HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 10/2/2006
'i.;
'!-!
&:f";.,
l'. ~
~~
,
t'
"
.\ '
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON)
, )ss.
County of Lime ).
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I ama 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""Dl<:'''?~'''''',,-ooo'''z. ~0ir4.6).,1:l"';'....;__- ~ ~- 't.",..I.'~'J?
(See attachment nAn) on 10/2- '.2006 addressed to (see ~'
Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
.Z}.~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
--6t-kMX ~ . 2006. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act Before me:
- - ---->~........' . ";-lJ~'
\)--- ... . , . Ofi:iC,.&iseAl.V
\ BRENDA JONES
" " i NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
\ '" / COMMISSION NO. 379218
j _YCOMMISSIONEXPIRESMAY27'~8
,~_'::, "._' ~_, ..r ..........~ ~____~~
dJ/
My Commission Expires: ~ ~,L.
Datel Received: I()~/.u.o~
Planner: AL / I
,~')
O___.
TYPE II TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, STAFF
REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Embassy Suites Hotel Site Plan Review'
;,
'.
Project Proposal: Construct an eight'storey, 161-unit hotel with attached restaurant and meeting rooms
on a vacant site.
Case Number: DRC2006-00062
, Project Location: 3530 Gateway Street
Zoning: Community Commercial (CC)
Metro Plan Designation: CC
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: June 9, 2006
Initial Submission Date: itily27, 2006
Complete SubmissionDate: Sept. 1,2006
.' Decision Issued Date: October 2, 2006
Appeal Deadline Date: October 17, 2006
Associated Applications: PRE2006-00055;
DRC2006-00068; DRC2006-00069
"
"
.,
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner/Applicant:
~I ." -. . '-..
, ,
Land~cape Architect:',. ,
Charl~s Mangum &.As'sociates
Landscape Architecture
h ..
514436' AvenueSE ,
'S'alem OR 97301 '
Civil'Engineer: ..,
Bill Clark
,Gateway Hospitality LLC. .
2037 NW Lance Way,
Corvallis' OR 97330
TroyPlum'PE
Pac-WesiEngin~ering .
1530:9" A venue SE
Albany OR 97322
,. ,--~
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
I POSITION
I Project Manager
'1 Transportation Planning Engineer
I Public,Works Engineer
I Public Works EnQineer
"I DeDuty Fire Marshal
I Community Services Manager
I REVIEW OF
Planning
1 Transportation
Utilities
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
Fire and Life Safety
, Building
NAME
Andy Limbird
Gar\.: McKenney
Jeff Paschall
Jeff Paschall
GilbenGordon
'I' Dave Puent
I PHONE
I 726-3784
1 726-4585
1 736.1674
I 736-1035
I 726-2293
I 726-3668
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
.'..,J.f "
tD~te Receiv~d" /;b/.uod
, Planner: AL,
il
, _.
"
:/.
Site Inform:ation: The subject site is a 2.83 acre (:H23,3~0 fi') parce located at 3530 Gateway Street
(Assessor's Map 17-03-15-33, Tax Lots 1500 & 1600). The subject s';te has public ,street frontage and
,)1 ,. .
developed commercial access driveways from Game Farm Road along the northern boundary, and from
Gatev.:ay Street along the eastern boundary: The southern property ,lin'~ abuts highway right-of-way for
the 1-5 onramp (northbound) from Be1tline Road. A parcel containing'ali existing hotel abuts the property
to the northwest, and a second commercial parcel containing an e,listing service station' abuts the
southeast corner of the site. . The proposed development site contained la former hotel building, outdoor
pool and parking lot; these features have been demolished ,and the site ;!s now vacant. The development'
area comprises two tax lots which have been combined into a single deeded parcel.
Zoning for the site is :CommunitYCommer~ial (cq according to thfl Springfield Zoning Map. It is
, desigriated CC by the Metro Plan Diagram and the Gateway Refinel11e~lt Plan. Properties to the north,
east and south of the subject site also are ,zoned and desigriated CC. Ar,~as to the northeast of the subject
site are zoned and desigriated Campus Indu'strial (CI). Hotels and associated activities are permitted uses
in the CC district. ' "
;
, . .
The proposed use on the site includes an eight-story,: 161,room hotel with attached restaurant and meeting
rooms. A combination bf underground' and surface parking spaces are pfbposed to serve the development ,
site. The subject site is within the Gateway Refinement Plan ' area;, but ils not adjacent to a Water Quality
Limited Watercourse or. within a FEMA 100 year flood zone, The site !is within the I to 5 year Time of
Travel Zone for the Sports Way drinking water wellhead, and therefore is subject to the provisions of the
Drinking Water Protection' Overlay District, SDC Artic1'e 17. Thedevel6per has submitted an application"
for Drinking Water Protection in accordance :::ith SDC requirements (DJjC 2006;00069). '
DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards oUhe Springfield
. Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan IApproval are listed herein and
are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with fiJ\dings and conditions necessary
for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted pl:\ns as conditioned herein. This
is a limited land nse'decision made according to City code and stat'~ statutes. Unless appealed, the
decision is final.',' Please read'this document carefully. ' '
'(See Page 18 for a summaryofthe conditions o{approval.)
OTHER ,USES AUTHORIZED BY TliE'DECISION:' None. Future development will be in
'accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements,
and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. '
.
\
(:
I
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type ,II procedures listed in Springfield
Development Code Section 3.080 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC31.060. ' "
, Procedural Find~g: Applications for Limited ~and ~se Decisions ;e~uire the notification of property
"owners/occupants within 300 feet of~he subject property alloWingfor!a 14 day comment period on the
applicati<;m (SDC Sections 3.080 and 14.030). The applicant and par',jies submitting written comments
during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed'a copy of this decision for consideration (See
Written Comments below and Anneals at the end of this decision.)
Procedural Finding: On September 12, 2006, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the
proposed plans (28 Sheets - Pac.West Engineering, Sheets CV-I, GN-l, EX-I, ER-I, SP,I, UT-l & UT,
2, GR,I & GR-2 and DT,I & DT-2,dated 9/1/2006; DJ Architecture, :;heets A200-A209 & A300-A303
dated'6/23/2006; Lighting Group Northwest unilUmbered sheet dated 51/8/2006; and Charles Mangum &.
Associates Landscape Architecture Sheets L1.1 & L1.2; dated 3/2/21106) and supporting information.
. .'. .
....
P~teReceived:~1 z"b\,
'fi?lanner: AL '. . I
Page 2 of21
"
City staff's 'review comments have been reduced to 'fmdings and conditions ,only. as necessary for
compliance with the,Site,Plan Review criteria ofSDC 31.060.
