Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 8/8/2007 'I AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. SrATE. OF OREGON) I ss. County of Lane ) cf~' RECEIVED 1l~ ~J)w~ By: 7'~ f--D 1 I of i ~ .~ L 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 Technician, I prepared and caused to be . . mailed copies of DFl.C-ZoD7-000Lf-<-{.. 't2~~ ~ ~,~ mtd ~ (See attachment . nAn) on 8-fj, , 2007 addressed to (see . Attachment Bn). by causing. said ' letters to be. placed in a U.S. mail box -with postage fully prepaid thereon. ;y~~~ K{s1,lN LaFLEUR (' /) C{ ST A TE. OF OREGON, County of Lane fu<.1('"t!f ., , 2007. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act, Before me: l~--~--~;~~s~~-~~ I, BRENDA JONES' . \.... NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON I , COMMISSION NO, 379218' j !____ ~Y~O!A~S~31NEXPIRESMAY27,2008 j . ~,_....--.....~ _____--Z'! My Commission, A. ~ 'J1,'lMd ~. 4 Notice of Decision - Site Plan Modification, Type \1 ,Project Name: McKenzie Willamette Hospital ProjectProposal: Construct a new primary hospital entrance structure with a covered walk and drop-off area, improved pedestrian vehicular and parking facilities, modifications to the G Street access, and new employee parking lot on the south side of G Street to replace existing parking on the adjacent school property, -Adds 12,.124 sq. ft. of new impervious surfaces, Case Number: DRC2007-00044 ProjectLocation: The subject property is located at 1460 G Street; Assessor's Map 17-02-36- 22 TLs 4601, 7100 Zoning: Mixed-Use Commercial (MUe) north of G Street, General Office (GO) (south of G Street) Overlay Districts: Hospital Support Overlay (HS), Drinking Water Protection Overlay (DWP), Nodal Development Overlay (NDO) Applicable Refinement Plan and Designation: Mohawk Specific Plan (not an adopted plan) Metro Plan Designation: Nodal Development Area (north cif G Street), Low Density Residential (south of G Street) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: May 15, 2007 Application Submitted Date: June 26, 2007 Decision Issued Date: August 8, 2007 . Recommendation: Approval with conditions Appeal,DeadlineDate:' August 23,2007 Associa.ted ~pplications: DRC 2007-00033 Final Site Plan Equivalent Map, ZON200s-00041 (Zone Chan'ge to MUe), LRP200s-00028 (Metro Plan Amendment) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM REVIEW OF NAME Land Use Planning Linda Pauly Transportation Gary McKenney Greg K wock Matt Stouder I I POSITION I Planner III I T ran~portation Planning Engineer I Public Works E~gineering I Deputy Fire Marshall I Comm~nity Services Manager Sanitary & Storm Sewer, Utilities & Easements Fire and Life Safety Building Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent 'Site Plan Modification DRCl007,00044. I PHONE .1 726-4608 I 726-4585 I 726-7134 736-103S I I I 726-2293 726-3668 . Rick Varnum McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center 1460 G Street Springfield, OR 97477 McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. 1460 G Street Springfield, OR 97477 , APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Jeffrey Bond ASLA Satre Associates, PC, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536 ,Eugene, OR 9740 I' . APPLICANT , PROPERTY OWNER DECISION: Tentative Site Plan Modification Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. This is a limited land use decision made according to city code and state statute. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. The standards ot'theSpringfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Modification Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Site Plans must be in conformance with'the tentative site Dlan as conditioned, Buildin9 Dlans and site develoDment must conform to the Final Site Plan. Aooroved Final Site Plans lincludin~ Landscaoe Plans\ shall.- . not be substantivelv chan~ed durinp Buildin~ Permit Review without an aooroved Site Plan Modification Decision., iIi I I m- nn~J I , Wil. - _1 S:li ~_1- n _ SillI: ~ liimIti 'Urn k1[ ~,... . ~~-~I -~J ~iSlin..\ -.-JIll J~' .,... m =t "J.I _11,1 ~:" n'" II,I_~ H1SJ1' r=I1 F S '~ ==r + , ~ . Ji-S Jl -I Sf!t:; F ,sm 1 JITI rnrrn IJJJJJE DI1JI - -,," ~ ~1illJIillll!MUIIIEsT 1: J#-$ ::m m EITlTITllllTrTrl I I I I I I I II I II III1 ITIT III I I I " I I , , ~ LEGEND: _ I MUC/ND Zonin~ I .. I GO Zonin~ I Site Plan Modi(Jcation DRe 2007-00044 2 r; OTHER USES THAT MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. The proposed use is permitted in accordance with Springfield Development Code. ,No other uses are authorized by this decision. Final Site Plan and Building Plans must conform to this decision. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II (administrative) procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 3.080 'and the site plan criteria of approval SDC 31.060. This application was accepted as complete upon submittal. June 26, 2007. This decision is issued on the 44th day of the 120 day review period mandated by the state (ORS 227.178). PROPO,SAL: The proposed site development is a modification to the existing developed medical center at the northeast corner of G Street and Mohawk Boulevard, The proposed improvements include: a new entrance at the east side of the' hospital with a covered walk and drop-off area. relocation of the G Street driveway. addition of access controls for the doctors' parking lot, and construction of employee parking 10t'South of G Street. SITE AND ZONING INFORMATION: The proposed development is to be constructed on twO ,lots and