the minimum 4-space bicycle parking requirement under SDC 4.6.155(B) and Table 4.6.3. The applicant’s proposed site plan provides for four bicycle parking spaces which meets this requirement. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 6. The Final Site Plan must be revised to remove the Bus #3 parking space depicted on G Street to the east side of 8th Street. 7. The Final Site Plan must include a roof or canopy over the bicycle parking rack at the northwest corner of the building. Alternatively, the applicant must provide a covered bicycle parking at another location on the site that meets the requirements for location, covering, illumination and anchoring to the ground as described in SDC 4.6.145(C), 4.6.150(A) and 4.6.155(B). Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 9. 10. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.7, Specific Development Standards. Approval Standard 10.1: In accordance with SDC 4.7.195(A)(1) all new elementary and middle school facilities and additions over 10,000 square feet or those additions exceeding 50 percent of the size of the existing building must be through a Type 3 procedure concurrently with the Site Plan application. In addition to the Site Plan approval criteria, the Type 3 application must also address the standards specified in SDC 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11). Approval Standard 10.2: SDC 4.7.195(B) states that in the Public Land and Open Space (PLO) District, public/private elementary/middle schools must be adjacent to residentially-zoned property. Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is being reviewed through a Type 3 process. The standards in 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11) are applicable only when one of the conditions in (A)(1) is met. Because the modular classroom building is about 2,677 ft2 and does not add onto any existing building, the standards in SDC 4.7.195(A)(2)-(11) are not applicable. Finding: The subject property is not within the PLO District. Therefore, SDC 4.7.195(B) is not applicable to this proposal. Finding: The proposal satisfies the requirements of Approval Standards 10.1 and 10.2. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Standard of Approval 10. 11. The proposal complies with the applicable sections of SDC 4.8, Temporary Use Standards. Finding: The proposed modular classroom building is not being used as a dwelling or for a temporary use as described in SDC 4.8.100. Conclusion: Standard of Approval 11 is not applicable to the proposal. CONCLUSION: The proposal as conditioned herein meets the Standards of Approval for Site Plan Review, SDC 5.17.125(A)(1-11). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Final Site Plan must provide for installation of a SUB Wellhead Protection Area sign at the outdoor trash enclosure to meet the requirements of SDC 3.3.240. Exhibit C, Page 17 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 38 of 41 Page 18 of 20 2. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must provide an overflow connection from the rain garden to a weephole in the curb line of 8th Street. 3. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B)(2)(b)(viii), the applicant’s Final Site Plan must include a cross-section detail for the vegetated filter strip. The cross section must show compliance with the standards listed on the Filter Strip detail attached to this decision as Attachment A. 4. To meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(A)(5), prior to approval of the Final Site Plan the applicant must record a Notice of Operations and Maintenance Agreement consistent with Appendix 3A-1 of the City’s EDSPM against the subject property and provide evidence thereof to the City. 5. The Final Site Plan must show the location and dimensions of any recorded electrical easements provided for Springfield Utility Board facilities. 6. The Final Site Plan must be revised to remove the Bus #3 parking space depicted on G Street to the east side of 8th Street. 7. The Final Site Plan must include a roof or canopy over the bicycle parking rack at the northwest corner of the building. Alternatively, the applicant must provide a covered bicycle parking at another location on the site that meets the requirements for location, covering, illumination and anchoring to the ground as described in SDC 4.6.145(C), 4.6.150(A) and 4.6.155(B). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development & Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. PREPARED BY Andy Limbird Andy Limbird Senior Planner Attachment A: Filter Strip Detail Exhibit C, Page 18 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 39 of 41 Page 19 of 20 Attachment A Exhibit C, Page 19 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 40 of 41 Page 20 of 20 Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the Site Plan Review decision. FEES AND PERMITS Systems Development Charges: The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building permits are issued for developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates to the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units. Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements within the subject site. The charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit submittal for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment Charge: Pay a Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property or portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if the In-Lieu-Of- Assessment charge is applicable [Ord. 5584]. Public Infrastructure Fees: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure. Other City Permits: Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit (working within right-of-way or public easements). For example, new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, installation or repair of public sidewalk, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $369 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the Springfield Development & Public Works Department at 541-726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements. Right-of-way Use Agreement for placement of boundary fence in the public right-of-way. Please contact the Springfield Development & Public Works Department at 541-726-5849 for application requirements. Additional permits/approvals may be necessary: • Plumbing Permits • Electrical Permits • Building Permits • Sidewalk Permits • Paving Permits Exhibit C, Page 20 of 20 Attachment 3, Page 41 of 41 PUBLIC COMMENTS • • • • • • • • • • Attachment 4, Page 1 of 28 Exhibit A: Comments from Sylvia Hawley Submitted April 22, 2023 in Response to Site Plan Review Notification Exhibit B: Comments from Michael McIlrath Submitted April 25, 2023 in Response to Site Plan Review Notification Exhibit C: Questions from Michael McIlrath with Responses from Brett Yancey of Springfield School District Submitted for Site Plan Review April 25, 2023 Exhibit D: Comments from Wanda Seamster and Mark Fryer Received April 28, 2023 in Response to Site Plan Review Notification Exhibit E: Comments from Michael McIlrath Submitted April 28, 2023 in Response to Site Plan Review Notification Exhibit F: Comments from Curtis Phillips Submitted May 2, 2023 in Response to Site Plan Review Notification Exhibit G: Comments from Michael McIlrath Submitted May 10, 2023 in Response to Site Plan Review Notification Exhibit H: Program Summary Comments from EC Cares in Response to Public Comments Received for Site Plan Review Notification Submitted May 19, 2023 Exhibit I: Comments from Michael McIlrath Submitted June 4, 2023 in Response to Discretionary Use Public Hearing Notice Exhibit J: Comments from Michael McIlrath Submitted at the Public Hearing June 6, 2023 From: Sylvia Hawley <gaiaschild@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2023 5:31 PM To: LIMBIRD Andrew Subject: EC Cares **| WARNING: This email originated from outside of your organization. Please do not click on links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. |** Hi Andy Would the project be for pre-school classrooms? Sounds fine by me. Thank you for opportunity to comment. Sylvia Hawley 752 F Street 97477 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 4, Page 2 of 28 Andy Limbird April 25, 2023 City of Springfield Development and Public Works Department 225 Fifth St. Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 726-3784 RE: Case #811-23-000059-TYP Dear Mr. Limbird, I received notice of the pending site plan review for the EC Cares facility April 22, notifying me, and other residents and property owners in the vicinity, of this proposed change of use. I wish to object to the approval of the siting at this time, and in the absence of necessary and essential documents that should accompany such a proposal to alter to the neighborhood. Procedural concerns Although minimally proscribed, the period for comment seems substantially foreshortened, given the nature of the application and delays in US mail delivery (notice received by me April 22, written comments to be received by May 4). Additionally, the notice should include stakeholders within 400 ft of the site, given the substantial changes proposed, and potential impacts to the neighborhood. This is especially true, given that the primary land owner within this boundary is Springfield School District (Springfield High School), to the north, although the impacts will bear primarily on residences to the south of, and along, G. St.. I attempted to read and review the application on the website you referred to, in the letter sent April 20, 2023. The instructions you provided were marginally sufficient to permit this, without significant digital skills. At this time, I lack confidence in the rigor of the preliminary review by city staff. I have several questions and concerns related to the application. Public documents associated with the application are very general with regard to the applicant’s proposed use (narrative). More attention appears to have been given to the storm water operation and maintenance description, than for the proposed operations as a child care facility. Brett Yancey, has responded to my inquiries regarding the relationship of EC Cares and the Springfield School District, and I expect to continue our discussion. I understand the District is only the lessor of the parcels, and will not jointly operate the facility. It appears the facility will serve the district by potentially preparing students for ultimate admission to the District, but will not serve current Springfield students directly (since the facility serves pre-kindergarten students). Mr. Yancey offered some assurance that students enrolled with EC Cares will be primarily transported on school buses at the designated drop-off location. As an extension of the U of O, I assume the facility will also serve to instruct the adult educators, as well. No formal plans are in place to provide for educational opportunities for SHS students, but this is desirable. Exhibit B, Page 1 of 3 Attachment 4, Page 3 of 28 2 Land Use and Zoning Most basically, the proposed siting is not an approved use within the current land use (R-1), but is being permitted as a Discretionary Use of land zoned R-1 (single family residential). Springfield