Procedural Finding: . In:accordance with SDC 31.080-100, the Final Site Pian shall comply with the
requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed'by" the Director in this decision. The Final Sit~ Plan
otherwise, shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. . Portions of the proposal
approved as submitted during terttative review cannot be substantively changed during Final. Site 'Plan
approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantiv~ly changed
during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification, '
"WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.080 and 14.030, notice was sent to adjacent property
.... . - ,,'
owners/occupants withili 300 feet of the subject site on August 4, 2006. No written comments were
,received in response to the noiification. '
j ,
"
CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
SDC 31.060, Site Plan' Review Standards, Criteria of Site Pian Approval states; ::the Director shall
approve, or approve with conditions" a Type.II Site Plan' Review Application upon determining that,
criteria (1) through(5) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the
criteria, the Director shall deny the application.'" '
(1)
, .' .
The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plall diagram; amiJor the applicable Refinement'
~Ia!l diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. ,"
Finding I: The site is designated Community Commercial (CC) in the Metro Plan diagram and
the Gateway R~finement Plan. The current zoning for the site is CC which is consistent with the
Metro Plan and the Gateway Refinement Plan designations, and there are no proposed changes to
the zoning for the site. ' . , ' , ,
~'1 .
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I:
(2) ,
'Capacity requirements of public improvem:ents, including but not limited to, \vate~ and
, , electricity; sanitary sewer and storm water management facilities; and streetl ami 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 th(~ Cod~ and
other applicable regulations. The Public'Works Director or a utility "prpvid~r shall
,determine capacity issues.
, Ji
"
Finding 2: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction of one ~ighi-Hory, 161-unit
hotel with main floor restaurant and meeting rooms, and underground parking garage on a 2.8 '
acre site. The total above"ground building floor area is approximately 145,000 ft2.
Finding 3: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private profe'ssional civil
engineer to design the site improvements in confomiance witn City codes, this decision, and the
'current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private,civil
engineer also shall berequired to provide construction inspection services: "
Finding 4: "The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan' and the
surrounding public services on September 12, 2006. City and agency staff,S review. comments'
have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein.
,;!
Date Received:
Planner:' AL '
/. h./U"~
/j'
., :'~ .~~;.;.(.~
. .;." i~ 3J' .
Page 3 of21
Water'and Electricity Improvements
Finding 5: .SDC32.120(3) requires each development area to be provided with a water system
, having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequ:lte supply to the development and
sufficient access formainienance. Springfield Utility Board (Sllm) coordinates the design'ofthe
water system within SpringfIeld city limits,
Finding 6: Water service is available to serve the .site. Amon!; other considerations, the new or
modified facilities will require water development ,fees for '~onnections and metering. , Bart
. J
McKee of SUB Water Department (726-2396) is the contact person.
Fi~ding7: The existing water line shown on the site assessmen! plan does not originate on Game
FaTIn Road East Instead, 'the water line and hydrant run frorr the existing meter on Gateway
'Street. The plans shall be revised to accurately portray the existing water system. ,Abandonment
and removal of the existing waterline will be the responsibility c!f the developer. ' . " '
. , I.
Finding 8: SUB Water advises the proposed water system 'to serve the development is not
acceptable and does'not meet the Water Division's standards: I The tentative' site plan must be'
revised to portray a water system acceptable to SUB Water: The public water system facilities'-
will be constructed by SUB including service, water meters and 'fire hydrants.' ,
Finding 9: Backflow prevention devices are required for this de~elop~ent.and w~ter service will
not be provided until a backflow plan has been submitted to SUB Water Engineering and
approved for installation, Water meters and other equipment rriust be installed to SUB standards
in public rights of way or easements and are subject to inspecti,\n by SUB. Chuck Davis of SUB
Water Department (726-2396) is the contact person. Please refer to the letter from Bart 'McKee
of SUB Water Department date.d September 14,' 2006.' '.
"
Finding 10: There is electrical power available from the adjacent public road system. Ed Head of .
Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric (726-2395) is the cont'lCt person.' , ,
Finding II: SDC 32.120(2) states, "Wherever- Possiblel utjlity lines shall be, placed
'underground. "
,Finding 12: SUB Electric has requested dedication of alO-fpot wide Public ,Utility Easement
(PUE) along the pubhcstreet frontage of the sIte on Gateway Street and Game Farm Road.
Additionally, a'lO-foot wide PUE is to be dedicated along the west property line of the site.'
Please 'refer to the SUB Electric letter for location and dimen~!ions of the easements required to
accommodate underground utilities serving the proposed develc!pment. , ,,' ,
"
, Conditions 'of Approval:
I. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the site'plan shall be,revised to provide for a water
system to serve the site that is consistent with SUB Water'Division standards. '
, , ,; , ' , I,.,
2. All new easements shall be recorded and evidence thereof provided to the City. ' The Final
,Site Plan shall show the location of utility easements;
3. All utility lines to serve the development site shall be placej underground.
, " " I ,"
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, SUB Water and Electric facilities are available to serve the
site and the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Date Recei~ed: . ::} 0 ./ ~ I iuo i,:
.._. , . .'. , i
P.lanner: AL " "
Page 4 of21
" ,
Sanit,ary Sewer and StorIDwater ManageIDentFacilities ,
SanitarY Sewer
Finding 13: Section32,100 of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed t~.serve
each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation
of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Finding 14: The applicant h-,!s proposed using the existing 8-inch wastewater line located at the
northeast coruer of the property. The applicant also has proposed iemovingthe existing 8'inch
wastewater iine that Crosses the parcel from the northeast to the southwest, and replacing it with
new 8-inch wastewater lines'that run along the west and south sides of the hotel building.
, Finding is: Section'2.02.1 ofth~ City's Engineering Design Siandards,and froi::edures Manual
(EDSPM) states that when land outside a new development will logically direct flow to sanitary
sewers in the new development; the sewers shall be public sewers and shall normally extend to
one or more of the property boundaries, ' '
, Finding J 6: Section 2.02.8 of the City's EDSPM states that sewers ,shall be located in the public
'right-of-way at (or within five feet of) the street centerline. Sewers in easements shall be allowed
only after all reasonable attempts to place the mains in the public rights:of-way have been
exhausted. . " '
Finding 17: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the City's EDSPM and Section "4.4 of Portland's
Stomlwater Management Manual, solid waste storage areas (ie. .trash and recyclable enclosures)
shall be covered.and hydraulically isolated from potential stormwater runoff, and directed 'to the
sanitary sewer system. The proposed trash enclosure area is located inside the,'northem end of the
hotel building, with double doors allowing for bins to be rolled out into the loading area for pick
- . . ,I .
up.
,
, Finding 18: 'The underground parking garage schematic'shows area drains that are proposed to be
piped to an ,outfall at the bioswale near the southeast comer oftheproperty.)n ac~ordance with,
Chapter 3.03.4.A of th~ City's EDSPM and Section 4,9.2(1) of Portland's' Storm water
Managelnent Manu<li; draillage from the lower, floor of a parking structure s~all be directed to a
sanitary sewer system. " .
Conditions ofApprovaJ:'
"
" 4. 'Prior to approval .of the Final Site Plan, the site, plan shall be reyisedto' show the
r~cycle/refuse area plumbed to the sanitary sewer system.
5. Prior to approval 'ofthe Final Site Plan, the site plan shaH be revised to show the underground
parking garage drainage system plumbed to pass through an oillwater separator and,then into
the sa~itary sewer system. ' .