within two zoning districtS. Development on TaX Lot.460,1 (north of G Street) is' subject to Springfield's MUC/ND Zoning District standards. Development on Tax Lot 7100 (south of G.Street) is subject to GO Commercial District standards. . The subject property 'abutsMohawkBoulevard. G Street, I Street and 16th Street and is adjacent to MUC. PLO. GO and land zoned LDR. ' WRITTEN COMMENTS: 'Applications 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 ontheapplication (SDC Sections 3.080 and 14.030). The applicant and , parties submitting written comments during the notice period 'have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (see ADDeals at the end of this decision.) In accoraance with SDC 3.080 and 14.030. notice wa:s'~ent to owner/occupants within 300 feet of the sybject site on June 29,2007, No written comments were received in response to the Notice. Site Plan Modifications - Crjteria of Approval SDC 31.100. SDC 31,100 (4). SDC 31.060. SDC 31.080 .Finding: On June 20. ~007. the City approved Final Site Plan Equivalent Map application DRC . 2007-00033 for the subject property in accordance with SDC 31,080. The medical center was . developed prior to the adoption of the Springfield Development Code (SDC). The Director ' accepted and approved the Final Site Plan Equivalent Map to allow the property owner to use the Site Plan Modification process specified in SDC 3 I .1 00 for future additions or expansions. The intent of the Final Site Plan Equivalent Map.is to'have an up to date 'record' of developme.nt on the property. SDC 31.080 (2)(c)2. states: The applicant shall update the Final Site Plan Equivalent Map as acol)dition of Site Plan Modification preliminary approval. Condition I: The applicant shall update the Final Site Plan Equivalent Map to show the modification as approved in this decision. A copy of the updated map shall. be submitted prior to~~~~~ . SDC 31.1 00 (I) states: The Site Plan Modification process establishes procedures to allow certain adjustments to an approved Site Plan, either after Preliminary Site Plan Modification DRC 2007,00044 3 " , Approval or after Final Approval. . This process shall assure that any proposed Site Plan Modification contiriues to comply with Section 31.060 of this Article. SDC J.I.I 00 (3)(b) states: .A Major Site Plan Modification application shall be evaluated under the Type II review process. The application shall be reviewed based on a particular standard as specified in Section 3 1.060 of this Article, e.g. a modification in the stormwater management plan, a substantial increase in the size of the building or when commercial or industrial development abuts property zoned residential. . The Site Plan Modification process establishes procedures to allow certain adjustments to an approved Site Plan, either after Preliminary Approval or after Final Approval as specified in Section 31.090 of this Article. This process shall assure that any proposed Site Plan Modification. continues to comply with Section 31.060 of this Article. SDC 31.100 (4) states: .The criteria of approval for a Site Plan Modification application shall be in compliance with the applicable standard and/or criteria of approval specified in Section 31.160 of this Article. . SDC 31.060 CRITERIA. OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL states: The Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, a TypeJI 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 Dire<;tor shall deny the application, i Conformance with the Eugene-Springfield 'Metro Area General Plan, Springfield Develapmen! Cade Article 31- Site Plan Review Standards, Article 32- Public and Private Improvements, Article 40- Mixed-use Commercial District and' Article 18 - General Office Commercial District Were required for approval of the applicant's Site Plan Modification. Finding: On July 17, 2007, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the p'roposed plans and' supporting information. City staffs review comments hav~ been incorporated in . findings and conditions contained herein. The Site Plan Modification application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under'each Criterion of Approval unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions, ' Criterion I - SDC 31.060 (I) The zoning is consistent with the Metro PI~n diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan ~istrict map, and Conceptual Development Plan; ,'. Finding: The Mixed-use Commercial and 'General Office zoning are consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. There is no adopted refinement plan for the subject property, Conclusion: The.proposal satisfies Site Plan Criterion I. Criterion 2:- SDC 31.060 (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 Srr.e' Plan Modipcation DRe 2007,00044 4 f' " I other applicable regul~tions. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall . determine capacity issues. Criterion 3 - SDC 31.060 (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: Criteria 2 and 3 require the proposed development to be provided with public and private improvements which 'are designed in conformance with all applicable Development Code' requirements and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The applicant's civil engineer shall also be required to provide construction inspection services. Finding: The intent of Criterion 2 is to ensure that public improvements are installed and serve development in accordance with the Metro Plan, The Metro Plari indicates that new urban development must be served by at least the minimum level of key urban services at the time development is complet~d (Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan. III-G-I). Site Plans are development in accoraance with ORS' 227.215. The City interprets Criterion 2 to . mean that on-site and off-site public .improvements not only have capacity but are also extenaed to the developable area for connection. Therefore. in order to ensure the development complies with Criterion 2 for the provision of public infrastructure the required public improvements must be installed and approved before final site plan approval or occupancy of .the site.' . , Finding: The Development Review Committee and the Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed site plan and the surrounding public services. The site plan application as submitted complies with th~ applicable code standards listed under each sub.element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub- element;; and code standards of Criterion 2 and Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: I. Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 31 and 32 .' Public Street and Related Improvements - SDC 32.020-32,090 . Sanitary Sewer Improvements -, SDC 32, 100 . "Storm Water Manageme~t and Quality - SDC 32, II 0 and SDC 31,240 . Utilities.. SDC 32.120: (I) and (2) . -Fire and Life Safety Improvements - SDC 32,120(3) . Public and Private Easements - SDC 32.120( I) and (5) 2. Conformance with standards of SDC Article 31, Site Plan Review, and Article, 40, Mixed~use Zoning Districts and Article 18 General Office .Districts '. ' ,Permitted Uses - SDC 40,020, 18,020 . Lot Size. Coverage and Setback Standards - SDC 40.040. 40,050. SDC 18.030. 18.044, 18.050 ' .' . Height Standards - SDC 40.060.SDC 18.060 . . Off-Street Parking Standards - SDC 40.070. SDC 18.070 and SDC 31.170-230 . Fence Standards - SDC40.080, SDC 18.100 . .Sp~cific DevelopmentStandards - SDC40.' 00 and 40: I J 0 .. . Landscaping Standard~ - SDC 31.130-150. SDC 40,100 (4) . Screening and Lighting - SDC 31.160, SDC 40, I 00 and 40.110 . Parking Standards - SDC 31,170 - 230. SDC 40,100 and 40.110 Site Plan Modiftcation DRe 2007-00044 5 ,\ 3; Applicable Overlay Districts and Refinement Plan Requirements . . Article 2B - Hospital Support Overlay District . Article 41 -: Nodal Development Overlay District . Article /7 - Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Finding: All public and private 'site improvementS are required to be designed in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards Manual. The applicant's civil engineer shall also be required to provide construction inspection services, Finding: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed site plan, City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein. Public and Private fmprovements in Accordance with SDC 3/ and 32 PUBLIC STREETSITRANSPORTATlON FACILITIES AND IMPACTS - SDC 32.020,32,040, 32.050, 32.060 . Finding:, The subject property consists of two parcels of land located north and south of G Street. The larger site (8.71 acres) contains the main hospital facilities and is bounded by Mohawk Boulevard to the west, I Street to the north, 16" Street to the east, and G Street to the south (M,ap 17"03"36"22, Tax L.ot 460 I). The smaller site (2.96"acres) is located south of G Street, between 14" Street and 16'" Street (Map 17"03"36~22, TL 7100). This parcel is undeveloped and is used as parking. Finding: Approval of this proposal would allow site modification to construct the following improvements on the subject property: a new primary hospical entrance structure with a covered walk and drop"off area, improved pedestrian vehicular and parking facilities, modifications to the G Street access, and a new employee parking lot on the south side of G , Street to replace existing parking on the adjacent school property, The applicant'proposes t6 remove an existing mid"block crosswalk and construct a new crosswalk across 'G' Street to serve pedestrians walking between the new parking lot and the hospital site. Finding: Access to the proposed development is from G Street - a 'two-lane collector street with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH within a 50"foot right of way. Average daily traffic on this street is estimated to be approximately 2,260 vehicle trips per day (Mid"Block Crosswalk Evaluation, Branch Engineering, Inc" June IB, 2007). Sid'ewalks currently exist only along the western portion of the lot frontage ofthe subject property south ofG Street (Tax Lot 7100), SDC 32.020 (7)(b) states: Whenever a proposed development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any unimproved street frontage' . abutting a fully.improved street, that street frontage shall be' fully improved to City. spedfications. Exception (a) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time that a City street improvement project is initiated. Finding: The south side G Streetfroncage of the subject property (Tax Lot 7100) is not fully improved. The sidewalk improvements proposed by the applicant do not provide for a continuous public sidewalk along the entire lot frontage. The site plan shows a gap betwe.en Site Pion Modification ORC 2007,00044 6 ,", '. the proposed sidewalk along. G Street and the existing sidewalk' (at the intersection with 16'h Street) of approximately 140 feet. Condition 2: The Site Plan shall' indicate that the proposed sidewalk improvemert along the G Street frontage of Tax. Lot 7100 shall extend the full length of the lot frontage to connect with