HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/7/2008
. I
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
~~
STATE OF OREGON)
)ss.
County of Lane )
Date Received:)1~ t!J ~
Planner: AV\Df21 ~
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am.3 Program Technician for the Planning Division ofthe
Development Services Deparbnent, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepar~d and cause!! to be.!.
mailed copies ofDRc2001.a::cd1 NlJ'fw. of-Dec/s/D4J-5'1e Jl4,f Iff'tf"'- J:rO/et~
(See attachment "A") on ,JJ 7 , 2008 addressed to (see ~ S"~
Attachment B"), by causing said . letters'to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
,~~,JfJ~
~RlN LaFLEU';( Y
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
Ro.7,
, 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act Before me:
1"-----------.--- ------,,
. . OFFICIAL SEAL 'i
, BRENDA JONES ,
/,.. NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON .
I '. COMMISSION NO. 379218 ,
~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 27, 2006 ,
---------_._-------~
~CvW
. (! ' "
My Commi~sion EXPire~: ~ n.,}-OO t
Date Received: :2/-iJ-?
Planner: AL ,
,
~
.,.oll!
TYPE II MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICA nON,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name:' Laile TransitDistrict Gateway Mall Major Site Plan Modification
. '
, .. ..
Project Proposal: Relocate the Gateway Mall transit station to the east perimeter of the ~site along' Gateway
Street, and add a new coveted walkway from the bus platform to the primary mall entrance
Case Number: DRC2007-00081
Project Location: 3000 Gateway Street
(Assessor's Map 17-03-22-00, TL 2109, 2200,
2218,2219,2300,2305,2307)
Zoning: Comnlll~ity Commercial (CC)
Metro Plan Designation: CC
Pre-Sub~ittal Meeting Date: Dec. 4, 2007
Application Submitted Date: Dec. 17,2007
Decision Issued Date: February 7, 2008
Appeal Deadline Date: February 22, 2008
Associated Applications: ZON2007-00025;
PIlE2007-00082;DitC2008-00004
. Approxim~te area ~f project impact
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Civil Engineer:
Architect:
Monica Anderson
Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
PO Box 10347
Eugene, OR 97440' '
Landscape Architect:
TransportationlPlanning:
Mark Young
Rowell Brokaw Architects
One East Broadway
Suite 300
Eugene, OR 9740 I
Larry Reed
JRH Transportation
4765 Village Plaza Loop
Suite 20 I
Eugene, OR 97401
Sarah Geddes
Satre Associates PC
202 East Broadway
Suite 480 .
Eugene, OR 97401
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
I POSITION
I Proiect Manager
I Transportation Planning Engineer .
I Public Works Civil Engineer
I Public Works Civil Engineer
I Deputy Fire Marshal
I Community Services Manager
NAME'
Andy Limbird
GlirY: McKenney
Eric Walter
Eric Walter
Gilbert Gordon
Dave Puent
'REVIEW OF
Planning
Transportation
Utilities
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
Fire and Life Safety
Building
PHONE I
726-3784 I
726-4585 I
736-1034 I
736-1034 I
726-2293 ___'_1
726-3668 I
Date Received: ~/i~T
Planner: AL
n_
Site Information: The subject site is a fully-developed 72.2 acre parcel located on the west side of Gateway
Street north ,of Harlow Road (Assessor's Map 17:03-22-00, Tax Lots 2109; 2200, 2218, 2219, 2300, 2305 &
2307). Interstate 5 runs along the western boundary of the subject property. The site is developed with a major
shopping mall (Gateway Mall); outlying buildings consisting of retail stores, personal services (bank) and eating
establislunents; and parking lots and site landscaping. There is an existing transit platform developed within the
southeast quadrant of the mall parking lot serving Lane Transit District (LID) Routes 7X, 12 and 79. The
principal applicant (LID) is proposing to relocate the transit platform to the eastem edge of the mall site along
Gateway Street. Because the applicant's submitta1proposes to reconfigure portions of the mall parking lot and
dedicate a portion of the mall property as public right-of-way, General Growth Properties (representing the
Gateway Mall ownership) is a co-applicant for the development proposal.
The site is zoned and designated Community Commercial (CC) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map,
Metro Plan. diagram and Gateway Refinement Plan diagram. Adjacent properties to the north of the mall also
are zoned CC. Properties east of the subject site {across' Gateway Street) are zoned medium density residential
(MDR). Properties to the south (across Harlow Road) are a mixture of low density residential (LDR), general
office (GO) and neighborhood commercial (NC) Zoning. Properties to the west (across 1-5) are within the City
of Eugene and zoned low density residential (R-I).
