HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 12/19/2007
.,
d#IJ
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE:
)
srATE OF OREGON I
) ss.
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Program Technician for.the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, 'Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Techni<;ian, I -erep<;,red and caused to ~e '
mailed copies of Di<-c..2Dol-1JO() 10 I /'1 &1;.0 (J\J:+u-'.M/)y) - V~- ~1L
(See attachment . "A") on 12./,Q ,200Yaddressed to (see ~ ~
.Attachment B"). by.causing said . letters to be. placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
K~g~~R ~~J~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
IV I~/ (0_, 2007. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act.
Before me:
. ;;~-------ofF~,;~;[AC~-"-- -;:.r-1
: ~ NOT~~:~:lt~~~~GON I
I" COMMISSION NO. 379218 I
.~_ _ _.:..~ IO!A~.~ION EXPIRE~ ~A\2'!:. ~!~J
1/11;(;4'
IF
Ex~res: ~ n :Joog
My Commission
Date, r'ieceived:
Planner: AL
1,2.) 'l/.:Jo07
/ .
.'
TYPE II MINOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Liberty Bank Headquarters Building
Project Proposal: Minor Variance to Maximum Building Height for a Three-Story Offic~ Building
Case Number: DRC2007-00067
t .'
., "
ii'r.
;
',~,;:
,.~
-..........,-/..
\r-'
Project Location: 250 International Way
(Assessor's Map 17-03-15-40, TL 3400)
,. ~.~::-
. ~. .~
:~.. -;-'
~~ .~'';;'';;'.~;cji_yJjitlii5!-
.-. , ~,
,
^
tj.
.,
-"'.
Zoning: Campus Industrial (CI)
t' . -~'- :..:....,.-~...;4.....,.. ;. ,
f" ___ ,'" _. ....-:.....'.:
'I~' _. --...:...............,~......
(~.~ . ." '. ~ --. . . :i"\
. .: ~.,.:1~~:
SITE- '.CI
i;' : ~ , "
. ,3: ': :'
cf ~ ,: "iI;
11 . \L.....:.......,.c'......:,:,.,~:;..~; F
':~ . _.." <.'!/.::-~
~~~~&b;,llW~~~
..<",,",-- - ,~:~"~'; .. --, ~.. -:=:~f~~j~;~.:~:JI_ . ~\i..
. .. CI . . .:."..~.7 J~...,.-,.
\(r-------'. ,-~~j~~;~~;')
.c",y.,,-."I ,., ."
.
L
!~
Comprebensive Plan Designation: CI .
Applicable Refinement Plan: Gateway
Refinement Plan Designation: CI '.
Application Submitted Date: October 31, 2007
Decision Issued Date: December 19,2007
Decision: Approval willi condition
, Appeal Deadline Date: January 3, 2008
Associated Applications: LRP2007-00020;'SUB2007-00018; SHR2007-00003; PRE2007-00070;
DRC2007-00066; DRC2007-00068
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVlEW TEAM
I POSITION
I Proi ect Manager
I Transportation Planning Engineer
I Deputy Fire Marshal
I Public Works Engineer
I Public Works Engineer
I Building Division
REVlEW OF
Planning
Transportation.
Fire & Life Safety
Utilities
1 Sanitary & Storm Sewer
1 Building Code
NAME
Andy Limbird
Gary McKenney
Gilbert Gordon
Matt Stouder
1 Matt Stouder
1 Dave Puent
PHONE
726-3784
736-4585 .
726-2293
736-1035
I 736-1035
1726-3668
.'
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVlEW TEAM
Owner/ Applicant:
Architect:
William Bunting
Liberty Bank
PO Box 10426
Eugene, OR 97440
, .
Scott Stolarczyk
Robertson Sherwood Architects
132 East Broadway, Suite 540
Eugene OR 97401
. " :.~~:\ .
Date. Received' /,z;~k7
Planner: AL
.0
NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant submitted a Type II Variance Application to the City of Springfield requesting a minor variance to
the 45-foot maximum height for buildings in the Campus Industrial Districtas required by SDC 3.2-420. The '
applicant is requesting a 15.6 percent increase to the allowable height to facilitate cOl!struction of a 52-foot high
building. The applicant is making this request in order to refme design details for a three-story building,
including rooftop parapet and mechanical unit screening, and variations to the roofline to meet design'standards
for the CI District. There are no abutting residential uses, and most other commercial and industrial districts
have no building height limitations unless they abut residential districts.