School District made substantial investment in the neighborhood in 1997-98, in order to provide a secure perimeter at the south of Springfield High School. This included closing the east-west alley at the north of the leased parcels and the accompanying vacation of public rights of way. The subject lots were purchased at that time, and gates were installed where the alley ways met intersecting streets. These actions created a well-defined boundary between the High School and the adjoining residential neighborhood from 7th to 10th streets. -This parcel is the first developed use by the District in this area, south of the alley and the historic boundary of the High School. As such, it intrudes into the adjoining residential neighborhood. -The development of the parcel, the terms of the lease, and the purpose of the facility suggest a permanent change of use. -Educational use is permitted in R-1 under specific circumstances, among these, that the impacts of the non-conforming use are mitigated, and these uses don’t adversely impact existing, principal, conforming, land uses in the zone. For these reasons, I believe the land should be re-zoned and the site review should be Type 3. Alternatively, if the development is permitted on land zoned R-1, a conditional use permit should accompany the site approval, including specific restrictions intended to mitigate adverse impacts. Has the applicant submitted sufficient grounds to justify a Discretionary Use Application and receive a Type 2 application? If so, please provide the basis of planning approval for such. Is a conditional use permit contemplated for the applicant? If so, what are the terms? The proposed activity is similar to pre-existing uses in the area, including SHS, Dos Rios, and the Brattain House. However, proximity of similar uses should only be a consideration, but not justify avoidance of appropriate land use review Traffic Was a traffic impact study undertaken? If so, where may I access this? If not, why not? Has any analysis been undertaken by city staff, to ascertain the volume of clients at the facility and associated vehicle trips? Has any information of this character been submitted to accompany the application? As mentioned previously, the function of the facility needs to be more clearly defined. Is the building to function as a synergistic satellite of the High School. Or as an adjunct to other district services? The University of Oregon has substantial land holdings elsewhere. I assume the choice of siting is intentional and is conceived as a component or contributor to other nearby Springfield School District functions. As such, any traffic impact study should include the peak hour and average daily travel broadly along G. St. for Springfield High School, Dos Rios, as district facilities, and at intersecting streets such as 10th and 5th, and not only consider the proposed facility. The site plan shows a total of only 3 off street parking spaces, including 2 ADA compliant. Given that the facility will employ 3-5 staff, this would seem inadequate for staff Exhibit B, Page 2 of 3 Attachment 4, Page 4 of 28 3 parking during business hours. If the frontage along G St. is intended for pick up and drop off, these parking spaces will be unavailable for use by employees and staff. This seems a significant, un-addressed neighborhood impact, in addition to encumbering local traffic. The gated egress at the north end of 8th Street is very congested at times. This includes exiting busses, pedestrians, bicycles, skateboards, and staff and student automobile traffic. Permitting a driveway at 8th Street will add to this congestion and should not be permitted without adequate evaluation and mitigation. Additionally, garbage totes placed for pick up will encumber the sidewalk or roadway, if placed at 8th Street, as proposed by the location of the garbage enclosure. Existing adverse impacts of the existing nearby educational activities and facilities include: -At peak times, traffic is entirely stopped for up to two blocks while automobiles take turns (or not), going through the 4-way stop at 7th and G St. -Springfield High School students are provided a parking lot and are directed to use it. However, student drivers frequently park on adjoining streets, sometimes in violation of parking standards. Enforcement is intermittent, at best. -During events at Silke Field, attendees park along nearby streets, including blocking driveways and encroaching on intersection corners. -Students who work on their vehicles at the auto shop classroom drive vigorously through the gates at 8th and 9th, in both directions. -Students leaving the school facility at lunch hour, and end of school, drive overly fast along G St., in both directions. -Parents and students double park in traffic to load, or unload, passengers along adjoining streets. -District buses idle while drivers wait for access to loading areas. -The access gates at 8th and 9th were originally conceived and presented to the city, in conjunction with the improvements associated with the 1997-98 perimeter, primarily, as a one- way lane for buses. This access is currently used both ways by staff, students, parents, and for deliveries and visitors to the vocational facilities at the south side of the High School. Additional objections Given the incomplete evaluation and documentation available at this time, I reserve this space to include additional objections at subsequent comment periods, hearings, or land-use appeals. The activity of Springfield High School impacts the surrounding neighborhood. Adding an additional educational facility on land zoned R-1 will