Approval of this proposal would allow for modification 6fthe approved site plan for Gateway Mall as follows:
removal of street and parking lot trees' along the Gateway Street frontage (generally between Umpqua Bank and
the Roadhouse Grill); approximately a 10-foot wide by 360-foot long widening of the Gateway Street right-of-
way south of Oakdale Avenue (requiring a dedication from Gateway Milll); construction of a new bus and ErnX
transit platform along the Gateway Street frontage of the site south. of Oakdale A venue; removal .of the former,
transit platform and replacement with parking spaces and landscaping island; and construction of a -295cfoot
long covered peaestrian walkway between the new transit' platform and the primary mall entrance. The
applicant also proposes to change the configuration of the vehicle travel lanes for Gateway Street and the
internal loop, road for the mall, including creating a fourth intersection leg (northbound, bus-only) at Gateway
Street and Oakdale Avenue. 'The proposed transportation cjIanges require adjustments to the traffic signals at
the primary (southeast) mall ,entrance driv~way on Gateway Street and the intersection of Gateway Street and
Oakdale Avenue. The applicant has submitted a Tree Felling Permit application to facilitate removal and
replacement of the parking l<:>t and street trees (DRC2008-00004).
The subject site is adjacent to a wetland mitigation channel along, the western boundaiy of the site. However,
the site is not within a FEMA 100 year flood zone. The area of project impact is within the 10 to 20 year Time
of Travel Zone (TOTZ) for the Sports Way drinking water wellhead, and therefore is subject to the provisions of
the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-200.
DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Modification Approval. The standards of the
Springfield Devel6pment Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Modification Approval are
listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and
conditio';s neceSsary for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned
herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes., Unless
appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully.
(See Page 14 for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance
with the provisions of the Sprmgfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable
local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures . listed ,in Springfield
Development Code Section 5.1-130, the site plan review criteria. of approval SDC 5.17-125, and provisions for
Dgt~ Received: z-/71M"j
Plann~r: AL /! d
. Page20fl6
site plan modifications SDC 5.17-145. The subject application was accepted as complete on December 17,
2007., This decision is issued on the 52nd day of the 120 days mandated by the State.
Procedural Finding: 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 on the
application (SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during
the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a <<opy of this decision for consideration (See Written
Comments'below and Anneals at the end ofthis decision).
Procedural Finding: On January 22, 2008, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed
plans (27 Sheets ~ Rowell Brokaw Architects, Sheets. GO.1, AI.0-AI.2, A2.1-A2.4, A3.1 & A4.1, dated
12/13/2007; Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers, Sheets SI and CI.0-C4.0, dated 12/13/2007; Satre Associates,
Sheets LI.I, L1.2, L2.1 & L2.2, dated 12/13/2007; Reyes Engineering, Sheets EO.1, EI.O, EI.I, E2.0& E2.1,
dated 121\3/2007; and JRH Transportation Engineering, Sheets TI.0-Tl.2, dated 121\3/2007) and supporting.
information. City staffs review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for
compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of SDC 5.17-125.
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the
requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final, Site Plan
otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions ofthe proposal approved
as submitted, during tentative review cannot be sUDstantively changed during Final Site Plan approval.
Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building
Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Modification Decision.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:,
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 ,and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on December 21, 2007. No written comments were
received.
CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL:
SDC 5.17-125, Site Plan Review Standards, Criteria of Site Plan Approval states, "the Director shall approve, or
approve with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Review Application upon determining that criteria A through E of
this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny
the application."
A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and{or the applicable Refinement Plan
diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Developmeut Plan.
Finding I: The site is designated Community Commercial (CC) in the Metro Plan diagram and the
Gateway Refinement Plan diagram. The current zoning for the site is CC which is consistent with the
Metro Plan and the adopted Refmement Plan, and there are no proposed changes to the zoning for the
site.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
B. Capacity requirements of public improve~ents, .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 other applicable
regnlations; The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues.
Finding 2: Approval of this proposal would allow for modification to the mall parking lot and
landscaping areas at the eastern edge of the site, construction of a new bi-directional transit platform
.. Date Received: 2./7~,f'
Planner: AL ,I "
Page 3 ofl6
along the eastern edge of the site on Gateway Street, construction of a dedicated pedestrian walkway
from the transit platform to the mall building, reconfiguration of the Oakdale Drive/Gateway Street
intersection, and reconfiguration of the vehicle travel lanes on southbound Gateway Street andportions
of the mall loop road. There are no enclosed'structures (such as an office, customer serviCe counter,
restrooms or employee breakroom) proposed for the transit facility that would require sanitary sewer
connections. Stormwater will be managed on the site through the existing system of catch basins and
piped to the public storinwater system. Electricity and water. connections will, be' used primarily for
. night time illumination and landscaping irrigation.
Finding 3: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional Civil engineer
to design the site improvements, in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current
. Engineering Design Standards and Rrocedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall
be required to provide construction inspection'services.'
Finding 4: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and landscaping plan
on January 22, 2008. City staff's review comments have been incorporated in [mdings and conditions
contained herein.
Water and Electricity Improvements
Finding 5: SDC, 4.3-130 requires each development area to be provided with a water system having
sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient
access for maintenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system
within Springfield city limits.