StoTmwater ManaQement (Quantitv)
.....
Finding 19:, SDC 32. I 10(2) requires that the Appro~al Authority shall, grant development
approval only where adequate public and/or private storm water management systems provisions
have been made as detemiined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM.
, ,
~;
, Date R~ceived:.Jr~~6.
. Planner. AL ' ., '" ',' ",
..". ..-.'" .' '
, ..
PageS of21
.,.,'
, -.....,'"'.'
,t' .,snl;: ~ , ,
Finding 20: SDC 32, 110(3) states that astornlwater management system' shall accommodate
potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, wllether inside or outside of the
development.
Finding 21: SDC 32.110(4) requires that.runoff from a devt:!opment shall be directed to an
approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacil!y to. accept the discharge.
Finding 22: SDC 32.110(5) requires new ,dev~lop~~nt~ tel emplo~ drainage management
practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water ~hnoff into receiving streams, and
that promote water quality. '
Finding 23: To comply with Sections 32.110(4) and (5), ste,rmwater runoff from the site is
proposed to be directed into a series of area drains, underground pipes, and three vegetative water
quality swales. Two of the vegetative water quality swales are proposed to be located along the
,north boundaries of the site adjacent to Game Farol Road, and a ,hird swale is proposed'along the
southeast property line. Storm water originating on the north half of the parking lot surface will
,flow into 'one of the two vegetative swaies and enter the public slorrn sewer system in Game Farm
, Road. Storm water from the, s'outh end of the parking lot is prciposed to be directed through the
southeast vegetat"d swale, and then discharged into an existing ~rainage ditch within the Beltline
Roadll-5 right-of-way aiong the south property line.
Finding 24: Rooftop runoff is proposed to be directed into- downspouts and piped to the
storm water main in Game Farm Road.
Finding 25: The applicant's proposal. shows the eastern half of the proposed drainage basin #2
(0.347 acres) shall be directed to vegetative swale #2. However,l an existing area drain is depicted
in this proposed basin on SheefUT-2. According to, the proposed grading plan, it appears this
drain is no longer required.
Finding 26: The existing public stoTInwater system; to which ti,e applicant proposes connection;
has limited capacity. The applicant has submitted hydrolbgic stormwater calculations in
accordance \Vith the City's EDSPM. The calculations show thatl the proposed detention pond will
limit the peak stornlwater discharge rates to the,pre-developed 2-year storrrievent for both the 2
and 25-year post-developed storm event, thereby limiting the flc'", into the existing system. '
- '
Finding 27: The proposed sanitary sewer and stormwater pipe sizes are listed in. the utility plan
narrative, but are not labeled on the site plan. The existing punic sanitary and storm sewer pipe
siZes in Game Farm Road Eastand Gateway Str~etare not de:!cribed in the project narrative or
labeled on the site plan. The site plan shall be revised to 'Iabelihe pipe sizes for the sanitary and
storm sewer lines both on and off the development site. .
Conditions of Approyal:
6. Prior to approval of the Final' Site Plan, the applicant shall ,provide written verification from.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) confmnitlg that vegetative swale.#l can
discharge into the existing ODOT drainage ditch outside the south property line.
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall revise the site plan to remove the
existing area drain in proposed drainage basin #2.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall revise the site plan to indicate the
size of the existing sanitary and storm sewer lines both on aJld off the site. , ' ,. ,
)'
""
".".
; Page60f21
P~t~ Received: i~liF;;": ",'.
Plal')ller: AL' , ,
'.
9.. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan; the applicant shall provide a maintenance plan that'
'includes provisions for ensuring long-term functionality' of the three proposed vegetative
swales. .' '; .
I
Stomlwater Management (Oualitvl
..
. .'~
Finding 28: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Eliminatiqn 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 to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban
storm water to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).
"
Finding 29: Federal add Qregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the
City's MS4 plan to address 'six "Minimum Cont~ol Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, ,
"Post-Construction Storm water Manageritent .for New Development and Redevelopment", applies, '
to the proposed 'development. .
Finding 30: Minimum Control Measure 5 requiTes the City of Springfield to develop; inlplement
and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in storri1.~ater .runoff to the MEP.
The City also must develop and inlplement strategies that include' a combination.of structural or
non:structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community.
, .,
Finding 31: Minunum Control Measure '5 requires the City 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 State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City
include the SDC, the City's Engineering Design Standai,'ds and' Procedures Manual and the
, future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMPl.. - ' 1.
'Finding 32: As required in SDC 3:1.050(5),. "a development shall be required 'to employ'drainage,
management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan
policies arid the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf'. . ::. , .
Finding 33: Section,3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the,Public' 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). . , ' , I, . .
Finding 34: ,Section 3.03.3.B oftheCity's EDSPM states all public and private develop~ent and'
redevelopment projects shall employ a system. of one 'or, more post-develgped 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 o(the EDSPM requires th~f a
minimum of 50 percent' of the non-building rooftop impervious area ona site'shall be treated for.
stomlwater,quality improvement using vegetative methods. " ' '
Finding 35: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the SDC and the EDSPM, the
, applicant has proposed three private vegetative water quality swales. The ,private v~getative
swales will be located along the north and southeast boundaries of the property. '
Finding 36: The vegetation proposed for use in the swales will serve as 'the primary pollutant
removal meclianism for the storm water runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants
through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutan(removaJ will occur'
, Dat~ Received:2fb}--':' ' '
Planner:AL.-'" "
Page 7 of21.
Dlily when the vegetation has been 'fully established. Ensuring a fully functioning water quality
system. meets the objectives of the City's MS4 penn it, the SDCtd the EDSPM. .
Finding 37: The grassy swale seed mixture' described on SheetIUT-2ofthe:civihlrawings does
not match the grass seed mixture specified in the Landscaping Plan on Sheet L 1.1. An
appropriate seed mix taken from Section 3.02 of the EDSPM, DI!the City of Portland Stonnwater
Management Manual Section 5.4.4, shall be provided on thtl landscaping plans and. can be
referenced on the civil plans.
Conditions o{'Approval:
10. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall revise the site plan to provide an
. appropriate seed mix' for the three private vegetative water I quality swales on the site. The
seed mix and application rate shall be described on the siteJ"ndscaping plans. '
11. Prior to issuance of Fiml Occupanc~ ~orth~:hote] bUlldin) ;heproposed p~vate vegetative
, . water quality swales shall be fully vegetated with all spe<ies established to ensure a fully
'functioning water quality system. Alternatively, if,this condition cannot be met, the applicant
: . shall provide and maintain additionalinterirn erosion cDlltrol measures acceptable to the
'Public Works Department that will suffice until the grassy swale'vegetation becomes fully
established.' ' '
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Streets and Traffic Safety Controls
Finding 38: The subject site is bounded on the.north by Game Farm Road East, and on the east
by Gateway Street. 'Abutting the 'development site, Game Fanh Road East and Gateway Street
have been fully developed with curb and gutter, sidewalks, strbet trees, street 'lighting and lane
striping. Land' uses in the immediate vicinity are commercial, and there are large Campus
Industrial sites located northeast of the subject si.\e.