REVIEW PROCESS:
This application is reviewed under the Type II procedure listed in SDC 5.1_130 and in SDC 5.21-125.A.3. The
Director shall approve the Minor Variance if the applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable
criteria listed in SDC 5.21-125. This application was accepted as complete on October 31, 2007, and this
decision is issued on the 49th day of 120 days mandated by the state.
,-
SITE INFORMATION:
The 4.97 acre development site is zoned Campus Industrial (CI) consistent with policies of the Eugene-
Springfield Metro Plan and the adopted Gateway Refinement Plan. The subject site is Lot 3 of a 5-lot business
park subdivision known as "Liberty Professional Center:'. A development Master Plan (LRP2007-00020) for
the business park was approved in July, 2007. The.site is located at 250 International Way and physically set
back from the public street frontage. Primmy access to the site is via a driveway within a north-south shared
access easement from International Way. The shared access driveway is to be construCted 'concurrently with
development of the subject property.
The subject property is bordered on the west and south by companion parcels of the business park subdivision,
, on the north by a City-owned parcel containing a stormwater detention pond, and on the east by Pacific Source.
All abutting' properties are zoned and designated CI. The applicant has submitted concurrent applications for
Site Plan Review (DRC2007-00066) and Drinking Water Protection Overlay District (DRC2007-00068).
. .
DECISION: Approval with condition, as per the findings in this report.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding I: Applications for Limited Larid 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 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the
notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration.
Procedural Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to owners/occupants
. ,.
within 300 feet of the subject site on November I, 2007. No written comments were received in response to the
Notice to Suri'ounding Property Owners. -'
General Finding 3: The applicant's project narrative cites variance criteria from an earlier, obsolete version of
the Development Code. Staff advise there have been at least two comprehensive updates to the Development
Code since that time; the latest Code reformat took effect in September, 2007. However, because the stated
intent of the variance request is clear, and is supported by staff, the request will be reviewed for conformity with
the current Development Code criteria.
DateRe' ;; ~
PI celVed:_/2.- /> .
anner: Al / tJ,_
....,..
12/19/07
Minor Variance DRC2007-00067
Page 2 of5
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL:
SDC Section 5.21-125.D states, the Director shall approve the Minor Variance if the applicant demonstrates
compliance with all of the applicable approval criteria:
I..Locational or dimensional problems have been identified that can be resolved by a Minor
Variance;
Finding 4: The applicant is proposing a 52-foot high, three-story office building on the site and is
'requesting a variance to the building height provisions of the.CI District. The applicant's submittal
indicates the height variance is requested to provide suitable floor to floor heights for the structure and
also to accommodate rooftop mechanical units, screening, and roofline variation. The. applicant
suggests the increased building height also allows for more efficient use of the .site and reduces the size
of the building footprint required to achieve the desired gross floor area.
Finding 5: SDC 3.2-420 indicates that the maximum building height in the CIDistrict is 45 feet. The
requested variance is 7 feet or 15.6%.
Finding 6: The subject property is not located adjacent to a public street or a.residential area. The
proposed building is at the northeast cgmer of the business park and backs onto a City stormwater
detention pond and riparian woodland.
Finding 7: The applicant has submitted a concurrent application for Site Plan Review (DRC2007-
, 00066) for the subject property. The Tentative Site Plan must be. approved for the Minor Varia:nc~ to be
implemented.
Finding 8: To meet the design standards of the Campus Industrial District, the applicant has proposed
architectural details and roofline variations for the building. The requested variance would facilitate
building design elements that meet the requirements of the ,CI District, and provide for screening of
rooftop mechanical equipment. .
"
Condition of Approval: . .
1. The requested 15.6% (7-foot) building height variance shall be implemented upon approval of the
Final Site Plan for the.subject property (planning Case DRC2007-00066).
,
Conclusion: The findings above show that locational problems have been identified. As conditioned
herein, Criterion I has been met. .