the existing sidewalk at the GStreetll6'" Street intersection. The sidewalk shall be included in a Public Improvement Project and shall be constructed and inspected 'prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for development on Tax Lot 7100, . ' Finding! The applicant'proposes to relocate an existing mid-block pedestrian crossing on G Street to address pedestrian safety and convenience concerns. An analysis 'of the crossing - entitled Mid,Block Crosswalk Evaluation. June 18, 2007 - was prepared by Branch Engineering and was subJ11itted with the application. The analysis evaluates the operations of the existing crosswalk. recommends that it' be removed. and provides design recommendations for the proposed new crosswalk location, Finding: The City Engineer has determined that the mid~block crossing must be constructed as a Publ.ic Improvement Projes~;. , . . Condition 3: The applicant shall remove and relocate the ,existing mid-block crosswalk to 'the location proposed, This work shall be done as a public improvement project (PIP) under the appropriate permit from the Springfield Public Works Department. The marking, signing, and lighting elements and general design of this work shall be in conformance with the design concept depicted in Figure 2 of the Mid-Block Crosswalk Evaluation. Design details shall be determined duringthe PIP re~iew process. " Finding: As conditioned. existing and proposed transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated by'the proposed development. J STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SDC 32./10,. SDC 32.110 (2) "states: The Approval Authority sllall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems' provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures'M.anual. . SDC 32:110 (3) requires a stormvyater management system to accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. ,~ " , SDC 32,110 (4) requires .that run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormw~ter management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. . Finding: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water'Act (CWA). Endangered'Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City,of Springfield is required to obtain. and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). . " Finding: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's t1S4 plan address six "Minimum Control Measures." Minimum Control Measure 5. "Post- Site :lan ~odjf1cation DRe 2007-00044 -7. " . Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment:' applies to the proposed development: ' Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop; implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP, The City must also develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or ilOn-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriated for the community, Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law, Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the Springfield Development Code (SDC),.the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future Storm water Facilities Master Plan (SFMP), Finding: As required in Section 31.050 (5) of the SDC:, "a development,shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Proc~dures Manual." Finding: Section 3,02 of the City's EDSPM states the Pubic Works Department Will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services ' (CWS), Finding: Section 3,03.3.B of ~he 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 a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building roofto'p impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. Finding: To comply with Sections.32.11 0 (4) & (5), s,tormwaterrunoff from 'the site will be directed into a series of vegetative water quality swales and storm pipes prior to discharge into the public system. The connection to the public system will be into the back of a curb inlet located at the intersection of 16'" and G Streets. ' Finding: . To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed several vegetativ;, water quality swales. The planting plan is consistent with the requkementS of the City of Portland's Stormwater Management Manual. Finding: The vegetation proposed for use in the swales will serve as the primary. pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater r~noff, and will remove suspended .solids and pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtration, Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established. ' Condition 4: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed vegetative water quality swales shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species fully. , established prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met prior to issuance of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the swale as designed, then Site Plan Modi(tcation DRe 2007-00044, 8 '" " provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. ' UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS ' ' Finding: SDC 32,120 (5) requires applicants proposing developments to 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, The minimum width for public utility easements adjacent to street rights of ways shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 14 feet. The current plan does not depict any' easements located along the street frontages of the subject property. Condition 5: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 7- foot public utility easement (PUE) along the entire G Street property frontage of Tax Lot 