Finding 39: Several detailed transportation studies have been c?mpleted previously for the
McKenzie-Gateway area of Springfield, including regional tran~portation infrastructure upgrades
serving, the PeaceHealth hospital site, Campus Industrial site\ on International Way, and the
, ,
Gateway Street commercial area. The development site fonnerly contained 'a hotel that has been
, . I
demolished. The,City's Transportation Engineer advises that the subject development site was
: contemplated in the regional traffic analyses, and for ihis reasl\n a Traffic Impact Study Jor the
proposed hotel is not warranted. '
Finding 40: TransPlan's TSIRoadwav Policv #2: Motor Vehide' Level of Service (LOS) allows
local agencies to temporarily reduce adopted mobility standards (to below LOS' D) for a facility
under that agency's jurisdiction. 'In anticipation of programmE:d transportation improvements in
,the McKenzie-Gateway area, the Springfield City CounC::l has temporarily reduced the
, perfohnance standard to below LOS D for. the following inte sections that would serve traffic
generated by the anticipated hotel development:
. Gateway Street at International Way
. Gateway Street at ,Game Farm Road East,
. Gateway Street at Kruse Way
. ' Beltline Road 'at Gateway Street
. Beltline Road at Hutton Street
. Bg.t\':, (~eceivei:L__;.J.~/~o/..
~1E!~!1€lr:f\l,..:< . '
Page 8 of21 '
Finding 41: Major improvements to the above-mentioned intersections and connecting streets are
prograinmed for construction. over the next several years. Extensive traffic ,impact analyses of
this system were reviewed' in conjunction with the regional hospital develoP1TIent underway on
the nearby RiverBend ,site. The analyses have demonstrated that-, with the programmed
improvements - transportation' facilities serving the development sitewilfprovide sufficient
capacity to accommodate development of the hospital site and other McKel)Zie-Gateway land
(including the subject site) and meet adopted mobility standards beyond 2018. The Springfield
Public Works Department is now conducting a proiect refinement process thal:will determine the
major ,design elements of these improvements.
J '
. '
Finding '42: As a result of. the regional transportation circumstances, ,arid anticipated future
projects, the existing arrangement of streets and driveways serving the site is considered
,temporary. The future arrangement of transportation facilities,mcluding .location of site access
driveways, is not kTIown at this time. For this reason, there is' no rationale for imposing
conditions or' approval that would require the applicant to substantially' alter' the existing
transportation facilities. "
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element.of the criterion.
'(3) The proposed deveJo'pment shall comply with: all applicable public and pi-ivate design and
construction standards contained in tWs Code and other applicabl,e regulations. '
. '
Finding 43: Criterion 3 contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code
. . standards. The site plan application as submitted complies ,vith 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 accordance with SDC 32
. Fire and'Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3))
. ' PublicandPrivateEas,ements (32.120(1) and (5)) ,
, ,I
"
3b. Conformance with standards ofSDC 31, Site Plan Review,and SpC 18 CommerCial
Zoning Districts' . ' .; ,
. 'Permitted'Uses (18.020)
. Lo(Covenige Standards (18.040)
. Setback Standards (18.050)
. Height Standards (18.060)
. Off-Street Parking Standards (18.070 and'31 :170'230) ,
. Fence Standards (18.100)
. Landscaping Standards (3 Ll30-150) .
. Screening and Lighting~tandards (3 Ll60)
. I
..:,.<
3c. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements,::'
,
. Gateway Refinement Plan '" ,
'. Drinking Water Protection Overlay Di~irict ' . '
'.. 3a.', _ Public and Private Improvements in accordance' with SDC 32
<_I.
Fire and Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3))
.~~D~;~ l~ecei~edi : /I~~U
Planner:AL '
Page 9 of21
Acces~
Finding'44: All fire apparatus access routes a~e to be pa~ed, all weather surfaces and support an
, SO,OOO lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2004 Springfidd Fire Code ,(SJ;'c) 503.2.3 and
SFC Appendix D I 02.1. . '
Finding 45: "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage is required aroun i the ladder truck access areas on
the north side of the proposed building., .
Finding 46:, Access to the west side of the proposed hotel bliilding can be provided only by
entering the adjacent hotel site to the west. A joint ~se acce:!s agreement will. be required to
'ensure emergency access can be maintained through the adjal~ent property (TaX Lot (700) in
. accord,mce with SFC 503.1.1.
Finding 47: Unobstructed access and a clear space must be pl ]vided for at least three (3) feet
surrounding all fire hydrants in accordance with SFC 508.5.5.
\
Finding 4S: Immediate access to Fire. Department connectioos (such as standpipes) is to be
maintained at all times. As such, at least a three (3) foot radius I surrounding all Fire Department
connections is to be kept free of any obstruction by fences, hushes, trees, walls or any other
'objects in accordance with SFC 912.3. '
, .
Water Suoolv , '
Finding 49: In accordance with SFC 905.3.1, standpipes are required to be installed in addition to ,
. the building sprinkler system, as the building is proposed to be n\ore than 30 feet in height. .
, . 'I'
Finding 50: Ajoint use agreement will be required for use:oftb.e private fire hydrant located on
the' adjacent property west of the proposed hotel building. If[arrangement for joint use of the,
private hydrant cannot be secured, another fire hydrant will be lequired near)he south side of the
proposed hotel building. Tbe location of the fire hydrant shall beet the spacing requirements of
,the 2004 SFC, Appendix C, Table 105.1.
Finding 51: The location of the proposed fire department ccnne~tio~. is'not acceptable. The
connection shall be located on the above-ground vault (facing al.vay from'the building), or on the
Springfield Utility Board approved above-ground vault.
Conditions of Approval:
.! .
j,2.' Prior to approval of the 'Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide for emergency access to
the west side of the hotel building by way of a joint use ea~:ementrecorded with the adjacent
property, or an alternate access scheme acceptable to the Firb Marshal.' ,
13. Prior to approv~lofthe Final Site Plan, the applicant shall1lrovide wiittenconfirmation from
the adjacent landowner allowing for joint use of the,privai~ fire hydrant. Alternatively, the
plans shall be revised to show, the location of a new fire hydrant at a location acceptable to
the Fire Marshal.
14. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the 'site plan shall t'e revised to provide for standpipe
connections at appropriate locations on the building exterio,!, , , '
, . !;latE! t'<eceived: 10/ .../Z....ob
P/<>n . AL ' . , -
, , " nl;lr. ,,' ,... '. ,,'
Page 100f21
~
'.
15. Prior to issuance..of Final Occupancy for 'the hotel building, "No Parking -,Fire Lane"
signage shall be installed around the ladder truck access areas on the ,north side of the'
building. '
. '-. .' - Q '.
16. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the site plan shall be revised to show an acceptable
, . Fire Department'connection at the northwest comer of the building.
, ,
17, Immediate access and at least three (3) feet of clear space in all directions ;hall be maintained
for all fIre hydrants and Fire Department cOl";'ections in accordance with SFC 50S.5.5 and
SFC 912.3.