2. Tbe request is the minimum necessary to alleviate the identified dimensional or locational
problem;
Finding 9: The applicant is requesting a variance to the 45-foot height limitation to allow for three full
building .stories to be constructed, along with a varied roofline and building parapet to screen rooftop
equipment. The applicant also requests the variance to meet design detail requirements of the CI
District. .
Finding 10: The applicant is requesting a 15.6% variance (7 feet) to the 45-foot height limitation of the
District. Up to a 30% variance (in this case 13.5 feet) can be requested with a Type II variance
application. It can be concluded that, based on the applicant's architectural plans, the requested
vanance is:the minimum ~ec~ss~ to accommodate the preferred building design.
Date Received' /,).,/;006'7
Planner: AL I .
12/19/07
Minor Variance DRC2007-00067
Page3 of5
Conclusion: The proposed adjustment is the minimum 'necessary to alleviate the dimensional problem.
As proposed, Criterion 2 has been met.
3. Where applicable, the request shall result in the preservation of on-site trees 5" dba and above;
Finding I I: There are no trees of 5-inch or greater caliper that will be affected by this request for Minor
Variance.
Conclusion: As proposed, Criterion 3 has been met.
4. The request shall not impede adequate emergency access to the site;
Finding 12: The International Fire Gode (IFC).requires a minimum 20 feet clear-width area for
fIre/emergency access.
Finding 13: The Minor Variance request affects the building height only. The applicant's tentative site
plan provides for emergency access around the entire perimeter of the building. Additionally, the
requested building height variance does not affect accessibiiity by the Springfield Fire Department's
aerial apparatus.
.
Conclusion: The proposed building height request does not impede adeqUate emergency access to the
site. As proposed, Criterion 4 has been met.
5. The reqnest shall not unreasonably adversely impact public or private easements; and
Finding 14: There are no public or private eaSements that would be adversely affected by the proposed
building height variance.. .
Conclusion: As proposed, Criterion 5 has been met,
6. The reqn~t shall not unreasonably limit solar access standards for abutting properties. In order
to meet this criterion, the Director may require that the building or structure be placed as close to
the south property line as possible.' .
\
Finding 15: The City-owned parcel immediately to the north of the subject site is zoned and designated
CI and contains an operating stonnwater detention pond. There is no residential land use in the vicinity,
and the City is not contemplating buildings or other improvements on the site at this time. Therefore,
solar access standards do not apply.
Conclusion: As proposed, Criterion 6 has been met.
7. In addition to the applicable approval criteria specified in Subsections 1. through 6. above, the
following approval criteria shall also apply'to a request involving parking reductions on infill
lots/parcels in the Commercial and Industrial Districts when there is a change of use, addition or
expansion that requires Site .Plan Review Modification. The Minor Variance for parking
reductions shall not apply to MDS applications as specified in Section 5.15-100.
,
Finding 16: This request does not involve a parking' reduction and is not an infIll site.
Criterion 7 does not apply.
Therefore,
COl)clusion: Criterion 7 is not applicable.
Date ReCejVed:~( 'J(J(Jj
Planner: AL i
12/19/07
Minor Vari'/nceDRC2007-00067
Page 4 of5
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the
applicable criteria of approval are av.ailable for free inspection and copies are available for a. fee at the
Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Minor Variance 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. The appeal must be ill accordance withSDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must
be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning
Commission approves the appeal application.
IIi accordance with SDC 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule I O( c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on
January 3"', 2008.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. The requested 15.6% (7-foot) building height variance shall be implemented upon approval of the Final Site
Plan for the subject property (Planning Case DRC2007-00066).
Qnestions: Please call Andy Limbirdin the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at
(5"1) 726-3784 or email alimbirdlOJ.ci.sorino:field.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process.
"'P";t 0.1
C'
Date F<eceived: /0y.?<'''' 7,.
Planner: AL
12/19/07
MinorYariance DRC2Q07-00067
Page 50f5
. - - -~---
t
..
..- .~. . I.~ -- .-__........:....____.~ _.-.:;,.,_ I. __\.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477.
William Bunting
Liberty Bank
PO Box 10426
Eugene, OR 97440
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
.............._-;1
Scott Stolarczyk
Robertson Sherwood Architects
132 East Broadway, Ste 540
Eugene, ,OR 97401
.,
')
Date R.eceived:
Planner: AL
CttrCl~_6.
.
I
,
/;/ ;ho07