7100, PUE dedication forms are available on the City's website at vvww.ci.sDrinciield.or.us On-Line Forms and Documents. A copy of the recorded PUE shall be submitted to the Development Services Department. . Finding: Bryan Brewster at Springfield Utility Board reviewed,the proposal and submitted comments. The property owner will be responsible for the cost of moving the existing electric pole. Contact Bryan at 726-2395 if you have questions regarding electric service. Finding: As conditioned, public and private improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed development. ' Conformance with standards of SDC Article 31, Site Plan Review, and Article 40, . Mixed-use Zoning Districts and Article 18 General Office Districts Finding: The development site located south of G Street abuts a Low Density Residential zoning district. Saint Alice School and Chapel is located south of the proposed parking lot. The proposed development on Tax Lot 7 I 00 is located on the northern portion of the lot. The applicant'splans will provide a landscaped perimeter 'and 6-foot black chain-link fence around the proposed ,parking lot (in the interior of the site rather,than a landscaped setback at the property line). Finding: The proposal conforms to the applicable standards of SDC Articl~ 31, Site Plan Review, and Article 40, Mixed-use Zoning Districts and Article 18 General Office Districts. Conclusion: The proposed Site plan Modification satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Conformance with Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Overlay' Districts: Hospital Support Overlay (HS), DrinkingWat~r Protection Overlay (DWP),:Nodal Development Overlay (NDO) , ' Finding: The subject property is locat~d within the Hospital Support Overlay District. The proposal is consistent with the applicable development standards of SDC 28,060. Site Plan Modification DRC 2007,00044 9 Finding: The subject property is located within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District. The potential impacts of the applicant's proposal on Springfield's ground water resources have been evaluated and will be protected in accordance with SDC Article 1'7 (see findings and conditions under Criterion 5). ' Finding: The portio~ of the subject property north of G Street is located within the Nodal Development Overlay pi strict, The proposal contains design elements that support pedestrian environments and is consistent with the applicable development standards of SDC Article 41, Conclusion: The proposed site plan modification satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. . Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Site Plan Criteria of Approval 2 and 3. Criterion 4:. -SDC 31,060 (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; mi~imize'curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in Article 31, 32, the appropriate refinement plan; and comply with the ODOT access management standards for state highways. Finding: The applicant proposes to modify access along the north side of 'G'. Street by relocating the existing access approximately 90 feE;t east. The new access point will align with the proposed parking driveway along the south side of the street. . Findi'"g: The applicant proposes to modify' accesses along the south side of 'G' Street by 'relocating two existing driveways, The western driveway leading into the undeveloped lot will be shifted slightly eastward to align with the relocated access at the north. The eastern driveway will also be relocated further east to align with an existing driveway north of 'G' Street. Finding: Ingress-egress .points will be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC Articles 31 and 32, applicable zoning and or overlay district Articles, and applicable refinement plans. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Criterion 4. Criterion 5: -' SDC 31.060 (5) Physical features, including but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rack autcroppings and historic features have been evaluated and protected as required by this Code. . Finding: The Natural Resou,rces Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, the Water Quality Limited Waterways Map, applicable refinement plans, the Wellhead Protection Overlay District Map and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted. Except as noted below, the proposed site plan modification does not affect any physical features on the subject property whicn require evaluation or protection. Site Plan Modification DRC 2007-00044 10 ,', , . , GROUNDWATER PROTECTION Finding: The subject property is within the 5 - 10 year time-of-travel zones (TOTZ) to the 16'h & Q Street Well and is subject to the standards 17.070 (3). Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Qverlay D'istrict approval is required for this development if the criteria of SDC 17.050 ( I) are met. ' Finding:, A DWP application was ,submitted concurrently with the Site Plan Modification, The materials submitted to address Springfield's Drinking Water Protection Overlay District requirements have been reviewed by City staff an'd Amy Chinitz, Water Quality Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board, In consultation with Ms.. Chinitz, staff determined that the Drinking Water Protection Oveday District application is not required for the proposed Site Plan ,Modification. The application has been withdrawn, Finding: The site improvements proposed in the subject application do not typically affect the storage, use or manufacture of hazardous materials in quantities regulated in accordance with SDC Article 17. However, due to the sensitive nature of the Drinking. Water Protection Oveday District, DNAPLs must be precluded and reasonable measures must be taken during design and construction to guarantee compliance with SDC Article' 17. The following conditions are necessary to minimize negative impacts of regulated substances on groundwater and to ensure tliat the proposed development can fully comply with all applicable standards of SDC Article 17. Conditions are applied in accordance with SDC 17.080 for compliance during construction and operation of the proposed and permitted uses. " , Finding: General construction practices have potential to introduce hazardous materials into the groundwater. Condition 6: In the Final Site Plan, the cover sheet shall specify that the site development is located within Springfield's Drinking Water Protection Oveday District and is subject to the standards of the 5,19 year TOTZ Standards in SDC 17,070 (3), Condition 7: To alert contractors to prevent introduction of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater during site construction (including the public improvement project), the applicant sh~11 install ,I I x I T' wellhead protection area signs available from Springfield Utility Board (SUB) on the site prior to commencement of construction. Contact Amy Chinitz, Water Quality Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board at 744-3745, ConditionS: To prevent the introduction of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater via the parking lot stormwater management system, Sheet L I 0 of the final site plan shall provide a revised Vegetated Swale detail which specifies that soils lining the swaleshall have a minimum of 25% clay content to reduce/prevent'infiltration. If existing site soils do not meet this crit<:ria, the swale soil profile shall be shall be amended to provide a 6" layer of Clay beneath the top~,oil layer. ' . Condition 9: To prevent introduction of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater via t~e parking lot stormwater management system, the applicant shall install II x I T' wellhead protection area signs within the parking lot. In addition, wellhead protection area signs shall be installed adjacent to any loading areas and tras~ enclosures to alert users of the facility to the importance of reporting and cleaning up any spills.' Signs are available from Springfield Utility Site Plan Modification DRe 2007-00044 \.r II Board (SUB) and shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy. Contact Amy Chiniu, Water Quality Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board at 744-3745, , Condition I 0: To protect ground water from contamination, all soil amendments and landscape treatments shall be checked for DNAPLs. All soil amendments and landscape treatments containing hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be applied only in accordance with manufacturer specifications and in a manner which 'reduces risk to groundwater contamination to the maximum extent possible. Any excess fertilizer or herbicide brought to the site that is not used during the application will be removed from the site immediately upon completion of the maintenance activity. Condition II : To protect. ground water from contamination, no potentially deleterious materials, including landscape materials, shall be allowed to be open to rainfall. The applicant . shall designate a specific covered storage area' for any materials to be stored on site. These storage areas shall be designed and graded to drain to o,ne or more inlets connected to the sanitary sewer system and shall preclude drainage from any other portion of the site from entering the collection ~ystem. .. Finding: As conditi(~>ned, the proposed development will protect groundwater from contamination by hazardous materials not containing DNAPLs, in conformance with the standards of ~DC 17.070 (2) 5-10 year TOTZ Standards for material storage, use, application and second'ary containment. ' SDC 17,070 (2)(c) states: All new use of DNAPLs shall be prohibited. SDC 17.070 (2)(d) states: Any change in type of use or an increase in the maximum daily inventory quantity of any DNAPL shall be considered a new use and shall be prohibited. . Condition 12: All use or storage of products containing DNAPLS is prohibited. DNAPLs are defined in SDC Article 2 as follows: A group of hazardous materials that are denser than water/have a specific gravity greater than 1,0, have a low solubility rate, and degrade slowly to other compounds that are even more of a healt~ hazard. For the purpose of Springfield's drinking water protection, DNAPL chemicals are defined as "all chemicals displaying characteristics of a DNAPL chemical or a material containing a substance considered a DNAPI.. chemical." DNAPLs are further defined as having a specific gravity (or density) greater than 1.0 and solubility rate of less than 10 grams fliter (or 1%). A list of DNAPL chemicals regulated within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District was adopted by SUB on November 10, 1999 and was incorporated as part of Springfield Development Code Article 17, adopted by Springfield City council on May 15, 2000. Any change in ,type of use or storage of products' containing DNAPLs is prohibited. SDC 17,050 (I) states: A DWP Overlay District application is required when the . criteria of both subsections (a) and (b) are met. (a) A site is affected by one of the following: I, There is a