,Conclusion: , As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfIes this sub-element of. t~e criterion.
Public and Private Easements (32.120(1) and (5))
J
."
Finding 52: SDC 32.120(5) requires applicants proposing developmenls to make arrangements
with the, City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements n~cess,ary to fully
'service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for public
utility easements adjacent to street rights~of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other
public utility easements shall be 14 feet.
Finding 53: Utilities shall be extended underground to serve new improvements. Extending and
connecting public utility facilities at property lines improves effIciency and service to individual
sites. Public utility easements shall be provided and extended to the boundaries of the subject site
to serve and protect the subjecfsite and surrounding properties.
Finding 54: Utility easements are necessary to protect public infrastructure aJ?d serve the subject,
site with requested utilities. The facilities currently requested are standard commercial services
''with corniections to existing lines on the perimeter of the site. .
,
Finding 55: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing sanitary sewer and waterlines
within the building footprint area of the future hotel as shown .on the utility plim arid described in
the project narrative. 'However, there is an existing gas line located within the"futurebuililing and
underground parking footprint that has not been identifIed for abandonment and ,removal.
Appropriate decommissioning and/or rein oval of the gas lip.e will be required prior to approval of
the Final Site Plan. . ' .,.
"
,
Finding56: SUB Electric has requested dedication ofa 10-fQot wide PUEal6ngthe public street
'frontage on Gateway Street and Oame Faml Road. Add{tionally,'a lO-footwide PUE lias been
requested along the west property line., '..' " .,"
. ,
i ,
Condition.of Approval:
IS. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the site' plan shall be revised
appropriate decommissioning and/or removal ofthe existing gas line. ..,.' ,
.
to pr.ovide for
. '"
Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provision of
corresponding access and utility easements. As conditioned herein, the prpposal satisfIes this
sub-element ofthe criterion.
. ,
. D,at€1'i'~eceived: 1~~M6' ,',
Planner: AL ' . v": .,'
Page 11 of21
3b. Conformance with Standards of SDC 31, Site Plan Revievl, and Article 18, Commercial
Zoning ,
Permitted Uses (18.020)
Finding 57: Hotels are defmed as "transient accommodations" in the .springfield Developmellt
Code, and are listed as a Pernlitted Use in the CC District.
Height Standards (18.060)
Finding 58: The proposed hotel building is not adjacent to any residential areas., Thus, there are'
no building height limitations applicable tolhe development in abcordance with SDC 18.060(2).
Off-Street Parking Standards (18.070 and 31.170 - 230)
'Finding 59: the minimum parking req~irement.for the site is one (I) space per guest room based
on SDC IS.070 parking reqllirenients for transient accommcid[ltions. Tbere: ate 161 rooms,
proposed for the eight-story hotel building. The tentative site lilan proposes IS 1 parking spaces
, distributed as follows: S5 standard, 28 compact and five h~indicap-accessible' spaces on the
surface; and 55 standard, 7 compact, and one handicap-accelsible space in the underground
parking garage. The proposed parking allocation exceeds the n\inimum parking requirement for
~ the site in accordance with SDC IS.070 and 31.170.
Finding 60: The site data table for parking provided on Sheet ~:P"l does not identify the number
of compact parking'spaces proposed in the underground parking garage. Tbe d~ta table' shall be
revised to include the compact parking space counts for the parking garage.
Finding 6 I: Approximately, 19% of the total parking spaces on the site are. proposed as compact.
,spaces. These parking spaces shall be marked with appropriate signage or painting in accordance
with SDC 31.190(7} ,"
Finding 62: ill lieu of wheel bumpers, the site plan contemplates bumper overhang .along the
.' main walkway serving the hotel building, and in the design ,[nd landscaping of the perimeter
landscape strips along Gateway Street and Game Farm Road r1ast. The parking spaces abutting
the perimeter landscaping strips have been shortened ,by 2.5 rbet, and an additional 2.5 feet of
clearance has been included in the landscaping features to ensur'\ usability ofthe parking spaces.
Finding 63: ~eie ar~ no provisions for bumperoverhang.in th) four parkin~ lot'islandsprop~sed
to. accommodate parking. spaces. Wheel bumpers must be shbwn for these-parking spaces, or
additional bumper overhang shall be provided to ensure requir~d parking lot landscaping is not
adversely, impacted by"vehicle encroachment. '
Finding 64: The site plan does not portray handicap acceSiibie rainps serving the handicap
parking spaces, or the pedestrian connection between the publici sidewalk and the walkway along
the front of the proposed hotel building.. Locations ofhandi1lap accessible ramps and a ramp
detail shall be depicted on the site plan. ' ,"
Finding 65: The tentative site plan meets the minimum require.nent of SDC 31:220 by providing
at least four, short-term and 13 long-term bicycle parking spaces
Date Received:
Planner: AL
/0 1"2.- /'2."0',,,
. .
Page 120f21
'.
Conditi~ns ~f Approval:
. 19. The Final Site Plan shall indicate 55 standard, 7 compact and one handicap'parking spaces for
the underground parking garage on the Site Data table shown on Sheet SP-i.
20. On the Final Site Plan, the, compact parking spaces shall be appropriately identified by
signage or painting'in accordance with SDC 31.190(7).
21. The Final Siie Plan shall provide for addition~1 bumper overhang or wheel bumper~ fouhe
four parking lot islands that contain parking spaces. '
22. The Final Site Plan shall show the location and type of handicap'accessibl~ ramps serving the
site in accordance with the pptions shown on SheetpT-1. :
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub'element of the criterion.
Landscaping Standards (31.130-150) ,
Finding 66: The De'velopment Review Committee reviewed the submitted landscape plan
(Charles Mangum & Associates Landscape Architecture, Sheets Ll.l & q.2) in conjunction
with other in1provements shown on submitted' site plans. . .
'Finding 67: The submitted tentative landscap~ plan provides a narrative for the fururehTigation
system, and the selected plantings meet the site coverage and parking 10tpl~nting standards of
, SDC 31.130-150 and the Gateway Refineinent Plan, '
Finding 68: The' subject site has frontage on' two public streets, and 13 streettrees are proposed
on the landscaping plan (six on Game Farm Road East and seven on Gateway Street). The
location and number of proposed streei trees meets the requirements of SDC 32.050.
Finding 69: There are at least three existing street trees along the Gateway Street frontage of the
subject site. If the trees are proposed for removal with ,the site. landscaping plan, this should be ,
specified on the plan set. Alternativeiy, the street trees could be' retained and supplemented with'
new street trees elsewhere along, the public street frontages of the site. 'The applicant has
submitted a tree fellirig pennit for the eight coniferous trees infide the subject site, ,and approval,
can be granted for replacement of the stree) trees. , ; " '
. , '- ,
Finding 70: Theproposei:llO-foot wide landscaping strip ar()und.thqjeriine!er of the site meets
the requirements, for planted parking and driveway .setbacks.for commercial ,sites' in accordance
.with SDC 18:050(1) & (2). '
Finding 71: The proposed landscaping plans provide for perimeter vegetation plantings in
addition to internal landscaping islands. . In accordance ,~ith the proposed landscaping plan,
approximately 15% of the 'parking loi interior is to be landscaped. 1)1e. t()tal proposed
. landscaping area, including the parking lot 'interior, meets the requirements' of SDC 18.050 &
31.130 and the'Gateway Refinement Plan (Commercial Element, Policy 2.2).1:
. .." " , " ".'.. j. .