contribute to the existing impacts. Allowing this siting as a Discretionary Use, rather than changing the zoning of the underlying land elides some of the normal evaluation and public process that Oregon’s land use regime is intended to regulate. For this reason, I object to the siting as proposed and presented. Appreciatively, Michael Mcilrath, owner 862 G St., Spfd, OR 97477 Mailing address: 85809 S. Willamette St., Eugene, OR 97405 Exhibit B, Page 3 of 3 Attachment 4, Page 5 of 28 From:Brett Yancey brett.yancey@springﬁeld.k12.or.us Subject:Re: Information request, RE: proposed EC Cares facility, application #811-23-000059-TYP2 Date:April 25, 2023 at 08:05 To:Michael McIlrath mmcilrath@epud.net Good morning Mr. McIlrath, I appreciate you reaching out to gather information and ask questions about the partnership the School District has with University of Oregon. I will do my best to answer your questions, however if you have additional questions please feel free to ask. Has a contract, memorandum of understanding, or other formal document been executed, or agreed, between the U of O or EC Cares, and Springﬁeld School District, in order to facilitate the application ﬁled by Rowell Brokaw Architects? Yes, the School District entered into a Land Lease Agreement with the University of Oregon, effective November 15, 2022. The agreement expires on June 30, 2028 but is renewable based on negotiated terms. The application lists EC Cares as the applicant, but Springﬁeld School District has granted the Architect permission to make the application on its behalf (with your signature). Precisely on whose behalf is Lorri Nelson making the application? Lorri Nelson is the Architect/Consultant that is submitting the materials to the City of Springﬁeld, on behalf of EC Cares (applicant) and Springﬁeld School District (owner). This is not unusual and often happens during these types of processes. Ofﬁcially, applications would not be accepted without the owner rep’s signature, which we have reviewed and provided. Early Childhood Cares is identiﬁed as an organization within the University of Oregon on their application with Springﬁeld Development and Public Works Department. Does Springﬁeld School District have a partnership of any kind with the entity EC Cares? Yes, the Springﬁeld School District has a long standing partnership/relationship with EC Cares. EC Cares currently operates classrooms at Maple Elementary School, Ridgeview Elementary School and Absent this, I assume the U of O has leased the subject parcels (17-03-35-12 lots 6700 and 6800) from Springﬁeld School District, or obtained an option to do so, in order to make such an application. Can you clarify the terms of any lease agreement, especially the duration of the lease, renewal terms, and lease amount(s)? Does the agreement terminate? If so, will the proposed site improvements revert to the District at the termination of the agreement? Duration of Lease: 11/15/2022 – 06/30/2028 Renewal Terms: Renegotiated upon expiration Lease amount: $100 per year beginning on January 1, 2023 (Land use only) Site Improvements: If the agreement is terminated the School District either retains ownership of improvements or EC Cares must remove and return space to original status. All site improvements are performed at the expense of EC Cares. Who is entitled to income generated by the facility, including operational grants, or tuition paid by attendees or student teachers? Will any operation of the facility be undertaken jointly, with participation by Springﬁeld School District? This is not an income generation program, but is supported through state and Exhibit C, Page 1 of 3 Attachment 4, Page 6 of 28 This is not an income generation program, but is supported through state and federal resources. There is no tuition paid by attendees or student teachers and is a pre-kindergarten, special education program. No operation of the facility will be undertaken jointly. Has the Springﬁeld School District secured provision for its students to attend the facility? Students attending this program are within the Springﬁeld School District boundaries but are not students in the District, as this is a pre-kindergarten program. Once these students advance past the pre-k program, they are students within the School District. Does Springﬁeld School District view this facility as an educational opportunity for its students? Will Springﬁeld High School offer its students opportunity to work, or enroll in child education coursework, or take advantage of internships at the facility? In partnership with EC Cares, students that attend this program will likely enroll in the School District once they become kindergarten students. Any education or support provided will beneﬁt future students in our district, therefore this is a valuable program for the District to maintain a partnership with. It is our desire to allow SHS students to intern at the facility if it aligns with their curricular needs. Alternatively, will preschool or special needs students from the District receive care, or education, therein? Signiﬁcantly, is any formal provision made for this? Answer provided above. I expect signiﬁcant impacts on the neighborhood, but understand this may be an essential trade-off with the potential beneﬁts of such a facility. However, the site review is being approved with what I consider haste, and in an effort to accommodate the applicant, perhaps improperly. I wish to understand how the proposed facility will beneﬁt our students and the community. The School District is sensitive to the impact on the neighborhood and we are working to minimize the