Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 7/10/2006 ) '<4) '" -.2' '.,1 .~ ~ '. ',."'- . , , ," '-. ',,;,~;,; ---.,.,' . , -':r.;';'!I"".-'-.~ <{ .. J' , q~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) I, Karen LaFleur, being first dilly sworn, do hereby' depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a P,rogram Technician for the Planning Division ofthe Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my c~pacity as, Program Tec.hnician, I pr~pared and c..auseM~ be I\- mailed copies of DRL~-00c>33 Noit-u6h ~ -~-./uL~~ . ~t'fA-J<.... (See attachment nAn) on 1110 .2006 addressed to (see Attachment Bn), by:causing said letters.to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ';;;<o.JLvL ~{L~~ ~~N LaFLEUR STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ /D .2006. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, . . Pr ra technician, who a~knowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary a . B ore me:, .' ' ~:d1\ IWf, My Commission Expires: ,tI/2-!()<6 f~" ",..;. "'.~~~rSE~L "'"""--'1 SANDRA MARX I" NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON I '" COMMISSION NO. 385725 I _..!M.COMMI?S~O!.l~~g~<~V.:.~~2~08"", "~'--' .--- ~ ~." Date Received: Z!tJ/).dJb Planner: AL --T7 , ., " .;:~- \'^' ,,- -" TYPE II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Springfield Justice Center Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Construct a ne,w municipal Justice Center consisting of a police and courts building , with attached jail on an existing developed'site. Case Number: DRC2006-00033 Project Location: Between A Street and B Street; and between 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East. . i~ Zoning: Public Land and Open Space (PLO) Metro Plan Designation: MUC, Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: None Application Submitted Date: Apr, 17, 2006 Revised Plan Submitted Date: June 9, 2006 .' ~ Decision Issued Date: July 10, 20.06 Appeal Deadline Date: July 25, 2006 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner! Applicant: Project Architeci: Chief Jerry Smith Springfield Police Department 344 A Street Springfield OR 97477 Car]' Sherwood Robertson Sherwood Architects. ]32 East Broadway, Suite 540 Eugene OR 97401 Project Engineer: Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers 132 East Broadway, Suite 532 Eugene OR 97401 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM 1 POSITION I Project Manager I Transportation Plannin~ Engineer I Public Warks EIT I Public Works EIT Deputy Fire Marshal I' Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanitary & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety Building .1 NAME I Andy Limbird I Gary McKenney I Matt Stouder I Matt Stouder I Gilbert Gordon 1 Dave Puent I PHONE 726-3784 'I 726-4585 1 736,1035 1 736-1035 1 726-2293 I 726-3668 Dat\':I Heceived: 7 /;o/;oa Planner: AL ----n , I\-*CL~- A' '/ " ~ Site Information: The subject site comprises one downtown City block (approximately 1.47 acres) including the mid-block alley right-of,w~y north of A Street between 4'h Street arid Pioneer Parkway East. The Assessor's Map description is 17-03-35-31, Tax Lots 1500-2400. The proposed development area contains the existing police and municipal courts building, an adjoining commercial lease building, and public and reserved police parking'lots located' in the north half of the block. Zoning for the site is Public Land and Open Space (PLO) in accordance with pla'nning action ZON2006, 00007, and consistent with provisions of the Met;-o Plall and the Dawlltowll R~fillemellt Plall. Properties.. , to the east, south and west of the proposed development area are zoned and designated Mixed Use CommerciallNodal Development (MUCINDO). Properties to the north of the subject site are zoned PLO and Medium Density Resideritial (MDR). The proposed uses on the site include a' police and, municipal courts building with attached jail, and perimeter landscaping. In combination, the police, courts and jail uses have been defined as a "Justice Center" within the Public Land arid Open Space district of the Springfield Development Code. "Justice Center" is listed as a discretionary use in the PLO district" and the Springfield Planning Commission granted Discretionary Use approval for the Justice Center with planning action DRC2006-000 13. The subject site is within the Dovmtown Re{inemelit Plall area. It is not adjacent to a Water Quality Limited Watercourse or within a FEMA 100 year flood ZOne. The site is outside the Time of Travel Zone for Springfield drinking water weJIheads; and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District,SDC Article 17.. ;, DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the snbmitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary , ' for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a ,limited land use decision made according to City code aud state statutes.' Unless appealed, the decision ,is final. Please read this document carefully. (See Page 15 for a summary of the conditions of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be.in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and aiL applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: 111is application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 3.080..and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 31.060. The subject application was initially submitted on April 17, 2006, and revised plans were submitted on June 9, 2006. This decision is issued on the 31" day of the 120 days mandated by the State. , . Proced~ral Finding: Applic~tions for Limited 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 (SDC Sections 3.080 and 14.030). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have app'eal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written Comments below and ADDeal~ at the end of this decision.) Procedural Finding: On May 2,2006, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans and supporting information" submitted with the initial application. Revised plans containing more detailed infonnation were subsequently prepared and submitted for review on June 9, 2006 (12 sheets - RobertsoI) Sherwood Architects,. Sheets G I, G2 and AI,A3; Cameron McCarthy Gilbert & Scheibe Landscape Architects, Sheets Ll-L3; and KPFF Consulting Engineers, Sheets CI, CI.I, C2 & C3). The Date Received: '1/;0/;;&(16 Planner: AL I! ' Page 2 of 16 City staffs review conuuellts have been reduced to findmgs and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 31.060. Procedural Finding: In accordan~e with SDC 31.080-100, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the teptative plan reviewed. . Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Pla!,\s) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. , ' WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: In accordanc~ withSDC 3.080 and 14.030, notice was sent to, adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feei' of the subject site on April 21, 2006. Planning staff received one written comment regarding this application. Mr. Bruce Berg, 448 D Street,- submitted the following statement: "As ,a former eity councilman, nearby resident and past president of the Washburne neighborhood, I am writing to offer my comments about the proposal for the Sprillgfield Justice Cellter alld Jail. First, I amfidZI' supportive oIthe needfor thisfaeility and will votefor whatever tax needed to make il'happen. ,It is in the design that I o.tfer some reservations. Specifically, I have serious concerns of the shulling down of B Street, It is a collec/ors/reet, unlike A, and I would encourage the designers and council to rework the.faeility so that A or 4'h Street is closed, not B. B Street p,'ovides immediate and quick access needed not justfor residents, but for emergency services as well. Frankly, as much as the police use B St;'eet cun:ently, I'm surprised they want it closed with the new design'. I ;vould ' also'encourage .easy access .li'om the center to main street vendors to encourage business in the core area. Thank YOll." Staff Response: The initial site plan submission depicted closure' of a segment of B Street right,of-way lying between 4th Street and Pioheer Parkway East, and was included in the 'notification to adjacent landowners and referral agencies': However, the segment of B Street is not incorporated within the revised site plan at this time. Potential vacation of B Street will be undertaken as a separate and distinct planning process involving adjacent landowner notification and public hearing proceedings. FurthernlOre, before undertaking the street vacation process, all reasonable site design alternatives to vacation of B Street will be examined. The current site design will not comproniise access to and from the downtown' core for commercial traffic or em~rgency vehicles as no portions of public streets are involved. CRITERIA 'OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: . SDC -31.060; Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria. of Sit~ Plan Approval states, "the Director shall approve, or approve, with conditions, a Type 11 Site Plan Review Application upon determining that criteria (I) through (5) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director ~hall deny the application," , (1) The' zoning is consistent with the Me/I'o Plall diagram, and/or thc applicable Refinemcnt . Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Developmcnt Plan. Finding I: The site is .designated Public Land and Open Space (PLO) in thc Downtown Refinement Plan. The site was recently rezoned to PLO (Planning Action ZON2006-00007) which is consistent with the refinement plan designation, and there are no proposed changes to the zoning for the site. Conclusion: As proposed, the tentative site plan satisfies Criterion 1. , Date Received:-4!E/~6 Planner: AL ' Page30f ]6 (2) Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall detennine capacity issues. Finding 2: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction' of a 63,000 square foot poiice anqmunicipal courts building with attached 37,400 square foot jail. Development is proposed to be split into two phases with construction occurring over approximately three years. Finding 3: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the site impr,ovements in confonnanc-,,'with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil ~ngineer also shall be required to provide construction in~pection servic.es. ' . Finding 4: . The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site' plan and the surrounding public services. Staff also undertook a detailed review of the revised site plan submitted June 9, 2006.. City and agency staff's review commen!s have been incorporated in findings and conditions herein. Except for the following, the proposed public and private improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Water and Electricitylmprovements Finding 5: SDC 32.120(3) requires eacl; development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to fumish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maintenance. Springfield Utility Board coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. Finding 6:' Water service is available to serve the site, and backflow prevention devices are required. Chuck Davis or'SUB Water Department (726.2396) is the contact person. Please refer to the letter from Bart Mct:ee, SUB Senior Civil Engineer dated May I, 2006. Finding 7: There is an existing overhead ~lectrical transmission line within the mid-block alley west of 4th Street between A' Street. and B Street. There are also telecommunication, telephone and City sewer liues ~ithip the alley. The alley is to be vacated to ~ccominodate development of the police/courts building: and jail; therefore, the electrical service, telecommunication lines, and sewer lines must be relocated. An alternate routing of the electrical service has not been shown on the tentative. site plan. 