,t
Finding 72: The proposed landscaping plans meet'the refIuirements of SDq 31.i40(2) for tree
and shrub counts per 1,000 ft2 of landscaping area." ,. ' '
Date. Received:
, Planne~:f\L
y~~.
. .-,'
Page 13 of21
. " .. \ ,~
; {>. '.'.
Finding 73: The landscaping plan proposes shrub plantings along the Gateway Street frontage of
the site to screen the parking lot area. . The proposed parking lot ~creening meets the requirements
of the Gateway Refinement Plan (Commercial Element, Policy 21.2). ..,
I "
,Finding 74: Tree counts for Vine Maple (Tree Tl)'and Karpick Red Maple (Tree T4) as shown in
the plantlegend on Sheet L1.I do not match the quantities dFpicted on the landscaping plan.
Further, there are only 84 trees proposed for the site -;- not 87 as shown on the plant legend on
Sheet L 1. I, There are also 626 shrubs proposed for the site ac,\ording to the quantities listed on
the plant legend. The landscaping plan and plant l~gend shall tie revised as necessary to provide
an accurate accounting for tree and shrub species to be plimted o~ the site. '
, . Condition of Approval:
23.' Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the site landscaping plans shall be revised to specify
whether the existing street trees along Gateway Street are to be retained or replaced.
24.Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the sitelandscaping plans and plant legend shall be
revised to accurately account for the quantities of trees and 'shrubs proposed to be planted on
the site. . .... ,
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this :;ub~elemeni of the criterion. ' The
proposed landscaping plan meets the requirements for int€por parking lot landscaping in
accordance with SDC 18.050 and SDC,31.130-150,:lid pianteil setbacks for interior parking and
driving surfaces. Except as conditioned herein, the approved t~ntative landscape plans shall not
be revised or substantively altered during the' final review proc~ss without a Millor Modification
Application and decision of approval. The approved final laJidscape plans must be submitted
with building permit plans and shall not be mo~ified duridg construction without a Minor
Modification Application and decision of approval. ..
"
Screening and Lighting Standards (31:160)
, , '
Finding 75': The subject site does not abut any residential areas, therefore screening between sites,
'is not required.
Finding 76: The applicant has proposed vegetative screening; long the Gateway Street frontage
in accordance with policies of the Gateway RefinementPlan.' "
Finding 77: The applicant has sU,bmitted a site , 11,' ghting pian tl at demonstrates adequate lightin'g
-, '. ,. . "
will be provided within, the p'arkinglot; driving, and pedestri~n walkway area~. In accordance
with SDC 31.160(3)( c), "exterior lighting shall be shielded orl 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.,." The PhotometricSitel Plan, suggests that proposed site
lighting will be primarily contained within the developmeI)t si;e and should not adversely affect
adjacent properties. ," ,
Finding 78: In accordance with SDC 31, 160(3)(d), freesta~din,.light fixtures shall not exceed 25
feet in total height or the height of the principal structure onthf! site, whichever is less. The hotel
is proposed to be eight.stories in height, and therefore the maxi~um height of any lighting fixture
is 25 feet. The applicant has indicated on the Site Plan (Sheet ~:P-I) that the proposed parking lot
lighting poles will not exceed 25 feet in total height. '
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub~ele.ment of the criterion.
DateJ~eceived"'/o/"2.j;"':6'
Planner: AL, .
Page 14 of21
j
3c.
'.
Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Reqnirements
Findmg 79: The subject development site lies within the Gat!!Vi'ay Refinem'ent Plan area and is
consistent with'comm~rcial development requirements of the adopted Refinement Plan.
Finding 80: The subject site is'located within the. Drinking Water Protection Overlay District.
The subject site is within the 1,5 year time of travel zone (TOTl) for the Sports Way wellhead.
Springfield ~ s drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource
'subject to protection ih accordance with SDC 32.110(4) and SDC Article 17. . .
Finding 81: SDC 17.050 requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District'
development application be submitted to the City in conjunction' with Site Plan Review.when a
. new or expanded' use includes the introduction, expansion, storage, and/or production of
hazardous materials in a time of travel zone.
Finding 82: The applicant is proposing to construct a 16 I -room, eight-story ,hotel building with
attached restaurant, meeting rooms, and indoor swimming pool in accordance, with provisions of
the Comm'unity Commercial (CC) zoning district. The permitted transient accommodations use
does 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 1-5
year TOTZ, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase,Liquids (DNAPLs) must be precluded and reasonable
ineasures must, be taken during design and construction to guarantee ccmipliance with SDC
Article 17.
Finding 83: The applica~t has provided a 'detailed list of materials to,be stilted and ~sed in'. the
proposed hotel and restaurant with their Drinking Water Protection Overlay District application
'(DRC20Q6.00069). The following condition is applied in accordance, withSDC l7.050 for
compliance during construction and operation of the proposed use: .
Condition' of Approval:
, ,
25. Prior' to i~smince of Finai Occupancy for ,the hotel building: the applicant shall receive
. approval of a Drinking Water Protection Overlay, District application for the prol?osed
development pursuant to Planning Action DRC2006-00069.
Conclusion: As ,c'onditioned herein, the proposal s,:tis.fies this ~ub-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 "ithIn the
development area 'arid to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity
centers, arid commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and
,collector streets as specified in Articles 31, 32, the appropriate zO,ning and/or zoning overlay
distr,ict Articl.e and any applicable refinement plan; and comply with ,the ODOT access
. management standards for state highways.
Finding 84: The proposed development will be served by an existing'commercial driveway onto
Gateway Street, and a second existing driveway onto Game Farm Road East~ No new curb cuts
are proposed with this development. ""
, ,
Finding 85: The subject site has an internal driveway access that is shared with the adjacent
commercial site (Tax Lot 1400). There are no changes to the cross-access scheme proposed with
the development;however, there are no recorded agreements or easements allowing for croSS-
, ' . . , ~/.w<?"""
, ".. '.,,' QateReceived:Jj ,,' .
" ' . AL ' " ',' . ...' . , Page 15 of 21
"p.lanner. . ,. ,< ,
.c,
I
,.
access, between the sites. An easement will be' required' allo",,:ing for cross.access between the,
subject site and Tax Lot 1400,
Finding 86: The development proposal also shows,the egress for the truck loading 'zone at the
\ .' . ,
north end ofthe hotel building crossing onto the adjacent hotel site (Tax Lot 1700), An easement,
will ,be required allowing for cross-access from the subject site through Tax Lot 1700 onto Game
'Farm Road East. '
. FindiIlg 87: On-site parking spaces and vehicle circulation areas; including driving aisle widths,
meet the requirements ofthe SDC.