Finding 6: The existing and proposed water services to the site are adequate for the proposed site plan
modifications. The applicant is proposing to connect to an existing water line in Gateway Street to
serve the development site. A permit for work in the public right-of-way will be required to make this
connection.
Finding 7: The applicant is proposing to extend the existing on-site irrigation system to serve the new
parking lot and site landscaping areas.
. Finding 8: Additional electrical facilities will be required to serve the proposed development. The
developer is proposing to install an underground electrical line from an existing transformer near the
southwest comer of the Roadhouse Grill to a newly installed vault near the western edge of Gateway
Street. The proposed routing for the electrical line runs south from the transformer to a row of parking
spaces and then makes.a 900 bend to the east to reach the proposed vault.
Finding 9: SUB Electric advises the developer's prop,?sal (Sheet EI.I) identifies the wrong location for
the existing transformer. As a result, ,the proposed 'underground conduit will need to be extended
approximately 5 feet further west before making the 900 bend to reach the transformer.
Finding 10: SUB Electric is requesting a 10-foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) centered on the
underground electrical line from the existing transformer to the proposed vault.
Finding II: As stated previously, the electrical and water services required for the proposal will be
primarily for transit platform and pedestrian walkway lighting and landscaping irrigation.
'D"t f' .
~e ~ec .
PI e/verL2/ 7/':.
, anner: At .. 'j7-HJdl' _
Page 4 of 16
Conditions of Approval:
I. The Final Site 'Plan shall be revised as necessary to extend the electrical feeder conduit from the
newly installed electrical vault approximately 5 feet further west before bending 90. to reach the
existing SUB transformer.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a utility easement
centered on the underground electrical line. The location and dimensions of the utility easement
shall be satisfactory to SUB Electric and shown on the Final Site Plan.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, existing SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the
site and the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the,criterion.
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities
Sanitary Sewer
Finding 12: Section 4.3"I05.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each
new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary
sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Finding. 13: The applicant's proposed scope of work does not include modifications to the existing
sanitary sewer system. '
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element ofthe criterion.
Stormwater Manal!ement
Finding 14: SDC 4.3-11 O.B requires that the Approval Authority shall 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 EDSPM. '
Finding IS: SDC 4.3-IIO.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved
stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
Finding 16: SDC 4.3-11 O.E requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that
minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water
quality .
Finding 17: The proposed project will not significantly change,the amount of impervious surface area
on the mall property, and therefore the existing drainage system can be maintained without requirements
for upgrades. The covered pedestrian walkway area is proposed to drain to pavement areas and weep
holes in the curb that ,will sheet flow to existing area drains in the parking lot. Because the walkway
roof area is narrow and crosses formerly impervious surface, (parking lot), the proposed modifications
will be acceptable and no further conditions are necessary.
Finding 18: There are minor modifications proposed at the Gateway Street frontage of the site to serve
the transit platform, including a new 6-inch storm sewer line and catch basin. The proposed changes
will require an approved Public Improvement Project plan, and are addressed below under "Streets and
Traffic Safety Controls".
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the' criterion.
",::-.
Date t~eceived: .2 /7~.r
I='lanner: AL 7 ! ~
PageS of 16
r
Streets and Traffic Safety Controls
Finding 19: Abutting the subject site to the east, Gateway Street is a 65-foot wide asphalt paved
roadway within an 80-foot wide right-of-way. The street is classified as a minor arterial and is fully
improved with curb and gutter, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, lane striping and street lighting. Average daily
traffic on Gateway Street is estimated to be more than 10,000 vehicle trips per day.
Finding- 20: The east.side of the mall property is served .by two signal-controlled, full-turns access
driveways onto Gateway Street: one adjacent to the existing Umpqua Bank site (referred to herein as
the "Southeast MaIl Entrance driveway"), and one between the Applebee's and Carl's Jr. sites (referred
to herein as the ''Northeast Mall Entrance driveway"). Additionally, there is a 3~way, signal-controlled
intersection at Gateway Street and Oakdale A venue that affects north- and south-bound traffic on
Gateway Street.
Finding 21: The applicant is proposing to modifY the existing transportation facilities on Gateway
Street in the following ways:
.
widen approximately 360.linear feet of Gateway Street -10 - II feet westward to create an on-street
lay-by space for southbound L TD buses to stop at the proposed transit platform;
.
re-align the existing public sidewalk within the widened section of Gateway Street to provide
pedestrian access to the transit platform, while maintaining its existing function of serving
pedestrian traffic on the west side of Gateway Street;
.
modifY the Gateway Street/Oakdale Avenue intersection and traffic signal to:
a) provide a protected tuniing movement for northbound buses exiting the transit platform
onto Gateway Street;
b) allow interruption of southbound Gateway Street. traffic at Oakdale A venue to facilitate
southbound buses leaving the transit platform and re-entering the traffic stream; and
c) allow. southbound buses leaving the transit platform to place a call for service at the
Gateway Street/Southeast Mall Entrance driveway intersection.