stress. Students enrolled in this program are primarily transported on school buses, which will have a designated drop-off area in front of the facility. On street parking and trafﬁc should not be signiﬁcantly impacted or additional to what is currently occurring. Regarding the site review, the School District continues to follow the City’s timelines and required processes. I hope this email assists in answering your questions, however if you have more please feel free to reach out. Thank you, Brett Yancey Chief Operations Ofﬁcer Springﬁeld Public Schools 640 A Street Springﬁeld, Oregon 97477 Exhibit C, Page 2 of 3 Attachment 4, Page 7 of 28 Springﬁeld, Oregon 97477 541-726-3206 Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and conﬁdential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notiﬁed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Springﬁeld Public Schools Exhibit C, Page 3 of 3 Attachment 4, Page 8 of 28 Exhibit D, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 4, Page 9 of 28 Email from Michael McIlrath in response to Site Plan Review notification - April 28, 2023. Hello Mr. Limbird, Thank you for this response. Please integrate the following into the staff report, as appropriate. At your suggestion, I reviewed the Discretionary Use application materials at the Laserfiche portal. Under the Type 3 category you suggested, I found essentially the EC Cares descriptive narrative, stormwater engineering, and details regarding exterior lighting and garbage enclosure as components to the Type 3 application. Did I miss anything additionally relevant? I appreciate the references to the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. I understand these remain in place while receiving judicial review (challenge). Can you refer me to the Springfield adopted code that governs the site, and permits the proposed use? As a planner, you know: minimal provisions are not necessarily sufficient in all cases. Land use and building codes are adopted for prospective purposes (future cases and uses). Implementation is the art of reconciling the aspirational with the actual. Is the building plan review underway, or complete? I didn’t see conduit for future electric charging at the off street parking areas. This would seem to be a forward thinking requirement that accommodates the existing private vehicle conveyances, while providing for future uses, in line the the net-zero statewide goals. However, this does not mitigate the likelihood that some, or all, of the proposed staff will park off site, using neighborhood street parking, if on-site parking is insufficient. Can you clarify the criteria for provisional site approval, granted the applicant as an educational use? Is this an overlay district? Or adopted code? Where may I learn more of land use rationale used for siting such facilities, especially if this is the basis for a planning determination? It is sensible that educational uses may occur on parcels zoned R-1, since students who may attend frequently reside at the surrounding residential properties. However, the parcel in question is not conceived to specifically serve the neighborhood students, and has historically enjoyed residential zoning and use. This last distinction was reinforced previously, when the Springfield School District (landowner) developed the east-west alleyway in 1997-98. The effort at that time was intended to improve and maintain the residential conditions and character of the neighborhood, with special care taken, in form of: maintenance agreements for the vacated portions of the alleyway, substantial re-assurances to residential neighbors, regarding District participation in litter patrol, parking, traffic, and student behaviors and other accommodations. Extraordinary measures were taken to allow the unconventional act of vacating a public right of way. This included providing non-compliant curb cuts for driveways, altering curb and gutter design to eliminate planting strips (integrated curbs and gutter) at some locations, outright purchase of parcels and construction of fencing around private parcels, to permit installation of secure gates, and negotiation with utility services, to obtain approval for locks at the alley ends of each affected block. Exhibit E, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 10 of 28 When Springfield High School was built in the 1940’s, several open ditches served to move surface water toward the river. Among these was one approximately at the alley, according to my neighbor, Irene Darr, since diseased, once resident of 936 G St. This natural boundary served to contain residential development at the city’s edge, at a time when the city limits ended at 10th and G Streets. This alley and the unique historic treatment it received, argue that it is a significant boundary between land uses. As such, it should not be casually ignored, for the convenience of an applicant. The proposed site improvements, while modest, are permanent in nature. Modular structures are easily durable for 50 years, especially if maintained by scheduled institutional staff labor. This suggests that the facility will be durable (and non-residential) for a very long time. As stated previously, it deserves to be sited only if its variant use is compatible, and doesn’t adversely impact other nearby, existing, conforming uses. In any case, such a change needs thorough and deliberative review. The applicant is not a Springfield School District entity. This would argue against permitting the siting as an educational facility that deserves special consideration. If EC Cares is a ‘partner’ with the School District, and