change of land use, occupancy or tenancy of a property, including but not limited to a change from vacant to occupied; 2. during Building Permit review process; or 3. in conjunction with any development application including but not limited to Site Plan Review and Minimum Development Standards.. Site Plan Modification DRe 2007-00044 12 (b) The action in subsection (a) will: I, affect the storage, use, and/or production of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater; or 2. increase the quantity of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater that are stored, used and/or produced. Finding: As conditioned, the proposed development will include provisions to protect groundwater in accordance with the S-I 0 Year TOTZ Standards of SDC 17.070 (3). Finding: As conditioned, ground water resou~ces will be protected in accordance with SDC Article 17. ' TREE FELLING Finding:. AT ree Felling application was submitted concurrently to fell 2\ trees from the site north of G Street (Case Number DRC2007-0004S). The proposed felling is to allow reconstruction around the hospital entrance and parking loc Felling will be consistent with SDC Article 3!l. The landscaping proposed in the subject applicatjon provides for'revegetation of the site in accordance with City sclndards. '" '. . , Conclusion: The proposal satisfies Criterion 5. CONCLUSION: The Site'Plan as s~bmitted i~ in conformance with the applicable Criter'ia I-S of SDC 31.060, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Condition I: The applicant shall update the Final Site Plan Equivalent Map to show the modification as approved in this decision. A copy of the updated map shall be submitted prior to Final Site Plan approval. Conditi';n 2: Jhe Site Plan shall indicate that the proposed sidewalk improveme'nt along the G Street frontage of Tax Lot 7100 shall extend, the fulllengthofthe lot frontage to connect with the existing sidewalk at the G Street! 16th Street intersection. The sidewalk shall be included in a Public Improvement Project and shall be constructed and inspected prior to issuance of an, occupancy permit for development on Tax Lot 7.100, Condition 3: The applicant shall remove and relocate, the existing mid. block crosswalk to the location proposed. ,This work shall be done aS'a public improvement project (PIP) under the appropriate permit from the Springfield Public Works Department. The marking, signing, and lighting elements and general design of this work shall be in conformanFe with the design concept depicted in Figure 2 of the Mid-Block Crosswalk Evaluation. Design details shall be determined during the PIP review process. Condition 4: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's, MS4 p!,rmit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed vegetative water quality swales shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species fully established prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met prior to issuance of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the swale as designed, then provide and maintain additional. interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to Site Pion Modifrcation DRe 2007-00044 /3 the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established, Condition 5: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall dedicate a 7- foot public utility easement (PUE) along the entire G Street property frontage of Tax Lot 7100, PUE dedication forms are available on the City's we~site at www.ci.sDrinofield.or.us On-Line Forms and Documents, A copy of the recorded PUE shall be submitted to the Development Services Department. Condition 6: In the Final Site Plan,the cover sheet shall specify that the site development is located within Springfield's Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and is subject to the standards of the 5-10 year TOTZ Standards in SDC 17.070 (3). Condition 7: To alert contractors to preveritintrodustion'of hazardous materials that pose a risk to,groundwater.during site construction (including'the public improvement project), the applicant shall install II x I T' wellhead protection area signs available from Springfield Utility Board (SUB) on the site prior to commencement of construction, Contact Amy Chinitz, Water Quality Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board at 744~3745. Condition 8: To prevent the introduction of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater via the parking lot stormwater management system, Sheet L I 0 of the final site plan shall provide a revised Vegetated Swale detail which specifies that soils lining the swale shall have a minimum of 25% clay content to reduce/prevent infiltration. If existing site soils do not meet this criteria, the swale soil profile shall be shall be amended to provide a 6" layer of clay beneath the topsoil layer. Condition 9: To prevent introduction of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater via the parking lot stormwater management system, the applicant shall install II x I T' wellhead protection area signs within the parking lot. In addition, wellhead protection area signs shali be installed adjacent to any loading areas and trash enclosures to alert users of the facility to the importance of reporting ind,c1eaning up any spills. Signs are available from Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and shall be installed prior to issuance of occupancy, Contact Amy Chinitz, Water Quality Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board at 744~3745. Condition I 0: To