HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Work PLANNER 8/14/2008
Development Issues Meeting
ZON2008-00032 Highland Business'Park (High Banks Road)
August 14, 2008
Response to Applicant Questions
"
j,
1. Any Issues with construction within the EWEB parcel?, Will the City require the
EWEB permit to be issued before the tentative site plan review-is approved?
Response:
approval.
The City will require EWEB permitting to be settled before tentative site plan
. ~
I .
I,
"
2. Is interpretation ofSDC 4.4-J05(F)(2) correct? Are a~ditional parking lot planting
areas needed? i'
Response: More interior landscaping will be necessary to :~often the appearance of the
buildings from 52nd St. '. '.',
,i
The intent of SDC 4.4-I05(F)(2) is to relieve small developments with fewer than 24
parking spaces on a, fronting collector or arterial street from the 5% interior landscaping
requirement. Based on early comments from aD aT, acc~ss from Highbanks Rd. will not
be allowed. The private drive also called 52nd St., will be I~e fronting street. .
Some 52 parking spaces are located between the fronting ~treet, 52nd'St. and Buildings 2-
5. Section SDC 4.4-I05(F)(2) speaIcs of fronting collect6,r and arterials. 52nd St is
designated as a local street in the Springfield Street Classification Map and not a collector
or arterial. For this reason, sciff is willing to exercise some flexibility in addressing the
landscaping issue.
The site plan should utilize tree plantings and other landscaping to soften the appearance
of the buildings from 52nd. Appropriate trees should be planted adjacent to the west ends
of Buildings 2-5. "!
. ,
5. What is the status of the USACE Floodplain Studyand::'eould it affect this project?
. "
Response: The flood plain study may not be available until after the fIrst of the year.
Adjustment of the FIRM maps by FEMA may take additional tirnetoprocess.
Projects proposed for construction prior to the approval of new FIRM maps will be
evaluated using the existing approved maps. Practically speaking, the 1996 flood made it
clear that the existing floodplmn maps for the McKenzie River in the vicinity of the
proposed development need to be updated. Over the last 5 years, signifIcant changes in
the McKenzie channel east of the development area is a signal that the hydrology of the
river in north SpringfIeld is undergoing change and with channel movement, so is the
floodplain. . "
Date Receilied:
Planner: MM
1/ N lof
OR 126 :." ;.,:,sway Management Plan: Phase 2
ASSUMES ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING:
OR126/52ND
CONCEPT B 1
EXPANDED INTERSECTlDN
l1r 'I ~N' tt,ffi1~11 . '.
4J. 4!-< ,... '. . ... ...,
tt ... .
.'. I. "
j, . r. I t.'" ,
-:r."".
" .
r ...
I
I
:JI"
~,......."...."............ ..,....,11
........::'.
........... ..,
V"J.::----.... _
...... ~ 3..1. ..............~Q... tI'
~ ~
-"",. .. ~ Ir __
....."-- .... ~ t::::.....,t
-:. ,~~ .....
....~.:..~
A ~~ ...~J'.,
-
-....~
-
'--
GESTER~ ALIGNMENT VARIANT l
,
LEGEND
PROPOSED
X REMOVED
2> NUMBER OF LANES
<> ACCESS W.1ITS
...
. 3 Thru lanes on OR-126. Each Direction
. Dual EB Left Turn lanes
. Single we Left Tum Lane
. Separate EB Righi Tum Lane
. Separate NB Thru, left and Right Turn Lanes
. Dual Receiving Lanes on Highbanks Road
~ ~.S
.......,-
1
.; "II
.
~ I .. - ~
!
i
It
#
-.. -'
'II
~
...:.-.
,
,
~
.,
"'~
~ -.-.
~., ..
.' ,} .'a
ij
, ...
......
'I~Tim
,--
\
-
l'
,
- ~
,
, I .... ~"
I t ,II ~
If ffit.-.:i1'r, r I 1. 1: . <~;"
; ri ~ ~q.~ il.; 11?:~...
.:1 ~.ill r'Od; -I: N...... d! 1'J .),.. -,:\.;
'1 '- . W 'tit-, I ~ oJ, lilU" \. m".
.." ,," 1~,;AOT!Jrf::JI _"'1l~~ ~~
\oM ~ L. .... T'~ 'J I .
n ~ I- [f"~ . '_
r' ,. j .... -:, .
Planner: MM
OR 126 Expressway Management Plan: Phase 2
1
ASSUMES ADDITIONAL
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING:
OR126/52ND
CONCEPT 85
PARTIAL CLOVERLEAF
:Ie
,
~
.-
~
....... ~ . 4-Lane Crossroad Bridge (52nd Street)
. Dual we RighI Tum Lanes (EB Ramps)
t", '_ ~
......,.............. I HOGHOAHKS "''',1 -. -1
...~.._... 'I
....11
.........,... P
't",J.........
_ . .1.:. ................!:.b
-...... . ........4t:::::::-- _ _ ~
_" ~~.o
~'.,.. .... ,-,
~..I' .,.. _ ,....., " _ :::----...:. ..,' WATERTA8lE
...... ,.,. ' ...: -' I issues
'-' ~#- . .....1,,;_
-...__ ~. I "'""
-...-........~s I ...:....,
..;:;;:; - .
A ~ ..',"'-.~
,'~
,.
"0
..,~
t~
.
!( ~, .;.
"'r ~
I'
"
o
'" .!.J'
.... r..
r=:1
.s~
~ ~' .
,~ ~
. ,
. JI'~ .,
'0
~
'\ ,.
<< \.'
I \~
'Yl ,~'
--
~
..' 'TRADITIONAL DI';'~ND VARIANT I
\.
\
I ACCESS
SPACING
"
I '"
I ~ 11.'/1
I rrtrLL" J.tfl till
'JJ "'/- '1. H:! j;::!
Jr~~ ""'~ ~~
O'~~~~~
,
f ~;Trl 1"'1..;,
r~ _ '
,.. ~
.. ~
NOTE:
DIAGRAMS ARE CONCEPTUAL IN
NATURE. AND DO NOT REPRESENT
FINAL DESIGN ALIGNMENTS.
March 14, 2C, ~
I BERM/WATERWAY
IMPACTS
"
jJ?fit 'irS, ^
~-~r, ~." . -1 V.
. J,,,,: _ ~ ; 1'.1.~ IC
. ....u. 'j' . 01 '1sI T"' 1 ,..,
.:e-' I ~Yk.e~ j$~ 1~11 ~
11 b:Dn'ir i~:i;,4 '1}
:r,f, t.
LEGEND
PROPOSED
X REMOVED
2 > NUMBER OF LANES
<> ACCESS LIMITS