its functions deserve to be allowed a siting variance for this reason, the nature of the partnership should be formalized in the application and the impacts of the facility should include evaluation of District-generated impacts, specifically, traffic flows, congestion, and hazards. Since the June 9 Planning Commission hearing barely precedes the end of the school year, and it is essential that all parties understand the conditions at peak hours and during peak use around the proposed site, I plan to write to the Planning Commission, urging them to make a site visit for observation, in advance of the presentation of 811-23-00059-TYP2 and 811-23-000060-TYP3. If you will make an effort to insure their deliberations include accurate (if informal), evaluations of traffic contemporary with the school session, I will forgo such communication. I expect the applicant wishes to proceed with the project (grading and construction), during the summer of 2023 (precisely because school traffic is minimal). If they wish to proceed in this timely and expedited schedule, I recommend making the effort to insure that all parties evaluate and observe the traffic at 8th and along G St. during the school year. Any effort to assess traffic impacts after the meeting will not reflect the uses of the sidewalks and roadways adjoining the site at times of peak use. I expect making a hasty siting decision would be planning malpractice, if not appealable. Waiting until next school year to consider the traffic conditions would seem inconvenient to the applicant. I appreciate your attention to these matters, Gratefully, Michael Mcllrath Exhibit E, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 11 of 28 From: Curtis Phillips <homes@curtisphillipsre.com> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:53 AM To: Brett Yancey <brett.yancey@springfield.k12.or.us> Subject: EC Cares Good Morning, I was recently made aware that a new childcare facility will be going in on 8th and G here in Springfield. I believe this is a good thing as we need as much support in our communities as possible so, this email is not intended to be an objection to the facility. With that said, I do have a real concern with any additional traffic in the area. I moved to 9th and G Street last fall and have observed what I consider dangerous conditions at times on the roadway. Parents and students, particularly at pick up and drop off times for the multiple schools in the area, are speeding and visibly frustrated with traffic. It is not uncommon to see people reach 40MPH within 1 block of a stop sign, with 2 young children at home this is a real concern. Any additional traffic should be mitigated with additional controls such as speed bumps or stop signs between 10th and 7th. There are 2 schools on this street now and we already have unsafe conditions. An additional facility going in will only exacerbate the current situation. The speed bump in front of Dos Rios is a perfect example of how to slow traffic in this increasingly busy area. In a perfect world people would respect speed limits and traffic safety but we all know that is not the world we live in. Therefore, additional measures should be implemented to protect the community. Thank you for considering this input to the proposed facility and make sure to reach out if I can be of any assistance. Your Partner in Success Curtis Phillips, Principal Broker Licensed in the State of Oregon Pacific Real Estate Services, Inc 541-337-1803 Exhibit F, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 4, Page 12 of 28 Email from Michael McIlrath in response to Site Plan Review notification – May 10, 2023. Hello Mr. Limbird, Thank you for the response and for providing links and code references. From this information, and the public hearing notice I received, it appears the siting is approved as a “similar” use [per 3.2.210 (A)]. The proposed use is apparently more similar to' Educational Facilities: Elementary and Middle Schools’ than to 'Child Care Center’. I assume this is because the use is more institutional, rather than residential. For this reason, I would re-assert that the siting deserves more involved scrutiny for adverse traffic impacts. This would be necessary, for a school siting, per 4.7.195 (A) (11). The proposed use is currently educational and permitted, but the improvements will be permanent within the context of urban planning. In the event the applicant finds the facility does not perform as predicted, or won’t attract sufficient children for it to operate, or if funding for their educational efforts becomes constrained, it is conceivable that the operation by the applicant will cease. Should this occur, the improvements will be removed, or more likely, ceded to the District per the lease agreement (as shown in the attached correspondence with Brett Yancey, COO Springfield Schools). In this event, the site will likely become an adjunct to Springfield High School, or be re-purposed for other District uses. Any representations by the applicant regarding delivery of students by bus, limits to vehicle trips per day, or schedules for the operations that will impact (or avoid) traffic during peak use hours, should be considered provisional, subject to the duration of the tenancy and specific operation of the facility. For this reason, I urge a conditional use permit accompany approval of the application. Additionally, I understand that EC Cares is operated to provide educational opportunities for U of O students, in addition to providing a valuable public service for children with developmental and behavioral challenges, as well as their parents. For this