Finding 88: The site is' directly accessible from the public sid"walk system on Gateway Street
and 'Game Farm Road East, which ,provides connection with nedrby commercial areas and transit
. stops.
, Finding 89: Regular bus transit service'in the vicinity of the p'fOposed development is provided,
by Lane Transit District Route #12 (Gateway) operating along' Gateway Street and Beltline Road.
A limited setvice route (#7X - International \Yay) also operales along Ganle Farm Road and
Gateway Street. Future EmX bus rapid transit also will beavail~ble along Gateway Street (south
of the subject site) with connections to Springfield Statio~.
Finding 90: . In addition to vehicular .trips, assumed developm~nt may generate .pedestrian and
bicycle tiips. According to the "Household" survey done by ILCOG in 1994, 12,6 percent of
household .trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1,8 percellt are by transit bus. These trips
may, have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, i~cluding this site. Pedestrian and
, bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian cros~ing signals, ,crosswalks, bicycle
parking and bicycle lanes.' ' ,
Finding'91: Pedestrian access would be provided by existing, sidewalks alongthe street frontages
originating from Gateway Street; Game Farm Road East, and via internal driveways. . There is a
proposed pedestrian walkway from the hotel building north ,'0 .Game Farm Road East. The
majority of pedestrian trips' through the site would be, expect,!d from the hotel building to the
perim~ter public sidewalk system an'd, onward to nearby cOmp1ell:ial sit~s or transit stops....
Conditions of Approval:
26. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a joint use easerrlent for cross-access between the
subject site and Tax Lot 1400 shall bnecorded arid evidenc~ thereof provided to the City. ,
27. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a joint use easemwl for cross-access from the subject
site onto Tax Lot 1700 shall be recorded and evidence there 6f provided to the City. '
Conclusion: ' Proposed ingress-egress points will facilitate tn!ffi~, and ped'estri~n safety, avoid
congestion and minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC Articles 31 anci 32,
applicable zoning and/or' overlay district' Articles; and apblicable refinement plans. As
conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this criterion.
(5)
,Physical features, including but not limited to, significant clusters of trees and shrubs,
watercourses shown on the Water ,Quality Limited Waterc6urse Map and their associated
riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcrop pings and historic fe~tures have been evaluated' and
protected as specified in this Code or other applicable regnl,ltions.
"
'," .
Date Received:'l~-i ;J '
Planner: AL I t ZoDI1,
,Page 16 of21
.,
. Finding 92: The Natural Resources Study, th'e National Wetlands ,Inventory, the Springfield
Wethind Inventory Map, ,Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of HistOl;ic Landmark Sites
have been consulted and there are no significant natural featunis on this site, as it was previously
developed' with a hotel and fom1erly contained a major electrical transmission line. The
, transmission line has been removed and the applicable easements have been v~pated.
Finding 93: There are eight coniferous trees remaining' from the former hotel site and these are
proposed for removal pursuant to a Tree Felling P~rmit (DRC2006,00068). Issuance of the tree
felling permit will be required prior to approval of a land and drainage alteration permit (LDAP)
for the site. ' ,
Finding 94:Stormwater from the subject site outfal!s to the McKenzie Riv,er. ,The McKenzie
, River is listed with the State of Oregon !,S a "water quality limited" stream for numerous' chemical
'and physical constituents, including temperature. ' " ,
Finding 95:' Sp~gfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goiil5 natural
resource subject to protection in accordance with SDC Article 17. The subject site is located
within the 1-5 year TOTZ of the Sports Waywel!head. The, applicant has submitted an
application for Drinking Water Protection Overlay District (DRC2_006-00069). Issuance ,of the
Drinking Water- Protection Overlay District will be required prior to approval of the Final Site
Plan (see Conditi<m 23). . '
Finding 96: The proposal, as proposed and previously conditimled under Criterion of Approval
#3, provides stom1 and ground water quality proteCtion in accordance with SDC Article 17and
receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 32.11 O.
Condition of Approval: "
28. Prior to issuance of an LDAP for the site,.a Tr~e Felling Permit shall be issued pursuant to ,
Planning Action DRC2006-00068. -
Conclusion: As conditioned herein and previously under Criterion #3, the proposaI'satisfies this
criterion. . '
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Pla.n, 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 and any additional required plans, documents or information are ,required
to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date'ofthis letter (ie. by January 2, 2007).
In accordance with SDC 31.080-100, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC
and the conditions inlposed by the Director' in this decision, The Final Site Plan otherwise shal! be in
substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted
during tentative review cannot oe substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final
Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review
with~ut an approved Site Plan Decision Modification:' .
DEVE~OPMENT 'AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development
"Agreement is required to ensure that th~ terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both
'-~
,'...,.... '," y
" "'u!><>6
Date Received::....L0
Planner: AL " 0
"
Page 17 of21
-'
the applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by Staffup',n approval of the Final Site Plan
and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance <if a building permit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
I. Pnor to approval of the Final Site Plan"the site plan shall be revised to provideJor a water system to
serve the site that is consistent with SUB Water Division standards.
. .
2. All new easements shall be recorded and evidence thereof provided to the City. The Final Site Plan
shall show the location of utility easements. .
6. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide written ,verification from Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) confirming that vegetative swale #1 can discharge into the
existing ODOT drainage flitch outside the south property line. '
7. 'Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall revise the site plan to remove the existing,
area drain in proposed drainage basin #2. '
8. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall revise ti ,e site plan to indicate the size of
the existing sanitary and stOrln sewer lines both on and off the, site.
9. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide a maintenance plan that includes
provisions for ensuring long-term functionality of the three proposed vegetative swales,
10. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant' shall ;Jise the site plan to provide an
. appropriate seed mIx for the three private vegetative water quality ~wales on t,he site. The seed mix
and application rate shall be described on the site landscaping plans.
11. Prior to.issuance,of Final Occupancy for the hotel'building, the proposed private'vegetative water
,quality swales shall be fully vegetated with all species established t6 'ensure a fully functioning water
quality system.' Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met,l the applicant shall provide and
. maintain 'additional interim' erosion control measures acceptable to ';he Public Works Department that
will suffice until the grassy swale vegetation becomes fully establislled. . , '
, '
, 12. Prior to approval of the Finai Site Plan, the applicant shall provide for emergency a'ccess to the west
, , side of the hotel building by way of a joint use easement recorded with the adjacent property, or an
, al!ernate access scheme acceptable to the Fire Marshal. '
13. Prior to approval of the Final Site .Plan, the applicant shall provi1de written confirmation from the
adjacent landowner allowing for joint use of the private fin: hydrani' Alternativel,)', the plans shall be '
.reVIsed to show the location of a new fire hydrant at a location acce}table to the FIre Marshal.
, QatQ t~eceived:~/2.00b _
P!;mn~r; Al. ,/ '
Page 18 of21
'~
,
. .
, 14. Prior to 'approval of the Final: Site Plan, the site 'plan shall be revised to pro~ide for. standpipe
cOlU1ections~at appropriate locations on the building exterior.
