Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Review Notice 1998-1-1 .,) . . K~ Notice of Decision - Limited Land Use - Site Plan Review Date ofl.etter . Journal Numher: March 16, 1998 97-12-271 * Owner AODlicant Jeffery C. Olson 3522 Main Street Springfield, OR 97477 Jerod Mathew 40900 Skyline Drive Sweet Home, OR. 97386 Nature of Annlication: The applicant has submitted a Type II Site Plan Review Applicationto the City of Springfield for approval to construct a 1056 square foot garage, paved parking and to place a manufactured home at .3522 Main Street.) '- - Decision: ThJltative Site ~nnrov31., with conditions, as of the date of this letter. Other Uses That Mav Be Authorized Bv The Deci.ioq: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and all applicable permit procedures. Site Information: The 16,000 square foot development site (tax map 17-02-31'31, tax lot 2000) is zoned Community Commercial by the City of Springfield, consistent with the Mid-Springfield Refmement Plan designation. The site is developed with a commercial business (dog grooming) at the rear of the lot. The site has approximately 91 feet of frontage on Main Street, an improved, full width arterial street. Access to required parking is proposed via a cUrb cut on Main Street. :\v"...; designated Low Density Residential abuts the ~_.~_..j to the north. '1.."..;; zoned and designated Community Commercial abuts the ~..~_.;} to the east and west. Property opposite the site to the north is also zoned Community Commercial. One detached single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the Community Commercial zoning district per SDC 18.020(8). W~itt.n romnww.: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of "._"...; owners/occupants within I 00 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application. One written correspondence was received: Dennis Wartenbee, 2121 Franklin Boulevard, Eugene, Or. The following issues were raised by Mr. Wartenbee; : ~', Issue #1. Under the criteria for approval #4, it states that the parking area and the ingress-egress points have been designed so as to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety and to avoid congestion. The existing . . I..J 2 business is located at the rear of the property, III' north of Main Street. The location causes traffic congestion from people trying to fmd the driveway and location of the site. The proposed placement of the manufactured home further decreases visibility of the business. The proposed parking area shows cars parked 20' off Main Street which creates turning movements into the driveway entry and impedes driveway access, even though the design complies with the 18' parking space and 16' backup requirements. [Mr. Wartenbee also submitted an alternative to the submitted site plan; his proposed plan shows the residence placed at the west side of the property with parking constructed adjacent to the east lot line.] Staff response: 1. The Springfield Tran.pv. ~.;on Division reviewell the site plan for the proposed traffic circulation, driveway access and location of parking areas. Transportation Engineer, Masood Mirza, found the plan sufficiently facilitates safe traffic circulation and vehicle,movements. Mr. Mirza also commented that Mr. Wartenbee's plan encourages safety and operational problems at the driveway caused by conflicting turning movements and lack of vehicle storage space. Issue 112. Placement of the manufactured home 20' from Main Street and 10' from the side p,vp"'; lines' blocks off 90 percent of the eastern view of the business [on Mr. Wartenbee's property] resulting in: . , -total obstruction of the business sign and parking areas for product display -cuts off 50 percent visual advertising ability -10' setback from building blocks off windows for light and air circulation -the home location screens from police patrol protection. Staff response: 2. The purpose of Site Plan Review is to ensure that the development complies with all the applicable standards of the Development Code. Site Plan Review also mitigates potential land use conflicts resulting from proposed development where it interfaces with less intensive development. Abutting property to the east is zoned and designated Community Commercial, the same as the subject property. One single-family residence is an outright pennitted use in the community commercial district per SDC 18.020(8). No speciallocational, siting or screening standards apply in order to place a single-family dwelling on this property. The manufactured home is shown.at a 10' interior sideyard setback from the east r'-r-';, line. The proposed setback exceeds the development code (and building code) commercial district setback standards. SDC 18.050 (2) requires an interior sideyard sethack onlY when structures or parking abut residential districts (the Unifonn Building Code requires a 3 foot setback). As a note, the proposed setback also exceeds the minimum 5' intenor sideyard setbacks required for dwellings in residential districts. The Development Code does not regulate the placement of structures based on their potential for crime activities. The Springfield Police Department did not provide comment on this application. Criteria of Site Plan Aooroval: Section 31.060, Site Plan Review Standards, of the Springfield Development Code states: "The Director shall appnlVe, ~r approve with conditions, a Type II Site Plan Application upon detennining that criteria (I) through (4) of,l/!.is section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot reasonably be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application." ,.J . . 3 (I) COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 3.050 AND 31.050 OF THIS CODE. The site plan applicatien was accepted as complete en January 21, 1998 and centained all infonnatien required te initiate Type II Site Plan Review precedures in accerdance with SDC Articles 3 and 31. This decisien is issued within the required 120 calendar day review peried. Finding: Criteria I has been met because the applicant has complied with 01/ submittal requirements and the decision was issued within the required 120 days. (2) PROPOSED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVEWPMENT AS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLES 31, 32, THE APPROPRIATE ZONING AND/OR OVERLAY DISTRICT ARTICLE AND ANY APPLICABLE REFINEMENT PLAN. Conrormanee with Artide 32 lPuhlie and PrivS!R..lmJlrovemeuY} ):Yate. and ~Iect.ic Service. SDC Sectien 32.120 states: "Each development shall be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development. " The Springfield Utility Beard (SUB) currently provides water and electrical service to the site. A 3/4" water service currently serves this develepment. If additional service is required, it will be installed upon the collectien .of develepment charges. Ken Cerotsky of SUB Water Deparbnent (726-2396) is the contact person. SDC 32.120(2) states, "Wherever possible, utility lines shall be placed underground. Hewever, overhead and abeve greund facilities shall be permitted fer the fellowing...(h) Existing non backbone distribution feeders located on existing streets on developed .or undeveleped land." There is an existing .overhead service from a primary powerpole at the sauthwest carner of the praperty abutting Main Street. Secondary poles are lacated at the nertheast and northwest cemers .of the site. Dang Nguyen .of SUB Electric (726-2395) is tIie cantact persan. Service will be installed upan the callectian .of develapment charges. Finding: The proposed plans for instal/ation of water and electrical service comply with the standards in the SDC for the provision of water and electrical services. Fire and Life Safetv. The nearest existing fIre hydrants en Main Street, sprinkler .J ...... and fIre flaw proposed are adequate ta provide fIre protectian ta the proposed develapment as shewn an the submitted site plan. Please coordinate firewall requirements wiih Lame Pleger, Cemmunity Services Divisien, (726-3669) prier te fmalizing building plans. Finding: The proposed plan of fire protection'measures comply with the standards in the SDC for the provision ofkey urban services because the Fire and Life Safety Department has determined the nearest existing hydrants are sufficient to protect the development as proposed , , Smlitarv Sewer. SDC 32.100 (I) states, ".~.sanitary sewers shall be installed ta serve each new develepment and ta connect the developments ta new mains. Installation .of sanitary sewers shall camply with the provisiens .of this cade, the Standard Canstructien SpecifIcatians, Chapter 2 of the City Cod"e, a~d t~~. Department of Enviranmental Quality regulatians..." .. . . " 4 A public 36" sanitary sewer line is located south of the subject site within the Main Street right- of- way. The existing public systems have capacity to accept the increased sanitary flow generated by this proposal. The on-site sanitary systems are privately owned and maintained. The manufactured home must connect to the existing on-site sewer because a new service connection to the City's sewer main will not be pennilted. The on-site sewer lateral, however, is located underneath the footings for the proposed garage. Ken Vogeney of the Public Works Division (726-3688) is the contact person. Finding: The proposed development plan is not in conformance with SDC 32.100 because the footings for a proposed building are located over a sewer /ateral. Qlnditinn U