Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 7/30/2009 ~ ~ J ZON2009-00020 . r Development Issues Meeting - Slayden Construction Group Proposed 120 Unit Aeartment Complex on a 5.9 Acre Site 240 & 250 South 67 Street (Map n-02~34-44, TL 1000) 01. What are the Public Works requirements for this project (improvements/sewer/water/etc.)? A: Public Works Engineering and Transportation to comment. Planning advises that the property will have to be served with all urban services including water, sanitary sewer (with connections extended to floor drains in garbage enclosures), stormwater management, and power/telecommunications. Provision for building sprinklers and/or fire hydrants on the site may requirE;! waier line upgrades. Stormwater may need to managed on site prior to discharge to the public system in South 67th Street. It is likely' that the property frontage on South 67th Street will have to be improved to urban standards with full pavement width, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streei trees and street lighting. . 02. Does the proposed apartment layout meet Code requirements for a development within the Medium Density Residential zone (density/setbacks)? . A: No. If the applicant chooses the standard Type II Multi-unit Design.Standards of SDC 3.2-240, staff notes that, among other things: 1. The buildings are more than 25 feet from the frontage street. 2. South 67th Street is a local street with provision for on-street parking (upon full dedication and development). The proposed layout depicts vehicle parking and maneuvering areas between the buildings and the street, which is not consistent with SDC 3.2-240. D.1. 3. Proposed building elevations are not provided, so staff cannot comment on compliance with the Building Form standards of SDC 3.2-240.D.2. 4. The proposed buildings do not have a similar setback to the existing single family dwelling on the adjacent property (Tax Lot 1700) in accordance with SDC 3.2-240.D.3.a. 5. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas are not allowable in the required 25-foot buffer areas from LDR property lines pursuant to SDC 3.2-240.D.3.b.i. 6. It appears the apartment buildings are proposed as 3-story structures, but the overall building height is not stated. The structures will have to be set back from the adjacent property lines a distance of one foot for each foot of building height up to a maximum of 50 feet to meet the LDR transition and compatibility standards of SDC 3.2-240D.3.c. 7. The applicant's submittal states .the parcel size is 5.9 acres. Proposed dwelling unit density is approximately 20.3 upa, which exceeds the provisions of the MDR District (10-20 upa). 8. A separate, secure enclosed storage space is required for each dwelling unit in accordance with SDC 3.2-240.D.4.a. 9. A proposed trash enclosure is located between the building and the street. All trash enclosures also require screening landscaping in accordance with SDC 3.2-240.D.4.b&c. '10. Utility pedestals and other ground-mounted equipment must be appropriately screened from . view in accordance with SDC 3-2-240.D.4.d. 11. Insufficient information has been provided on the type of common and private open space areas and areal coverage to determine if this proposal complies with the requirements of SDC 3.2- 240.D.5.b&c. 12. Insufficient information has been provided on landscaping, fencing and screening to determine if this proposal complies with the requirements of SDC 3.2-240.D.6. 13. No information on site lighting has been provided to determine compliance with SDC 3.2- 240.D.8. This is not an exhaustive review, and is based on the incomplete information submitted. Date l,,<eceived:-.Jp~/~,' Planner: AL , . i Alternatively, the applicant could. propose a design that meets the Type III Alternative Design Discretionary Criteria provisions of SDc 3.2-245. 03. What are the requirements for tree removal on the site? A: There is no requirernent to remove trees from the site. However, to fac:ilitate site development, a Tree Felling Permit is required for the removal of more than five (5) trees greater than 5-inches in diameter over a 12-month period. Staff visited the site and there appear to be more qualifying trees on the site than depicted on the site assessment plan. A development concept that retains viable, mature trees within the site landscaping would be encouraged. 04. Are there any Natural Hazards (wetlands/riparian corridor) on the site? A: Portions of the site appear to be within a hillside development area (slopes exceeding 15%). There is an existing, mapped wetland running generally south to north through the property as identified in the 2005 Springfield Natural Resources Study. The mapped wetland is listed as location M37 and appears to follow the existing drainage swale on the property. The mapped wetland boundary also appears to be larger than that depicted on the site assessment plan. The wetland is not deemed locally significant, but the applicant will need to submit a state Wetland Land Use Notification Form prior to development occurring on the site. Additionally, Oregon Department of State Lands and/or Army Corps of Engineers permits may be required for the proposed development (existing .and proposed drainage. to wetlands). '. 05. Are there going to be any issues with the School District related to this area and/or project? A: Staff contacted the Springfield School District and were advised that school-age children could be accommodated in the' Thurston Elementary, Middle and High Schools. The School District estimates the project would generate approximately 25 school-age children. Heads Uo Comments: o Proposed features such as the bio-swale/drainage swale should not be shown on the site assessment plan. o The locations of all trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 5 inches or more must be accurately shown on the site assessment plan. o The site assessment plan must show the location of residential dwellings on adjacent properties - particularly Tax Lot 1700 to the south. o The 567-foot long by 14-foot wide panhandle extending from the norttl property line to Main Street is not considered developable area for the purpose of site plan review, or for providing driveway access to the site. o Development setbacks will be determined based on South 67th Street frontage. o The proposed 25-foot rear yard setback along the west property line is not accurately depicted on the plan set (Sheet CO.3). The dimension is stated as 25 feet, but actually scales out to be 20 feet. o A TIA may be required for this project, as it will generate upwards of 800 vehicle trips per day onto the surrounding street system. . Additionally, ODOT may require an analysis of the Main Street/South 67th Street intersection. The applicant is advised to contact ODOT to determine any submittal requirements. O' A second Fire Department access may be required by the Springfield Fire Code (SFc) due to the number of units on the site accessed by a single driveway entrance. o All trash enclosures will have to be covered and hydraulically isolated from the stormwater system in accordance with Section 3.03.4.A of the City's Engineering Design Standards & Procedures Manual. o All bicycle parking spaces will have to be covered, long-term racks in accordance with SDc Table 4.6-3. o At least 120 separate storage spaces will be required ~ one per unit in accordance with SDc 3.2- 240.D.4.a. o Landscaping details are not provided for comment. . 0 Building elevation plans are not provided for comment. ,'.., . 7h~/"" L;~".i'(;0(;"'I"ed:~' Planner: AL