. . . . . .
IS. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for the hotel building, ':No Parking - Fire Lane" ,signage shall
be installed around the ladder truck access areas .on the north side of the building. '
16. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the site plan shail be revised to show ~n acceptable Fire
Department connection at the northwest corner of the building.
.' .
17. Immediate access and.at least three (3) feet of clear space in all directions shail be maintained for all
fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance. with SFC 508.5.5 andSFC 912.3., ,
18. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the site plan shall be revise.d to provide for appropriate,
decommissioning and/or removal of the existing gas line. '
19. The Final Site Plan shall indicate 55 standard,'7 compact and one handicap parking spaces' fDrthe
underground parking garage on the Site Data table shown on Sheet SP-1.
20. On the Final Site Plan, the compact 'parking spaces shail be appropriately identjfied by signage or
. painting in accordance with SDC 31.190(7).
'. .
21. The Final Site Plan shall provide for additional. bumper overhang or wheel bumpers for the four
parking lot islands that contain parking spaces. .'
22. The Final Site Plan shall show the location and type of handic~p accessible ramp~ serving. the site in
accordance with the options shown on Sheet DT - 1.
23. Prior to appr~val of the Final Site Plan, the site landscap'ing plans shallbe revised to 'specify whether
the existing street trees along Gateway Street are to be retained or replaced.
24. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the 'site landscaping plans and plant legend shall be revised to
, accurately account for the quantities of trees and shrubs proposed to be planted on the site.
.
25. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for the hotel building, the applicant shall receive approval of a
Drinking. Water Protection Overlay District application fo~ ;he proposed development pursuant to
Planning Action DRC2006-00069.
26. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a joint use easement for cross-access betwe~n the subject site
and Tax Lot] 400 shall be recorded and evidence thereof provided to the City.' .
27. Prior to approval of the Finai Site Plan, a joint use easementfor cross-access from the subject site
onto Tax Lot 1700 shall be recorded and evidence thereof provided to the City. '
, '
, '
28. Prior to issuance of an LDAP for the site, a Tree Felling Pennit shall,be issued pursuant to Planning
ACtion DRC2006-00068. ' '
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 on
a site plan do not constitute approval from the Community Services Division. A separate signpernlit is
required. Kay Wilson (726-3664) is the contact person. ' , ,.
.... ~. .
. ,.",,;.', .'ceived; /() 4ftcop
~(;H->:.ll,\;;l .- /,' / "
Planner: AL ' ',' " "
Page 19 of21
. "
The applicant may submit construction or building plans to other city departments for review prior to final
site plan approval in 'accordance with SDC 31.080 at their own risk. Alllconcurrent subm.ittals are su):>ject
to revision for compiiance with, the fmal site plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC
31.090 will not be issued until all plans submitted by the applicant havk been revised. CONFLICTING
PLANS CAUSE DELAYS'. '
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, arid evidence relied. upon by the
applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are availaQle for free irlspection and copies are available
for a fee at the Development Services Department; 225 Fifth Street, Spri~gfield, Oregon. ' '.
APPEAL: This Type II Tentative Site Plan decision is considered a dJision o~ the 'Director and as such
may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be file'l with the Development Services
Departnient by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Article IS, Appeals.
An Appeals appiication must be submitted with a fee. of $250.00. The fee will beretumed to the
applicant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal'application.
In accordance with SDC 15.020' which provides for a l5.day appeal j: ,riod and Oregon Rules 'of Civil,
Procedures, Rule !O(e) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision. expires at 5:00
PM on' October 17, 2006.
QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in 'the Planning Divisio \ of the Development Services
Department at (541) 726-3784 or email aiimbird(a)ci.sDrin~fie]d.or.usif -'on have any questions regarding
this process.
Date f'ieceived: I'
Planner: At -LJz. ( "-- I zg,,~
Page' 20 of 21
.
..
Please be advised that the, following is provided for information only and is not a
component of the Site Plan Review decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Svstems Develooment Chantes:
The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building pennits are issued for
developments within the City limits or within the S,pringfield Urban Growth ~oundary. The cost
relates to the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing
fixture units. [Springfield Code Chapter II, Article,ll]
"
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site'
: improvements within the subjec~ site. The charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the
. tin,e of pemlit submjttal for buildings Or site improvements on each portion or phase of the
development. ;
'Sanitarv Sewer In- Lieu-Of-Assessment CharQ~ ' .
Pay a Sanitary Sewerln-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if
the property or portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or
otherwise participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to
detennine if the In.-Lieu~Of-Assessment charge is applicable lOrd. 5584].
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure.
NOTE: Substantive revisions to approved site and landscape plans during construction'ofutilities
will require decision modification and delay occupancy. '
Other Citv Permits:
Encroachment Pefmif or Sewer HookupPennit (working within right-of-way or public
easements). For example, new tap to the public stonn or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole.
The current rate is$130 for processing plus applicablefees and deposits. '
Land and Drainage Altetatlon Pennits (LDAP).' Contact the Springfield Public Works
Department al 726-5849 for appropriate applicationsirequirements.
Additional nermits/annr~va]s !11."V ben:ec,essarv: , .
. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commissio)l,(pump station, sanitary sewers 24 inches
or larger)' ' .. .. '
. . Plumbing Perinit
.' Oregon Department of TransportationPennit (for work in the Beltline Road right-of-way)
. Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
. Oregon Department of Environmental, Quality.(erosion control (5 acres' or greater), pump
station, stonnwater discharge, wetlands) . '
. US Army Corps of Engineers (stonnwater discharge, wetlands) ;, '
. Tree F eUing
. Drinking Water Protection' '
Date/ Received'
Planner: AL
/;y~~ .
,Page 21 of21
.,
"
. . -" ,
, bate Received: /7/..u>OD,
Planner: AL
',r~~"~~'~""'"~n ,:F ~:;NGF'~LO
, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST ' ,
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
"
1
"
, "
,,,,,,,'
-
,-""" . ..... ... ... .....,...
,.
Game,Farm Neighbors"
Bonnie Ullmann
3350 Oriole Street
, Springfield, OR 97477 i :
, CITY OF SPRINGFfE.LD .
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT . '
225 5th ST . ,
SPRINGFIELD; OR 97477
,.
~
. :'
Charles Mang~m' & Associates,
Landscape Architecture
5144 .36th Avenue SE
'Salem, OR 97301
F'--~'--:~'-CITYOFSPRING~iEf;"'C ~~:- ,
, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, " ,
225 5th S1 'I, .. ',"
.1, "_'
L~~______'~ :' SPRINC1:ElD, OR9?:~_ ;.~:",c"d
Troy Plum PE
Pac-West Engineering
1530 9th Avenue SE
, Albany, OR 97322
!''''il
, f
.'
:~,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD I
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT '
225 5th ST
SPRINGfiELD, OR 97477
..
Bill. Clark
Gateway Hospitality LLC'
2037 NW Lance Way
Corvallis, OR 97330
, ''jj q