'Ed Head of Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric (726,2395) is the contact person for electrical system planning. The applicant also shall coordinate removal and relocation of underground cable television, teleph9ne and other telecommunication lines with Comcast and Qwest. . Finding 8: SDC 32. I 20(2) states, "Wherever possible, utility lines shall be placed underground." Finding 9: Public rights,of-way are available on the perimeter of the site for routing and/or re, routing underground utilities to serve the proposed development. Finding 10: Lighted bollards are proposed at the jail and police/courts buitding entrances, and at , the entrance and egress points for the secure courtyard and police vehicle access driveways. However, the City does not have an operating and maintenance agreement with SUB Electric for '" Date Received:~/,.xIS . 'planner: AL , ,,' Page 4 of 16 lighted bollards. The'bollards will have to be relocated out of the street rights-o'f-way and/or fed , from a metered building circuit and not the streetlight power grid. . , " 'Condition .1: Prior to approval of the Final Site J'lan, the underground routing of relocated electrical, telephone, television and other telecommunication lines shall be depicted on the site plan. ' Condition 2: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the lighted bollards shall be relocated outside the street rights,of-way or provision shall be made for providing metered electrical service from the adjacent buildings. Sanitarv Sewer Finding 11: Section 32.100 of the SOC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sailitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maint~'nance activities. Finding 12: The applicant has proposed relocating the existing 12-inch public sanitary sewer line (currently located in the mid,block alley) starting at a point one block east of the development site at 5'h Street, and routing the sewer line along A Street as shown on Plan Sheets C I and C 1.1. The relocated sewer in' A Street is proposed to run .west to Pioneer Parkway East, where it turns northward and connects to an existing manhole located at the intersection with B Street. Finding 13: The existing sanitary sewer line loc~ted within the mid-block alley between 5th Street and Pioneer Parkway East also provides service to tax lots 2700, 2800 and 2900 located east of the subject site. Currently, these tax lots are occupied by the First Christian Church and the Carter Building. 11le applicant's proposal to relocate the sewer line in 5th Street and A Street does not include provisioI]s to ensure'sewer service is maintained fo'r these tax lots. Fillding 14: Pioneer Park;"'ay East is a right-of,way controlled by OOOT; as it is considered part of the state highway system. Construction of a new public sanitary sewer line in a state highway right-of'way will require a facilities pernlit issued by OOOT. Condition 3: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant sha'll revise the plans to provide for sewer service laterals to replace the existing sewer service connections for tax lots 2700,2800 and 2900. . . Condition 4: Prior to approval of the co~struction plan drawings, the applicant shaJi obtain approval from OOOT to construct a new public sanitary' sewer line in Pioneer Parkway East as shown on the plan drawings. Conclusion: 'As conditioned herein, the tentative' site plan satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Date Received' ~/Jo/,,;.xtj Planner: AL l' Page 5 of 16 Stomlwater Management and Oualitv Finding 15:SDC 32.110(2) requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adeq~ate public and/or private stonnwater management systems provisions have been made as detemlined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. Finding 16: SDC 32.110(4) requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stonnwater man~gement system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. , ' Finding 17: SDC 32.110(5) requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 18: To comply with Sections 32.11 0(4) & (5), stomlwater runoff from the rooftop of the building will be directed Into the existing stonnwater systems located in 4th Street and Pioneer Parkway East, while runoff from the secure courtyard area will be directed into a vegetated filtration basin. . Finding 19:' The applicaniproposes connection of two roof drainage pipes to the existing 12-inch public stoml sewer SYSteJ~l in Pioneer Parkway East: Because Pioneer Parkway East is under state jurisdiction, connection to the existing public system .within this road right-of,way will require a facilities' pemlit fromODOT. . Finding 20: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES), the City of-Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Stonn Sewer System (MS4) penni!. A provision of this pennit,requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban storm water to the Maxiinum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 2 I: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the. City's MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post,Construction Stonnwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed development. . Finding 22: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, imple~lent and enforce a program tei ensure the reduction of pollutants in stOllliwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non, structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. Finding"23: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the'Ciiy of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post,construction runoff from new and re,development projects to the. extent allowable under Siate Jaw, Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures, Manllal and the future Stonnwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP).' . Finding 24: As required iri SDC 31.050(5), "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineeri!,g Design Standards and Procedllres