Finding 22: Traffic signals and controllers are typically placed in the public street right-of-way. The
applicant proposes to install some elements of the modified traffic signals outside of the expanded
Gateway Street right-of-way on the Gateway Mall property. The City will require unimpeded access to
the traffic signals and controls to ensure that safe traffic operations are maintained on Gateway Street.
An easement wiil be required to ensure that legal and physical access to the traffic signal equipment is
maintained. ' , ,
Finding 23: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that evaluated impacts of the
proposed transit platform operation on levels of service at the Gateway Street/Northeast Mall Entrance
driveway, Gateway Street/Oakdale Avenue, and Gateway Street/Southeast Mall Entrance driveway
. intersections. The TIA concluded that the proposed transit platform construction and operation would
not cause the studie(J intersections to exceed applicable mobility standards or create unsafe traffic
queuing conditions within the study horizon (2008).
Finding 24: The proposed Oakdale Avenue intersection design creates a new dedicated transit bus lane
on the west side of Gateway Street for outbound transit buses turning left (northbound) onto Gateway
Street. However, the proposed intersection design does not accommodate southbound (right-turning)
traffic from Gateway Street, nor is itintendedto be used by the public.
Finding 25: The applicant's proposed modifications to the public sidewalk, curb and gutter along the
Gateway Street frontage of the site are intended to accommodate north- and south-bound bus traffic and
D~tEl P<~cE:lived:
P!anner: AL
z./'7/Jt71P'
/ /
Page 6 of 16
allow for safe pedestrian passage along Gateway Street. The proposed modifications appear to comply
with provisions of the City's Development Code and the EDSPM. Among other things, an approved
Public Improvement Project (pIP) plan will be required for the proposed work.
Finding 26: Portions of the sidewalk cross into the Gateway Mall site, particularly at the eastern edge of
the proposed platform. A public access easement will be required to' accommodate the sections of
public sidewalk that are located on private t'out'~, ~j_
Finding 27: The applicant proposes to dedicate approximately 3,617 ft' of additional street right-of-way
along Gateway Street to accommodate the southbound bus lane and public sidewalk. Approximately
the eastern half of the transit platform is proposed to be within the adjusted public street right-of-way.
An executed dedication agreement will be required for the additional Gateway Street right-of-way
proposed by the applicant. Additionally, use of the public street right~of-way for transit platform
activities will require an Intergovernmental Agreement between the'City and Lane Transit District.
Finding 28: The applicant's proposed site plan indicates that private improvements (including the
transit platform, bus shelters, and undergroun.d support structures) will be encroaching within the
adjusted Gateway Street right-of-way. Among other things, the Intergovernmental Agreement shall
address the operation and maintenance of portions of the transit facility that are.proposed within public
property.
Conditions of Approval:
3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a Public Access Easement shall be executed and recorded
for any areas where public sidewalks are to be located on private property.
4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, access easements satisfactory to the City's Public Works
Director shall be executed and recorded 'for all traffic signal equipment that is located on private
property. The easements shall grant the City of Springfield the right to access and maintain traffic
signal equipment on the Gateway Mall property.
5. Proposed additions and modifications to City-owned traffic signal systems are approved in concept
only. All such additions and modifications shall be subject to the City's Public Improvement
Project (PIP) permitting, review and approval process. Final design details shall be resolved during
PIP review. '
6. Nothing in this land use decision c(jnstitutes approval of a specific traffic signal timing or
operational plan.
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a right-of-way
dedication agreement for additional Gateway Street right-of~way as generally depicted on the
applicant's site plan. . .
8. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant and City shall execute and record a Right-of-
Way Use Agreement or Intergovernmental Agreement, as may be necessary, for LID facilities
constructed and/or encroaching within the public right-of-way,> including but not limited to the
transit platform and bus shelter canopies. .
9. Prior to commencement of work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain a Public
Improvement Permit from the City's Public Works Department.
.~ ":,
!.itil" {i8ceived' 0/,;.,.0,1'
Planner: AL
Page 7 of]6
Conclusion: The transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the existing and proposed
vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns that would be generated by the proposed development. As
conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this 'sub-element of the criterion. .
C. ,The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in this Code and other l\pplicable regulations. '
Finding 29: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code
standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each
sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific fmdings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements
and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to:
I. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4: I-I 00, 4.2"100 & 4.3-100
. Water Service and Fire Protection(4.3-130)
. Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 ~ 4.3-140)
2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review and, SDC 3.2-300
Commercial Zoning Districts
. Permitted Uses' (3.2-31 0)
. Height Standards (3.2-315)
. Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (404-100)
. On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
. Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6"100 - 4.6-155)
. Specific Development Standards (4.7-100)
3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements
. GatewayRefinement Plan
. Drinking Water Protection Overlay Dis~ct
C.l Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100
Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130)
Access
Finding 30: All existing fire apparatus access route.s shall be paved all"weather surfaces able to support
an SO,OOO lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2004 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC
Appendix Dl02.1. '
Finding 31: Access to the entire perimeter of the mall area is provided by the internal site driveways
and vehicle circulation areas in accordance with SFC 503.1.1.