reason, the facility is educational in more than one sense. However, the student interns are not necessarily from the neighborhood, nor are the pre-school age children receiving special instruction at the facility. For this reason, any justification to site the facility and permit the institutional use within R-1 under 3.2.210 is strained. The permitted use of educational facilities was conceived to provide for the surrounding residences. Permitting siting, and uses, that generate vehicle trips from afar, would seem at variance with provisions of the Trans Plan, and violative of Metro Planning that emphasizes neighborhood-focused uses that minimize vehicle trips. It appears that the facility is being proposed in a manner that allows minimal barriers to development, and which avoids appropriate land use evaluation. This is made possible by representing an arm’s length relationship (the applicant is not affiliated with the Springfield School District, avoiding a traffic study, which would be required, for example, if SHS were to annex the site), while simultaneously benefiting from association with the District (by enjoying educational facilities siting). I would ask if the U of O proposed a similar facility, for providing graduate seminars, would this be allowed? Exhibit G, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 13 of 28 The District obviously benefits from the activity of the facility, as implied by the very favorable lease terms, and its operation may be understood as supplementing District educational activity, albeit by a ‘partner’. The ultimate use will be institutional, whoever owns the improvements. Because the property remains in the ownership of the District, and the site adjoins Springfield High School, it will likely eventually be an accession to this facility, if, and when, the current applicant vacates it. The alley vacation I noted previously, created and affirmed a significant boundary between the residential uses and zoning of the adjoining neighborhood, and the District uses and activity. The EC Cares siting breaches this, permitting institutional uses to intrude into the residential neighborhood. Avoiding a change of zoning, by permitting a discretionary use, without attendant requirements to serve the occupants, and without generating adverse impacts, would be ill-advised. I previously referenced the vacation of public rights of way, as occurring 1997-98. This is incorrect. The alley vacation was proposed as application 96-08-155. An initial, quasi-judicial hearing was held October 1, 1996, by the Planning Commission. Ordinances 5837 and 5838 executed the transfer, and were recorded Feb. 10, 1997. Additional public rights of way were vacated on High School property, north of the alley, at 8th and 9th streets August 17, 1996. Street improvements associated with the High School’s access occurred at 9th St. in 1997, in conjunction with installation of fencing and gates at the alley between 6th and 10th. Since the current planning seems to exclude any traffic study, I intend to document the current uses of street parking along G St., at the proposed site, and traffic at peak times at the corner of 8th and G, in the coming weeks, and will present this to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the June 6 hearing. I look forward to reading the staff report. Can you provide me this document, or inform me how I may read it, when it is available (after May 30)? Respectfully, Michael Mcilrath Exhibit G, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 14 of 28 Quick Facts Early Childhood CARES Who is Early Childhood CARES? Early Childhood CARES is the early intervention and early childhood special education (EI/ECSE) program for Lane County. It is a seamless birth to 5 year old system and supports a smooth transition to kindergarten. We provide educational services for birth to five-year-old children who have developmental disabilities, delays, and sensory impairments. Some examples include: Downs syndrome, autism, deafness, blindness, cerebral palsy, emotional disturbance, communication disorders EI/ECSE services are mandated in federal and state law in the special education law (IDEA). They are entitlement services and include procedural safeguards for all eligible children and their parents. Oregon’s EI/ECSE program provides a family-friendly seamless birth to 5-year-old system of services and supports as close to where the child lives as possible. Early Childhood CARES is part of the statewide network of nine regions that provide early intervention and early childhood special education programs through Education Service Districts (ESDs) or local school districts. We are the only EI/ECSE program run through a University. What services are provided? Examples of services include: speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, parent coaching, specialized preschool instruction, behavior and social skills training and evidence-based strategies for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Services are individually determined based on each child’s special needs and written in an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). How many children are served each year? Lane County has 16 school districts and Early Childhood CARES serves children in all of them. This year over 1700 were made eligible and served. Over the course of each year we evaluate and serve another 400- 500 children. EI/ECSE has strict timelines for evaluating and serving eligible children and cannot have wait lists are allowed by federal and state law. Specifically in Springfield we are currently serving about 465 eligible children. We prioritize children within school district boundaries whenever possible so children can be as close to home as possible. How is Early Childhood CARES funded? • 83% is from state general funds in the Education Grant-in-Aide budget • 16% is from Federal IDEA funds • <1% is from Medicaid Fee for Service funds Does Early Childhood CARES use practicum students and volunteers? Exhibit H, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 15 of 28 Early Childhood CARES works with many community partners and incorporates UO practicum students into our classrooms each term. In addition, we include community volunteers in our classrooms. When a classroom is located in a K-12 school building or on a K-12 school property, we often collaborate with the school to offer supervised volunteer opportunities to middle and high school students. 