Manilaf'. Finding 25: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim design standar9s for stomlwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to Date Received:~~ Planner: AL . - Page 6 of 16 the policies and procedur~s of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS). " / Finding 26: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3:03.4.E of the manual requires that a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stornlwater quality improvement using vegetative methods.' Finding' 27: To meet tlj~ requifements of the City's MS4 pernlit, the SDC, and the City's' EDSPM, the applicant lias proposed installing one small vegetated filtration basin to treat stonnwater runoff from the sally port/secure courtyard area. A small perforated pipe will convey runoff from the filtration basin to the existing I 5, inch stornl line in 4'h Street. However, a seed mix for the vegetated filtration,basin has not been specified in the tentative site plan. Condition 5: Prior to approval of the construction plan drawings, the applicant shall obtain approval from ODOT to construct stonn sewer latcrals in Pioneer Parkway East as shown on the' plan drawings, or shall relocate the stonn sewer lines outside of ODOT right-of,way. Condition 6: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the project landscape architect shall provide an appropriate seed mix that is satisfactory to the City's Public Works Engineering Department for the vegetated filtration basin located within the secure courtyard. 'Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the tentative site plan satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic SafetY Controls 'Finding 28' Existing streets aoutting the proposed development site are constructed to City standards. No Chal)ges to the intersections or lane configurations of the abutting streets are proposed with the tentative site plan. Finding 29: The submitted Task I and Task 2 Traffic Impact 'Studies prepared by Access Eng'ineering have demonstrated that nearby streets and intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with the addition of traffic anticipated from the proposed development. Finding 30: Vehicular access to the proposed development would be via existing cjowntown streets,' including entrance/egress driveways along A Street and 4th Street. A police vehicle entrance is proposed from 4th Street into a secure courtyard that provides access to the future jail sally port and delivery ar~a. Egress from the secure courtyard is via a gate and driveway onto A .street. A second police vehicle access driveway is proposed near the mid,block point 'on the west Ih . . . side of 4 Street. Access and egress for the second driveway would be from A Street. Finding 31: .Abutting the subject site, Pioneer Parkway East is a three lane arterial street under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). This street is developed to urban standards and contains two one, way (northbound) travel lanes with a parking lane 'on the east side of the road abutting the proposed development area; however, parking adjacent to the development site is prohibited by curb painting and signage. There are no changes to the access or lane configuration proposed with the tentative site plan. ODOT has indicated previously they do not have concerns about closure of the mid, block alley egress onto Pioneer Parkway East .that is proposed with the second phase of construction on the site. Date Received: 7//;O /.7006 Planner: AL / . Page ~ of 16 ) Finding 32: Abuttingthe subjectsite, A Street is classified as an east,west collector street with a single travel lane and an on,street parallel parking lane in each direction. This street is de;veloped , to urban standards arid no changes to the configuration or status of A Street are proposed with the tentative site plan. Finding 33: Abutting the subject site, B Street is classified as an east,west collector street with a single travel lane and an on,street' parallel parking .Iane in each direction. This street is developed to urban standards and no'changes to the configuration or status ofB Street are proposed with the tentative site plan. Finding 34: Abutting the subject site, 4th Street is developed to urban standards. Fourth Street is classified as a local street with ,a single travel lane and an, on-street parallel parking lane in each direction. Although the configur:ation of 4th Street is not proposed to change with the tentative site plan, additional parking and driveway entrances are proposed on the west side to serve the proposed jail and police/courts building. Driveway spacing'and vision clearance areas will be maintained in accordance with acceptable transportation enl"rineering standards for downtown , streets. . Conclusion: As proposed, the tentative site plan satisfies this sub-element 'of the criterion. (3)' The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding 35: Criterion 3 contains three different elements with sub,elements and applicable code standards. The site plan ?pplication as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions'. The elements, sub,elements and code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: 3a. Public and Private Improvements in accordanc,e with SDC 31 and 32 . Public Street and,Related Improvements (32.020,32.090) . Fire and Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3)) . Public and Private Easements (32.120(.1) and (5)) , \ 3b. Confonnance'with standards of SDC 31, Site Plan Review, and SDC 23 Public Land and Open Space Zoning District. . Discretionary Uses (23.020) '. Lot Coverage Standards (23.040) . Setback Standards (23.050) . HeightSlandards (23.060) . Off, Street Parking Standards (23.070 and'3 l.l 70-230) . Fence Standards (23.090) , . Landscaping Standards (31.130,150) . Screening and Lighting Standards (31.160) 3c. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements . Downtown Refinement Plan qate Received:~2~/~~6 Planner: AL ' Page 8 of 16 3a. Public and Private Improvements in Accordance with SDC 31 and 32 Public Strectand Related Improvements (32,020,32.090) Finding 36: There are no changesto the public street'system proposed with the tentative site plan that would significantly affect nearby intersections, the availability of on-street parking, or pedestrian access. - Finding 37: The tentative site plan drawings do not depict existing or proposed street lighting. There is a mix of existing street lighting types and fixtures on the abutting streets. All lighting fixtures have been recently upgraded to meet City standards. However, the' streetlight pole spacing is not unifonn and does not provide consistent lighting as the streetlight poles are a mixture of City,owned wood and steel poles, and fixtures mounted on SUB power poles. The projeCt' designers should Ineet with the City Traffic Engineer to discuss how best to integrate exterior lighting needs of the Justice Center with the existing street lighting systems. , ' Finding 38: In addition to vehicular trips, assumed development may' generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips' are made"by bicycle or walking and i.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety ofland uses, including this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 39: Pedestrian 'access would be provided by existing sidewalks' along the public street frontages. Pedestrian trips to the site would be expected to originate frOln the abutting public streets, especially A Street, Pioneer Parkway East and 4th Street as these provide direct connection to public parking areas in"the downtown core and nearby transit stops, including the Springfield Transit Station. Finding 40: The tentative site plan portrays the proposed police/courts building and attached jail constructed atop the existing mid, block alley' west of 4'h Street between A Street and B Street. . The alley is located within the building envelope for the adjoining jail facility, which is scheduled for construction with the second phase of the development. A vacation'or alteration of use for the alley and relocation of existing utilities will be ,required prior to construction.of the building(s). This action has been initiated under Planning Case. LRP2006,00019, and is scheduled to be presented to the City Council at a Public Hearing on July 17,2006. Finding 41: Demolition of the existing police, courts and commercial lease building and construction of the new Justice Center will result in the removal of approximately 30 existing street and site landscaping trees. Five trees are proposed to be retained along the southwestern edge of the site (a portion of the Pioneer Parkway East frontage). Of the trees to be removed, approximately 25 are considered qualifying trees (ie. greater than 5" diameter) in accordance with SDC 38.015. The proposed landscaping plans show installation of 25 street trees evenly distributed around the perimeter of the site to compensate for the removed trees. The proposed construction will occupy the entire downtown block upon completion, which precludes an opportunity to install landscaping trees internal to the site. . ' Finding 42: In accordance with SDC,38.015, a tree felling permit will be required for removal of approximately 25 qualifying (ie. at least 5" diameter) street and site landscaping trees. Finding 43: There is an existing Lane Elections ballot drop box located near the alley driveway, . egress onto 4'~ Street. This feature will require relocation prior to construction occurring on the Date Received: Planner: AL 7/tJ!;.pfJ6 t, Page 9 of 16 site. Lane Elections has advised the ballot drop box will be used for the November, 2006 election and probably not required again until elections in March, 200S. Condition 7: The Final Site Plans submitted for the project shall portray street lighting locations and fixtures acceptable to theCity, Traffic Engineer. Condition 8: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a vacation or alteration of use for the mid- block alley west of 4'h Street between A Street and B Street shall be approved. Condition 9: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a tree felling pennit shall be approved for qualifying street and site landscaping trees proposed for removal. Condition 10: Prior to initiation of construction on' the north half of the block, the Lane 'Elections ballot drop box shall be relocated to a suitable location. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the tentative site plan satisfies this subcelement of the criterion. Fire and Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3)) , Access Finding 44: Access to the development site is provided by the existing public street system surrounding the ,subject city block. Springfield Fire and Life Safety advise that access is satisfactory for fire apparatus and the existing public streets will support an SO,OOO lb. imposed load. Water Supply Finding 45: The tentative, site plan shows a new S-inch watedine along the west side of 4th Street to serve the proposed development. Additionally, there are two existing fire hydrants that are available to serve the proposed development. One hydrant is located at the southwest corner of the subject block, and a second is located to the east across 4'h Street at the southwest corner of the adjacent block.. The existing fire hydrants meet minimum spacing requirements of the , Springfield Fire Code Table 105.1. Finding 46: Springfield Fire and Life Safety advise that the minimum water supply shall be 2,250 gallons per minute based on a total building floor area of approximately 112,776 ft' Gail, police and courts buildings combined). Construction is proposed as Type I,B with autoinatic sprinkler protection in accordance with Springfield Fire Code Table BI05.1 and Section B105.2 Exception. ,i" Conclusion: As proposed; the fire access and wafer supply meet SDC 32.120(3). Public and Private Easemerits (32.120(1) and (5)) , Finding 4 T: 'Utilities will be extended underground to serve the proposed development. Extending and connectingpublic utility facilities at property lines improves efficiency and service 'to individual sites. Finding 4S: 'Street side utility easements may be necessary to protect public infrastructure and serve the subject site with requested utilities. The facilities currently requested are standard Date Received:, Planner: AL 7lo/ ;}..