Finding 32: The transit platform will be accessible on all sides from the adjacent public and private
road systems.
,Findmg 33: Unobstructed access and a clear space must be provided for at least three (3) feet
surrounding all Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5.5.
,..".
Dalel i::.~2.veu:
, Planner: AL
2/7/#0'/
I /
Page 8 of 16
Water Sunnlv,
Finding 34:. The proposed development does not contain occupied, enclosed space or consist of
combustible materials. Therefore, fIre protection is afforded by the existing private and public fIre
hydrants in the vicinity.
Condition of Approval:
10. In accordance with the provisions of SFC 508.5.5 and SFC 912.3, immediate access and at least
three (3) feet of clear space in all directions shall be maintained for all Fire Department connections.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfIes this sub-element of the criterion.
,
Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 - 4.3-140)
Finding 35: SDC 4.3-]40.A 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 all public utility easements
shall be 7 feet, unless the Public Works Director determines a larger easement is required to allow for
adequate maintenance. .
Finding 36: As stated previously (Condition 2), a utility easement will be required to accommodate the
underground electrical conduit serving the proposed vault. Additionally, public access easements will
be required for portions of sidewalk that cross into private I',ul'~.~j (see Condition 3).
Finding 37: The nature of the land use for the subject property is such that it will experience frequent
pedestrian traffic from the transit platform and adjacent public sidewalk, particularly during mall
operating hours. The proposed covered walkway is entirely within private property and is intended
primarily for transit riders traveling between the transit platform and the mall entrance. A public access
easement is not necessary or desirable for this feature., '
Finding 38: The applicant is not proposing to change the private cross-access and parking agreements
already in place for Gateway Mall.
Conclusion: . Safe and efficient provision of public access and. utilities requires the provIsIon of
corresponding access and utility easements. The proposal satisfIes this sub-element of the criterion.
C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2c300, Commercial'
Zoning Districts '
Permitted Uses (3.2-310)
Finding 39: In accordance with SDC 5.] ]-100, the appropriateness ofland uses that are not specifIcally
listed within each zoning district or terms that are not defIned in the Development Code can be
determined ,by the Planning Director.
Finding 40: Section 3.2-3]0 ofthe Springfield Development Code lists bus terminals as a ~pecial Use
in the Community Commercial District. Transit stations and stops .are not listed in any commercial
districts, nor are they defIned in the Development Gode. The Development Code does specifY that new
transit stations are not to be losated within 200 feet of residential uSes in accordance ~ith SDC 4.7-240.
Finding 4]: For the purpose of this review, "bus terminals" are interpreted to be commercially-operated
facilities and hubs for scheduled inter-city bus service (such as Greyhound Lines), or facilities for the
,..\
DateJ i~eceived: Y;lelf>"tI
Planner: AL
Page 9 of 16
parking, operation and maintenance of public transit buses (such as the Lane Transit District facility in
Glenwood). A bus terminal is a focus of in-bound and out-bound bus trips and typically includes
provision for parking and maintenance of vehicles. The proposed development is not consistent with a
"bus terminal",
Finding 42: For the purpose of this review, "transit stations" are interpreted to be primary hubs for daily
public transit operations, with provision for ancillary facilities such as indoor staff and/or customer
waiting areas, public restrooms, customer service information, and secondary commercial uses. At
present, there is one transit station in Springfield at Pioneer Parkway and South A Street. The proposed
development is not consistent with a "transit station" and, instead, is interpreted to be a bus transit
platform or bus stop.
Finding 43: For the purpose of this review, the proposed transit platform will experience periodic bus
service, but is not intended or designed for the parking or maintenance of transit vehicles during non-
service hours. Transit bus~s already operate along Gateway Street, and for this reason there will be no
appreciable increase in traffic associated with the proposed facility.
, " Conclusion: The proposal'satisfies this sub-elemimt of the criterion.
Height Standards (3.2-315)
Finding 44: The development site is adjacent to residential areas across Gateway Street, but does not
directly abut residential development. 'The subject site is more than 50 feet from the nearest residential
parcel due to the width of the' Gateway . Street right-of-way. Therefore, there are no solar access
considerations for this proposal.
I
Finding 45: The proposed bus shelters and covered pedestrian walkway'are considered accessory uses
for the mall site. In accordance with SDC 3.2-315, there ,is no maximum building height in the CC
District where it does not directly abut a residential site. The mall building varies in height from about
26 to 32 feet high, and the proposed bus shelters and' covered walkway ~re proposed to be
approximately 10 to II feet high. '
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (4.4-100)
Finding 46: The applicant is proposing to remove 22 street trees from the west side of Gateway Street
between Umpqua BaTIk and Roadhouse Grill. ' In addition, six parking lot trees are proposed to be
removed from the former transit stop and mall parking lot to accommodate relocated parking spaces and
the covered pedestrian walkway. The applicant has submitted a Tree Felling Permit application for this
proposed action (DRC2008-00004).