protect ground water from contamination, all soil amendments and 'landscape treatments shall be checked. for DNAPLs. All soil amendments and landscape treatments containing hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be applied only in accordance with manufacturer specifications and in a' manner which reduces risk to groundwater contamination to the maximum extent possible, Any excess fertilizer.or herbicide brought to the site that is not used during the application will be removed from the site immediately upon completion of the maintenance activity. Condition II: T ~ protect ground water from contamination', no potentially deleterious materials, including landscape materials, shall be allowed to be open to rainfall. The applicant shall designate a specific covered storage area for any materials to be stored on site. These storage areas shall be designed and graded to drain to one or more inlets connected to the sanitary sewer system and shall preclude drainage from any other portion of the site from entering the collection system, Site Plan Modification , DR,C 2007-00044 /4 (, I, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE. PLAN APPROVAl? FINAL SITE PLAN: A Final Site Plan Application, the Final Site Plan Fee, five copies of a Final Site Plan and 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. This decision is based on the submitted Tentative Site Plan, The Final Site Plan must show conformity with the Tentative Site Plan, compliance with SDC Article '3 I Criteria of Approval 1-5, and the conditions of approval. The Final Site Plan shall become null and void if construction has not begun within twO years of Final Site Plan approval, i,e. the signing of a Development Agreement. A single one-year extension may be granted by 'the Director upon receipt of a written request by the applicant including an explanation of the delay. Work under progress shall not be subject to Development Approval expiration. , . DEVELOPMENT'AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by 'Staff upon approval of the Final.Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a buildil)g permit. A Building Permit shall be issued by the Building Official only after' the' Development Agreeme~t has been signed by the applicant and the Director. No building or structure shall be occupie'd until all improvements are made in accordance with this Article, except as specified in Section 31.110, Security and Assurances. Up;n satisfactory completion of site development, as determined by a Final Site Inspection (prior to the final building inspection), the City shall authorize the provision of public facilities and services and issue a Certificate of Occupancy. NOTES: . An encroachment permit and a Land Drainage and Alteration Permit may 'be required for this development. The applicant shall not commence any construction activities on the site without an approved Land Drainage and Alteration Permit approved by City eublic Works Department. . Signs are regulated by the Springfield Municipal Code Article 9, Chapter 7. The number and placement of signs must be coordinated with the Community Services Division (726-3664). The location of signs shown in a site plan does not constitute approval from the Community Services Division. A separate sign permit is required. Additiona', Information: The application: all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the ~pplicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available at a cost of $0.75 for the first page and $0.50 for each additional page at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. ' ( Appeals: If you wish to appeal this Tentative Site Plan Approval, a Type II Limited Land Use decision, your application must comply with SDC Article 15, APPEALS. Appeals must be submitted on a City form and a fee of $250.00 must be paid to the City at the time of submittal. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal applicati?n. In accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for a 15 day appeal period, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00p,m. on August 23,2007. Site Pion Modification DRe 2007,00044 /5 Ouestions: Please contact Linda Pauly at the City of Springfield Urban Planning Division if you have questions regarding this process, PreDared by: Linda Pauly Planned, 726-4608 Site Plan Modification DRe 2007,00044 16 '. . " J: ,,~,!t..;~,~'~.\t~\;():'>;i';.'W:;PI~ i '," 1{}t,;t:;~;if~'l1k:lt~ CITY OF SPRINGFIELD '~.:i::f;~~:4?,i!,~l\i ,L',~ ... ,-~.t"~r'~"~ DEYElOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: "'~~~;f~~~?i~ I 225 5th ST .' : ,'" "~;i;00.!;\ , , ,~~,-~~ . SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477. "n'5,ti!~l0G: .. ,:?MJf.:~~~~ ~. Rick Varnum McKenzie-Willamette Hospital 1460 G Street Springfield, OR 97477 ... ,,"- _"_0. .,. .."', II,. .', ....~.I' ,,: E -';)';":~:f':\ - . . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'~,Ya '. '; ,,;, .-' ,~",::' ... ..,<., DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPART~~N~~.,;~ 225 5th ST' . ," :':: "., . SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 , ,1 ~ I I II .', .Jeffrey Bond ASLA Satre Associates 132 East Broadway, Ste 536 Eugene, OR 97401 . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD '.>' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENt";~i,l .. ,".",!t' . 225 5th ST . .", .:':'[', ! SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ",;f5JfC ,'" . ,.(.",",':j.l,; --" McKenzie Willamette Hospital . 1460 G Street Springfield, OR 97477 Ch::ui~. ~\ 'I B