-tJ6 I I Page 10 of 16 commercial. services with 'connections to existing lines on the perimeter of the site. Wherever required, Public Utility Easenients (PUEs) will be provided to accommodate necessary utility services or services will be placed inside existing public easements and rights,of"way. Finding 49: There are existing eiectrical, telecommunication and telephone lines within the mid- block alley west of 4th Street between A Street and B Street. As previously conditioned (above), the existing utilities will require relocation to accommodate the proposed development. The' applicant will coordinate removal and/or relocation of underground lines with the affected utility providers, including SUB ~Electric, Comcast and Qwest: City sewer lines will be removed and relocated in conjunction with the proposed site development, but do not require coordination with outside agencies. The proposed construction phasing will retain existing above-f,'found and underf,'found utilities within the mid"block alley until construction begins on the jail facility in late 2008 or early 2009. Interim easements or licenses will be required to accommodate the existing utilities upon vacation of the alley, and prior to construction occurring within the affected area. Finding 50: Existing easements, if any, within the proposed development area will require vacation prior to devel6pnient occurring within or atop the affected area. Condition 11: Prior to or concurrent with recording of the alley vacation initiated by Planning Action LRP2006,OOO 19, temporary easements or licenses shall be provided for existing utilities located within the alley including, but not limited to, sanitary and stornl sewer, cable television, telephone and telecommunications, and electricity. Condition 12: Prior to or concurrent with recording of the alley vacation, temporary easements or licenses shall be provided across the eastern and western ends of the alley, allowing for continued public use of the egress driveways from the parking lots, access to the Lane Elections ballot drop box, and ~ccess to the Best Little Printhouse for the duration of their occupancy. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the tent~tive site plan satisfies this sub,elemel1t of the criterion. 3b, Cimformimce with Standards of SDC 31, Site Plan Review, arid Article. 23, Public Land and Open Space Zoning , Discretionary Use (23.029(2)). I Finding 51: The Springfield Planning Commission f,'fanted Discretionary Use approval for the Justice Center, with planniJ)g action DRC2006,OOOI3.' . , Landscaping Standards (31.130,i50) Finding 52: Staffreviewed the submitted site conditions and landscape plans (Sheets LJ,L3) in conjunction with other improvements shown on the tentative site plan. Finding '53: There are no planted setbacks or vegetative screening required for government buildings within the Downtown Exception Area of the SDC. A combination of existing and .proposed street and site landscaping trees are portrayed on the site landscaping plans. A vegetated filter basin and planted bioswale is proposed to be installed adjacent to 4th Street' between the two driveway entrances. Planting beds also are proposed along the public street frontages, particularly ~long the 4th Street exposure of the site. .. Date r<eceived: Planner: AL .., /'0 / ~tJ6 I , / Page II ofl6 Finding 54: The landscape' plan proposes 30 street trees around the perimeter of the site, including five existing trees to be retained along the southwestern edge of the site adjacent to Pioneer Parkway East. Street trees will be spaced and planted in accordance with provisions of the SDC and EDSPM. Vision clearance triangles will be maintained for street intersections and driveway entrances. Finding 55: 'The tentative;plan proposes street tree placement that is more evenly distributed than the current planting pattem that has a cluster of trees along the A Street frontage of the block and very few trees on 4th Street. Additionally, street trees are proposed to be installed along the entire B Street frontage 'that currently contains four separate driveway entrances. Finding 56: TIle submitted tentative landscape plan prov;'des an overview of the site landscaping requirements, irrigation specifications and proposed plantings meeting the standards of SDC 31.l30c150 and the Downtown Refinement Plan. A final planting plan containing species plariting lists, quantities al)d specifications has not been provided. Tlie applicant has stated on the tentative plan that a final' pli'nting plan and an irrigation plan will be' submitted by the project Landscape Architect for staffi'eview prior to installation.' . Conclusion: As proposed, the tentative site plan meets the requirements of the SDC for street trees and site landscaping. ' Screening and Lighting Standards (23.090, 31.160) Finding 57: There are no vegetative screening requirements for the development'and none are proposed. A solid masonry wall and security gate is proposed along the 4th Street frontage of the courtyard accessing the delivery and sally port entrance for the future jail. Finding 58: The applicant has stated' in the tentative site plan that building lighting will be ,downcast and/or directed away from residential areas located approximately 200 feet to the north. Finding 59: Pedestrian-scale bollard lighting has been proposed' adjacent to the main entrance doors for the jail and police/courts building, and at driveway entrances onto 4th Street and A Street. As previously conditioned, the bollard lights will be connected to the building electrical system. Finding 60: The tentative site lighting plan does not show the location, height or style of lighting fixtures proposed for the building favade on the perimeter of the jail and police/courts buildings. In accordance with SDC' 31. 