Finding"47: To compensate for the removed. trees, the applicant's site plan proposes to replant 73 trees
within the parking lot, adjacent to the covered walkway, and along a planter strip.on the west side of
Gateway Street. In addition, four trees are proposed in landscaping areas built in to the'transit platform.
The applicant's proposed landscaping plan meets the tree count requirements ofSDC 4.4-105.E & F. .
Finding 48: The applicant also proposes to plant 527 shrubs within the landscaping areas inside the
parking lot, along the covered 'walkway, and around the transit platform. The applicant's proposed
landscaping plan meets the requirements of SDC 4.4-105.E & F for quantity and density of shrub
plantings.
'.-
D, at. I" ,....",'v3d..Z, 1.1 "7/J$f"
'" ',' '-.,d' '-7/
Pf?!mer: AL ' .
Page 10 of 16
Finding 49: The applicant's proposed site plan indicates that only 5% of the parking lot interior needs
to be landscaped to meet Code requirements (3,745 if). However, in accordance with the Gateway
Refinement Plan (Commercial Element, Policy 2.2), at least 7.5% of the parking lot interior is to be
landscaped. For the purpose of this review, the affected parking lot area is delineated in the applicant's
tentative site plan (74,892 ff) and does not extend to the entire southeast quadrant of the mall parking,
lot. Therefore, at least 5,617 ff of interior parking lot landscaping is required to meet the Refmement
Plan requirements.
Finding 50: Although the'above-mentioned Refmement Plan policy was overlooked by the applicant,
the proposed interior landscaping (6,553 ff) still meets the requirements for at least 7.5% interior
parking lot landscaping.
Finding 51: The Refmement Plan encourages screening of parking areas visible from Gateway Street
through provision of shrub plantings. In this case, however, 'screening is not necessary or desirable to
increase safety and security for transit users using the covered walkway and bus platform. Additionally,
it is not practical to install screening for the transit platform when it is intentionally visible and
accessible from Gateway Street and the mall property.
Finding 52: The applicant has submitted an irrigation plan that demonstrates the proposed landscaping
areas can be maintai~ed after planting. .
\
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub~element of the criterion.
On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100)
Finding 53: Th'e applicant is not proposing to change the existing outdoor pole-mounted parking' lot
lighting for the mall site. Therefore, a supplementary 'photometric plan is not necessary for this
proposal. Lighting for the proposed transit platform is proposed to be low-intensity, pedestrian-scale
fixtures that should not cause light trespass onto adjacent sites. The applicant has provided a site
lighting plan that demonstrates adequate lighting will be provided for the safety and security of transit
users.
Conclusion: The,proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4;6-155)
Finding' 54: Gateway Mall previously submitted a parking lot analysis that demonstrates sufficient
parking currently. exists for the site (DRC2007-00057).
Finding 55: The transit platform is proposed to be relocated from elsewhere within the mall property',
and there is no net change to the number of developed parking spaces on the site. According to the
applicant's submittal, the transit platform is not designed' or intended as a park-andcride facility.
Therefore, because there is no occupied space that would be expected to generate additional parking
demand for the site, vehicle parking requirements are not calculated for this proposal. ,
Finding 56: There is no occupied space proposed for. the facility, and for this reason there is no
requirement for a designated loading zone to serve the development.
Finding 57: The site plan modification proposes to add four bicycle parking spaces for the transit
platform. Because the facility is not classified as a transit station or a transit park-and-ride, and no
occupied space is proposed, there are no specific bicycle parking requirements listed in SDC 4.6-159.
The applicant's submittal notes that additional bicycle parking is readily available at the nearby mall
Dat€j Heceived: _(I~.I'
Planner: AL
Page 11 of 16
,entrances.' Therefore, the four proposed bicycle parking spaces should satisfy any bicycle parking
demand generated by the facility.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion..
Specific Development Standards (4.7-100)
Finding 58: As discussed previously, the site is not considered a transit station and therefore provisions
ofSDC 4.7-240 do not apply to the site.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
, Finding 59: The subject development site lies within the Gateway Refinement Plan area. In accordance
with Commercial Element 2.2 of the Refmement Plan, at least 7.5% of the interior of parking lots
visible from adjacent arterial and collector streets are to be landscaped. The applicant's proposed site
plan meets the requirements for interior parking lot landscaping.
Finding 60: The subject site is located within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, and is
inside the 10-20 year time of travel zone (TOTZ) for the Sports Way wellhead. In ~ccordance with
SDC 3.3-220.C.3,themore restrictive (10-20 year) TOTZ is applicable to the entire site. Springfield's
drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 'natural resource subject to protection in
accordance with SDC 4.3-115 and SDC 3.3-200.
