HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PWE 4/15/2009
MEMORANDUM
City of SDringfield
DATE: .,ApriI15,2009
TO: Andy Limbird, Urban Planner
. FROM: Eric Walter, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: ZON2009-00009, The Child Center
Public Works Engineering Comments
The subject application involves tax lots 100,200, and 700, located at 3995 Marcola Rd. The
applicant submitted plans to discuss the possibility of constfl!cting a 5,177 sq.:ft, single story
outpatient / office ,building with associated site improvements to the existing €hild Center.
;
Applicant's questio~s: .
"
,
,
1. Due to the site constraints, uniqueness of the Child Center's use aJld desire to align
the new driveway with the existing street across Marcola Road, is there an avenue
through the City standards to recognize and respond to this uniqull use and unusual
development site to allow a 10'-0" wide front yard. setback in the a,rea described
above? If not, does the City feel that this is a viable and,approvable variance
application request? Would the City consider the 30'-0" side yard landscape
screening as required in SDC 4.7-195(3) satisfied due to the existing mature
landscaping in these areas? If not, does the, City feel that this is a viable and
approvable variance application request? .
Planning Department will respond to this question.
2. Considering the unique proposed use and function.ofthe facility, is it possible to
provide 1 bicycle space'per 3000 sf of new building area, consistent with the
. ,
minimum requirement used for "hospitals, clinics, or other medical health
treatment facilities (including mental health)". If this is not a possible approach, is
it possible to look more closely at the intent ofthe bicycle parking requirements for
the private / public'elementary and middle school use to providea!lequate parking
for a traditional school accommodating full time students. Considering that the
Child Care facility does not function similar to a traditional school with full-time
students, is there an avenue through the City standards to require:bicycle parking
more suitable for this specific intended use? If not, does the City feel that this is a
viable and approvable variance application request?
Planning Department ,will respond to this questi.on.
3. The applicant proposes to leave the Child Center's lower gravel parking field "as is"
for emergency vehicle access. The applicant will provide the associated required
signage. Is this an acceptable proposal? Does this proposal require a land use
application process? . . " .
Planning Department and Transportation Division will respond to this question.
~.. '" '. .
DatE\ r~<';Geived:~j;(,/;loO?
Planner: AL . "
4. Is the City aware of any existing public stormwater facilities in the area with
capacity to serve the subject site? If not, is the applicant required to dispose of the
development's stormwater on-site? If the applicant disposes of the develoment's
stormwater on-site, is the applicant exemptfrom stormwatcr systems development
charges? Can a proposed on-site stormwater management facility (i.e. bioswale) be
located within the required front yard setback as long as the landscaping
requirements are met within the setback?
There is an existing 12" storm pipe located in Marcola Road approximately 225 ft.
southwest of the property. In order to tie (nto this existing storm system would require
extending the public storm pipe to the subject property and would require a public
improvement-project permit (PIP). For detailed requirements for this permit, pleaSe
review Chapter 12 of the City -of Springfield Engineering Design Standards and
ProcedUres Manual (EDSPM). Storm water SDC's are only charged based on total
impervious areas that will discharge to the City public system. The applicant's engineer
would be required to demonstrate by analysis that no storm water will enter the public
system. Planning Department will respond to the question regarding the proposal to
locate storm water management facilities within set-back areas.
As required in Section 4.3-llO.E 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 Procedures
Manual." Section 3.02 of the CitY'sEDSPM states the Public Works Department wilJ
accept, as interim design standards for. storm water quality, water quality facilities
designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of either'the City of Portland (BES), or
the Clean Water Services (CWS). Section 3.03.3.B ofthe 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 geI}erated by that
development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimuriJ. of 50 percent of the
nori-building rooftop impervious area on a site shalJ be treated for storm water quality
improvement using-vegetative methods.
In order, to meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development
Code, and the City's EDSPM, it is recomhlended the 'applicant submit a storm water
analysis for site that includes a private vegetative water quality swale that discharges to a
designed retention basin. The retention basin is recommended due to lirrutations of site
as public storm water service is not available without extending the public system. The
overall storm water analysis, water quality bioswale, and retention basin would be
required to be prepared by an appropriately licensed Civil Erigineer showing compliance
with City Codes and Standards and meeting Site Plan application requireJ?ents.
5. Referencing the attached Schematic Site Plan, are there any other items that need to
be addressed? Are there any public infrastructure items,that need to be addressed
as a result of the proposed development?
. ... ' .'~ .
Date ~eceived: Lf//(j)ro~
Planner: AL !' r
Section 4.2-105.0.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires thdt whenever a
proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and
that development.has any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully iplproved street,
that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications. Exception (i) notes that
in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a
condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until srtch time that a City
street improvement projeCt is initiated. The applicant will be required to execute and
record an Improvement Agreement for'Marcola Road for future street improvements.
Planning Department will also respond to this questiC!n.
Heads-Up Items:
A. Review and approval from EWEB is required as there is a water source intake
located in the vicinity of this project.
B. Subject property is located within a FEMA flood plain and all development will
be required to comply with FEMA requirements / City floodplain application.
Date Received: 'f/16/)<Jor
Planner: AL -