160(3)(c), "exterior lighting shall be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflection are contained' within the boundaries of the property, and shall be directed downward and away from abutting properties..." Condition 13: The Final Site Plan shall provide details on the location and design of exterior lighting fixtures to ,ensure confonnance with the Code. Among other measures, appropriate lighting fixture placement, low,wattage bulbs and low-angle cutoff mechanisms shall be employed to ensure lighting glare and spillover does not affect adjacent properties. Conclusion: As conditioned herein,' the tentative site plan satisfies this sub,element of the criterion. -' Date f~eceived:-2jlo/ ;/P1J6 Planner: AL I Page 12 of 16 3c. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 61: The subject development site lies within the Downton Refinement Plan area and is consistent with public/government development requirements of the adopted Refinement Plan. Finding 62: The subject site is located ,outside of the Time of Travel Zones for the' Springfield Drinking Water Protection Overlay District. Conclusion: As proposed, the tentative site plan satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. 4) Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to, avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commerCial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in Articles 31, 32, the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay district Article and any" applicable refinement plan; and comply with the ODOT acc'ess . management standards for state highways. Finding 63: There is no minimum parking requirement for the site in accordance with the Downtown Exception Area of the SDC. There will be on,street parking available for public and visitor use along A Street, 41h Street and B Street. Parking also is available in the municipal parking lot on the nOlih side of B Street. Finding 64: The tentative site plan shows the proposeq locations of required bicycle parking spaces in accordance with SDC 31.220. The proposed development would generate a-total bicycle parking requirement of 17 short term and 9 long tenn spaces (@IEOOO ft' for the police/courts building, and @1/20 beds for the jail). The proposed bicycle parking location for the jail is covered by an extension of the building roofiine, and can be considered 100% long term . parking. .Finding 65: The driveways serving the secure sally port courtyard and the internal police vehicle'. access on 41h Street will be used exclusively by authorized vehicles, and will contribute minimal traffic to the surrounding'street system. There are no significant transportation issues related tq the placement or anticipated use of these driveways. . ' . Finding 66: The proposed site plan will close four existing driveway entrances on B Street with the first phase of development. An alley egress onto Pioneer Parkway East will be closed with . the second phase of developm'ent. The east alley egress OIito 41h Street ,will be retained as a police vehicle access driveway. ' Finding 67: The proposed first phase will construct the'new police and courts building on the north half of the block currently developed with parking'lots. . An existing east-west mid,block' alley will be vacated pursuant to Planning Action LRP2006-00019. However, the alley driving surface will remain open for the duration of Phase I construction to maintain access to the rear of the police and courts building and commercial lease space. As conditioned previously, existing utilities will be retained during the period of Phase I construction. The existing police and court buildings will be demolished to construct the jail during the second phase of the project. ' Conclusion: As proposed 'and conditioned previously under Criterion #2, the tentative site plan satisfies this criterion. ' ' Date Received: '7, j,',IO/.I:,d-<JO. 1,' Planner: AL ! - Page130fl6 (5) Physical fcatures, incluiiiug but not Iimitcd to,- significant clusters of trees and shrnbs, watercourses shown on the' Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcrop pings and historic features have been evaluated and prot~cted as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations. Finding 68: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted. There are no significant natural features on this. site, as it has been previously developed with a public street, police/courts and commercial lease building, alley, parking lot, and landscaping. Finding 69: Storm water from the subject site outfalls to the Willamette River. The Willam'ette River is listed witlrthe State of Oregon as a "water quality limited" stream for numerous chemical and physical constitue~ts, including temperature. ' , finding 70: Springfield',s drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subject to protection in accordance with SDC Article 17. However, the subject site is located outside the TOTZ;of Springfield drinking water wellheads. , ' Finding 71: . The development, as proposed and previously conditioned herein, provides storm and ground water quality protection in accordance with SDC Article 17 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 32.] 10. Finding '72: The proposed development is designed and located and has been conditioned in a maImer that has stonnwater runoff controls and stomlwater quality measures for protection 'of ground, surface and drinking water. Conclusion: As proposed and conditioned previously under Criterion #2, the tentative site plan satisfies this criterion. . CONCLUSION: Tbe Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria 1,5 of SDC 31.060. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL? Five copies of a Final Site. Plan al1d any additional required plans; documents 'or information are required 'to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with SDC 31.080, I 00, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial confomlity with the tentative plan reviewed: 'Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Penn it Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Condition 1: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the under!,'Tound routing of relocated electrical, " telephone, television and other telecommunication lines shall be depii:ted,on the site plan. " Date Received:'. 7fo/)PO(.. Planner: AL ' Page 14 ofl6 ,', C,ondition 2: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the lighted bollards shall be relocated outside the street rights,of'way or provision shall be made for providing metered electrical service from the adjacent buildings, ' . Condition 3: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall revise the plans to provide for sewer service laterals to,replace the existing sewer service connections for tax lots 2700, 2800 and 2900. Condition 4: Prior to approval of the construction plan drawings, the applicant shall obtain approval from ODOT to construct a new plJblic sanitary sewer line in Pioneer Parkway East as shown on the plan dra~vings. ' . Condition 5: Prior to approval of the construction plan drawings, the applicant shall obtain approval from ODOT to construct stonn sewer laterals in Pioneer Parkway East as shown on the plan drawings, or shall relocate the storm sewer lines outside ofODOT right,of-way. Condition 6: Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the project landscape architect shall provide an appropriate seed mix that is satisfactory to the City's.public Works Engineering Department for the vegetated filtration basin located within the secure courtyard. Condition 7: The Final Site Plans submitted for the projeci shall portray street lighting locations and fixtures acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. Condition 8: Prior.to approval of the Final Site Plan, a 'vacation or alteration of use for the mid-block alley west of 4th Street between A Street and, B Street shall be approved. . Condition 9: Prior to approval of the Final Site' Plan, ,a 'tree felling permit shall be approved for qualifying street and site.landscaping trees proposed for removal. Condition 10: Prior to initiation of construction on the north half of the block, the Lane Elections ballot drop box shall be relocated to a' suitable location. ), Condition 11: Prior to or concurrent with recording of the alley vacation initiated by Planning Action LRP2006-000 19, temporary easements or licenses shall be. provided for existing utilities located within the alley including, but not limited to, sanitary and storm sewer, cable television, telephone and telecommunications,' and electricity. Condition 12: Prior to or concurrent with recording of the alley vacation, tenlporary easements or licenses shall be provided across the eastern and western ends of the alley, allowing for continued public use of the egress driveways from the parking lots, access to the Lane Elections ballot drop box, and access to the Best Little Printhouse for the duration of their occupancy. ConditionI3: The Final Site Plan shall provide details on the location and design of exterior lighting fixtures to ensure confornlance' with the Code. Among other measures, appropriate lighting fixture placement, low-watt~ge bulbs and low-angle cutoff mechanisms shall be employed to ensure lighting glare and spillover does n?t affectadjacent properties. SIGNS: Signs are regulated by the Springfield City Code; Article 9, Chapter 7. The number and placement of signs must be coordinated with the Community Services Division. The locations of signs do not constitute approval from the, Community Services Division: A separate sign pernlit is required. Please contact David Bowlsby (726,1029) for further information.' Dater Received: ,/llc!d.iJ06 Planner: AL Page ]5 of 16 . . . PERMITS: The applicant may submit construction or building plans to otlier City departments for review prior to final site plan approval in accordance with SDC 31.080 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision for compliance with the Final Site Plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 31.090 will not be issued until all plans submitted by the applicant have been revised. Conflicting plans cause delays. ,. 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 Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. '. APPEAL: This Type II Tentative Site Plan decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Article 15, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for al5,day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil ,Procedures, Rule lO(c) for service of notice by mail, tile appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on July 25, 2006. ' .QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726,3784 or email alimbirdiaJci.sorinQfield.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process, PREPARED BY Jl2y- ~ Date.Received: Planner: AL . '7/!O/;;dt I Page 16 of 16 .. . - CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELQ 'NT SERVICES DEPARTMENT' 225 5th ST , SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ~. Mr. Bruce Berg 448 "D" Street SpriQgfield; OR . 97477 .... ----- ..._..~ .. -, . , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. . 225 5th ST " , , SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 , *J. iiI}", ~~ , ~.~ ". ';.",-.-.---- Carl Sherwood . Robertson Sherwood Architects 132 E Broadway, Ste 540 Eugene, OR 97401 . 'CITY OF SPRINGFIELD .' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ".l!i . ,.t...__._._._._..____.~__"_-.-:___~..-.- ..-.<<1 , '1110/~o6 Date R.ecelved.----=t"I Planner: AL ff i 1; .' ~ I' ~~ d",w;",,'i~ . - - f . '. , .'\ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2255thST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ,j