Finding 61: SDC 3.3-225 requires that 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 62: The applicant is not proposing significant site modifications that would be expected to
create hazards to groundwater resources. In accordance with SDC 3.3-225.B, the applicant has
requested a waiver of DWP requirements. However, due to the sensitive nature of the drinking water
protection areas in Springfield, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) must be precluded and
reasonable precautionary measures must be taken during all outdoor construction activities to guarantee
compliance with SDC 3.3-200 by the mall management, contractors, and tenants. The applicant is
advised to contact Amy Chinitz, SUB Water Quality Protection~ for further details (541-744-3745).
Condition of Approval:
11. The developer shall be responsible for ensuring special precautions are observed during site
construction to protect groundwater and to prevent spills or leakage of materials into the stonnwater
system. Wellhead p,u;~~;;on 'signs shall be posted at conspicuous locations to alert contractors,
subcontractors, employees and other to the importance of reporting and cleaning up any spills.
Additionally, DNAPL materials shall be prohibited on the site during construction and operation.
Conclusion: As cohditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
D.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;' minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this
O~tEl r,.:;8ived:_~J:V;o'"
Pleoner: AI. 7
Page 12 of16
Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards
for State highways.,
Finding 63: Installation of driveways ona' street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The
greater number of conflict pOints increase the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce
the probability of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances
between intersection~ and driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance, where driveways
intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist,
reduces the number and difficulty of decisions that drivers must make, and contributes to increased
traffic safety. SDC 4.2-120.A.I stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to i! public
street".
Finding 64: The subject site is served by multiple entry points along Gateway Street, Harlow Road and
the surrounding Gateway Loop Road. The applicant is proposing to modify the intersection of Oakdale
Avenue and Gateway. Stre<;t to permit northbound buses to make a protected left-turn onto Gateway'
Street. The applicant also is proposing to modify the traffic signal timing for the intersections to the
north and south of Oakdale Avenue (the northeast and southeast mall entrance driveways). .
"...
Finding 65: As proposed, the. ingress'egress points. s~rving the mall sjte will be planned to facilitate
traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in
SDC 4.1"100 to 4.1-300,5.15-100 and 5.17-100, applicable zoning and/or overlay district Articles, and
applicable refinement plans.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this criterion.
"
E. Physical features, including, but ,not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic
conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant' clusters of trees and shrubs;
watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated .
riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of hi,storic and{or
archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760,358.905-955
and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.
Findiilg 66: The Naturai Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland
Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been
coris~lted and there are no significant natural features on this site, as it has been developed with a
shopping mall parking lot, driving aisles, ,site landscaping, and tree planting strip ,along Gateway Street.
Finding 67: The applicant proposes to remove 28 regulated street and site landscaping trees. In
accordance. with SDC 5.19-110.A, an,approved Tree Felling Permit is required prior to removal of the
trees (DRC2008-00004).
Finding 68: Stormwater from the subject site outfalls to the McKenzie River system. The McKenzie
River is listed with the State of Oregon as a "water quality limited" stream for numerous chemical and
physical constituents, including temperature. , Provisions have been made previously in this decision for
protection of stormwater quality.
Finding 69; Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated GoalS natural resource_
subject to protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200. The subject site is located within the 10-20 year
TOTZ of the Sports Way wellhead. As pre"iously' conditioned, groundwater protection must be
observed during construction on the site.
"Date f{eceived:~/~".r
Planner: AL
Page 13 of 16
Condition of Approval:
12. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the developer shall obtain a Tree Felling Pe~it'approval
pursuant to Planning Case DRC2008-00004.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposed development provides storm and ground water quality
protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving ,streams have been I',u;,;,v;.;:d in,accordance
with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115.
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan Modification, as submitted and conditioned, complies with
Criteria A-E ofSDC 5.17-125.
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 of this letter (ie. by May 4, 2008). In accordance
with SDC 5.17-135 - 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan'shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the
conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial
conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative
, review cannot be substantively changed during final site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including
Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed duririg Building Permit Review without an approved Site
Plan Decision Modification.
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 building permit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The Final Site Plan shall be revised as necessary to extend the electrical feeder conduit from the newly
installed electrical vault approXimately 5 feet further west before bending 90. to reach the existing SUB
transformer.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a utility easement centered on
the underground electrical line. The location and dimensions oftheutility'easement"shall be satisfactory to
SUB Electric and shown on the Final Site Plan. '
3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, a Public Access Easement shall be executed and recorded for any
'areas where public sidewalks are to be located on private property.
4. Prior to approvitl of the Final Site Plan, access easements satisfactory to the City's Public Works Director
shall be executed and recorded for all traffic signal equipment that is located on private property. The
easements shall grant the City of Springfield the right to access and maintain traffic signal equipment on the
Gateway Mall property.