5/19/23 Exhibit H, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 16 of 28 Exhibit I, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 17 of 28 Exhibit I, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 4, Page 18 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 1 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 19 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 2 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 20 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 3 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 21 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 4 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 22 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 5 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 23 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 6 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 24 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 7 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 25 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 8 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 26 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 9 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 27 of 28 Exhibit J, Page 10 of 10 Attachment 4, Page 28 of 28 Springfield Police Department Traffic Call Logs and Accident Reports Attachment 5, Page 1 of 16 COMMUNICATIONS Report Generated: 06/05/2023 16:48:26 | User ID:SPSKD679 Page 1 of 2\\psjsrvcadrms.psj.net\ossicad\cad\rpt\Option_LandscapeStandard Exhibit A, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 2 of 16 Call Time Event ID Rpt # Street Nature Addition 05/28/2019 12 19134798 7TH ST/G ST DWS 11/13/2019 09 19296207 G ST/10TH ST DWS 04/06/2023 15 23087265 7TH ST/G ST DWS 07/01/2022 02 22168661 8TH ST/G ST DWS 11/25/2019 21 19307777 7TH ST/G ST DWS 05/04/2022 21 22114476 10TH ST/G ST MOTOR VEH ACC N 10/17/2020 12 20262993 704 G ST MOTOR VEH ACC N 10/17/2022 13 22275379 10TH ST/G ST MOTOR VEH ACC N DIST: 12 12/08/2019 14 19319166 10TH ST/G ST NO VALID DL 01/10/2020 08 20008699 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 12/20/2022 23 22334331 7TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 12/15/2019 18 19325704 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 10/31/2020 07 20274925 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 06/27/2019 00 19163787 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 01/23/2019 01 19020019 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 06/26/2019 02 19162791 8TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 01/20/2021 02 21015881 800-BLK G ST TRAFFIC STOP 09/11/2019 10 19237650 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 11/19/2019 14 19302076 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 11/14/2019 00 19296940 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 07/06/2021 22 21168437 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 01/18/2020 21 20016620 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 03/05/2019 10 19058245 7TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 06/03/2019 02 19140351 900-BLK G ST TRAFFIC STOP 11/26/2019 03 19307971 700-BLK G ST TRAFFIC STOP 05/07/2019 15 19115358 9TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 12/15/2021 12 21322110 G ST/8TH ST TRAFFIC STOP 02/11/2023 21 23037417 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 01/14/2022 19 22013145 721 G ST TRAFFIC STOP 05/22/2023 15 23132899 7TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 04/20/2023 15 23100239 7TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 01/20/2023 20 23017664 10TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP 11/05/2020 05 20279454 7TH ST/G ST TRAFFIC STOP Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 3 of 16 Exhibit B, Page 1 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 4 of 16 Exhibit B, Page 2 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 5 of 16 Exhibit B, Page 3 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 6 of 16 Exhibit C, Page 1 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 7 of 16 Exhibit C, Page 2 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 8 of 16 Exhibit C, Page 3 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 9 of 16 Exhibit D, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 10 of 16 Exhibit D, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 11 of 16 Exhibit E, Page 1 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 12 of 16 Exhibit E, Page 2 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 13 of 16 Exhibit E, Page 3 of 3 Attachment 5, Page 14 of 16 Exhibit F, Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 15 of 16 Exhibit F, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 5, Page 16 of 16