5. Proposed additions and modifications to City-owned traffic signal systems are" approved in concept only.
All such additions and modifications shall be subject to the City's Public Improvement Project (pIP)
permitting, review and approval process. Final design details shall be resolved during PIP review.
6. Nothing in this land use decision constitutes approval of a specific traffic signal timing or operational plan.
lJ~te, Heceived: ~h/.HO"
p!glnnl3r: AL /"""---
Page 14 of 16
7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record a right-of-way dedication
agree~ent for additional Gateway Street right-of-way as generally depicted on the applicant's site plan.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant and CitY shall execute and record a Right-of-Way Use
Agreement or Intergovernmental Agreement, as, may be necessary, for LTD facilities constructed and/or
encroaching within the public right-of-way, including but not limited to the tr~sit platform and bus shelter
canopies.
9. Prior to commencement of work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall obtain a ,Public Improvement
Permit from the City's Public Works Department. "
10.Jn accordan~e with the provisions of SFC 508.5.5 and SFC912.3, immediate,access and at least three (3)
feet of clear, space in all directions shall be maintained for all Fire Department connections.
11. The developer shall be responsible for ensuring special precautions are observed during site construction to
protect groundwater and to prevent spills or leakage of materials into the stormwater system. Wellhead
protection signs shall be posted at conspicuous locations to alert contractors, subcontractors, employees and
other to the importance ofreporting and cleaning up any spills. ' Additionally, DNAPL materials shalI be
prohibited on the site during construction and operation.
12. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the developer shall obtain a Tree Felling Permit approval pursuant to
Planning Case DRC2008-00004.
The applicant may submit permit applications to other city departments for review prior to [mal site plan
approval in accordance with SDC 5.17-135 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision
for compliance with the final site plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 5.17-140 will not be
issued until all plans submitted by the applicant ha~e been revised, CONFLICTING, PLANS CAUSE
DELAYS.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant,
and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the
Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
APPEAL: This Type II Tentative Site Plan decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may
be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department
by an affected party. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application
must be submitted with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the Planning Commission.
approves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule IO( c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 PM on
February 22, 2008.
QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at
(541) 726-3784 or email alimbirdlalci.sorinl!field.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process.
PREPARE;tJ
Date i'~eceived:
Planner: AL
2/7/ti'dO~
I .
,.
Page ]5 of16
Please be advised that the following is provided for,information only and is nota component of
the Site Plan Modification decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Svstems Develonment Charl!es:
The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building permits are issued for .
developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates
to the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site
improvements within the subject site. The charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of
permit submittal for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
SanitarY Sewer In-Lien-Of-Assessment Charo:e:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer IncLieu-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 Divis,ion to determine if the
In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable [Ord. 5584]. ,
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastnicture.
Other City Permits: .
Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit (working within rightcof-way or public easements). For
example; new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $130
for processing plus applicable fees and deposits:
Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the, Springfield Public Works Department at
726-5849 for appwp,;ate applications/requirements. .
Additional nermits/annrovals mav be necessarY:
. Building Permit
. Drinking Water Protection
. ODOT Drainage Permit. Contact Lynn Stuckrath at (541) 726-2577 for the application
requirements.
., '\!;
lJ""" {;.;,c8IVed: ii~ol- Page 1,6 of 16
Planner: AL
"
..
Date Received:~/)lDr
,Planner: AL . '
.....-:-''''~~.V~N'.._."..'''' .",~__~ C'","",~~.-~"_ ;";-."-"':,": .\"7."
;' '. '... - '"'DEVELOPMENT SERVICE~'DEPARTMEt'Jr .
'i 5th ST .
SPRINc.,IELD, OR 97477
:1.
~
Monica Anderson
Balzhiser & Hubbard Engineers
PO Box 10347
Eugene, OR 97440
,,::.- ~,-,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELQPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST'
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
IJ. " .._... ...._.." 11..1..... "..0
,
"
t
...Jl"""""",..._.,,,._.l
~
~
-
Mark Young
Rowell Brokaw ARchitects
One East Broadway
Ste 300
Eugene, OR 97401
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Sara Geddes
Satre Associates PC
202 E Broadway, Ste 480
Eugene, OR 97401
;..:;;"; _.";;;;'~;.I:;-...ii~iI,;~u
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Larry Reed
JRH Transportation
4765 Village Plaza Loop
Ste 201
Eugene, OR 97401
".0'1
1
,-
.J
,
,
. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Stefano Viggiano
Lane Transit District
3500,E 17th Avenue'
PO Box 7070
Eugene, OR 97401-0472
Date Heceived:
Planner: AL
L./7/;'1J1'
, ,
\
. -. "-','
.' '".
-,'..-
.
- I
~i,... ,._.
IIIII
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 5th ST
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
....".... ' ~... ..
"", I
..
;
Ron Glover
General Growth Properties
3000 Gateway Street
Springfield, OR 97477
-.,.,' -.
Date,[~eceived: )-/l~.r '
Planner: AL
Q