The Final Site Plan shall indicate that footings and building structures are not located over sewer laterals. SlJ>rm Sewer. SDC Section 32.110 states, "The Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate provisions for storm and floodwater run-off to the City storm water drainage system have been made as determined by the City Engineer." , A 21" public stonn sewer line is located south of the subject site within the Main Street right- of- way. The building penn it must indicate that all stonn water runoff from the impervious portions of the site will be collected on-site and discharged into the public stonn drain system via the existing site drainage system. Ken Vogeny of the Engineering Division (726-3759) is 'the contact person. Developments with parking areas over 5.000 square feet in area must employ drainage management practices approved by the City Engineer which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams. Because the new pavement area is less than 5,000 square feet, Stonn Water Quality measures will not apply to this site. 'Finding: The proposed development can connect to the public storm drainage system. A storm drainage plan submitted with the building permit will ensure that all on.site drainage will be discharged into the public storm system via the existing drainage system. Conformance with standards of sor Article 31- Site Plan Review and Article 18- Qunmercial Zonin!! Districts. ~ethaek,: The submitted site plan complies with the setback provisions ofSDC 18.050: t) the proposed residence is setback 10 feet from east or side property line, 88 feet from south or rear property line, 20 feet from north or front property line and 54 feet from the west or side property line. 2) the proposed garage is setback 57 feet from the east or side property line, 20 feet from the south or rear r--r";!' line, III feet from the north or front r'.r"', line and 10 feet from the west or side property line. Solar Setbacks. SDC Section 18.060(2) states: "When a...CC District abnts an LOR District to the... south...the bnilding height limitation shall be no greater than that permitted in the ,..LDR ..District(s) for a distance of 50 feet... Finding: The Site Plan submilled meets the }tandar~,r'fSDC 18.060(2) because the maximum height of the proposed structures are not greater tha,;'that permilled in the LDR District for a distance of 50 feet: building elevations show that the manufactured home is 16' in height and '/ . . 5 located 89 feet south of LDR designated property; the garage is 20' in height a1uJ located 20 feet south of LDR designated property. Landscaoin... SDC 31.140(2) Site Plan Review - Planting Standards states, "... the minimum planting acceptable per 1000 square feet of required planting area shall be as follows...(a) at least tWo trees not less than 6 feet in height and not less than 2 inches in ealiper...(b) ten shrubs, five gallons or larger...(c) lawn and/or groundcover may be substituted for trees or shrubbery, except where required for screening, when there are adequate provisions for ongoing maintenance." SDC 31.140(4) Except where planted with native species or plant communities, all new required planting areas on private property and public schools shall be provided with a permanent underground irrigation system unless exempted by the Director. SDC 18.050 Setback Standards, states: "In all commercial districts, each lot shall have planted setbacks of not less than the following sizes: (1) Front (a) Building setback - 10 feet (b) Parking setback - 5 feet The Main Street frontage, requires a 10 foot planted setback adjacent to the residence and a 5 foot planted setback adjacent to the parking area The street frontage is approximately 90 feet in length; the entire required planted area is approximately 600 square feet. A minimum of 6 shrubs, five gallons in size or larger. two trees or grass must be shown on the Final Site Plan. Plantings must also replace the portion of closed curb cut on Main Street (see page 7). The submitted landscape plan shows grass and three shrubs currently installed adjacent to the sidewalk. Pennanent irrigation is not indicated., Finding: The submitted Landscape Plan does not meet the planting standards ofSDC 31.140(2). Pursuant to SDC 31.140 (2)(a), the area adjacent to Main Street, including the 1O-Ioot portion of closed curb cut, must be replaced with sufficient shrubs 5-gallon in size or larger, trees, or grass in order to meet the minimum amount of planted materials. All landscaped areas must include permaMnt~~~wn ' CONDITION 2) The Landscape Plan shall.be revised to include irrigation and the sufficient number and sized plantings in accordance with SDC 31.140. Screenin.. and Liuhtin!:. SDC 31.160(3) states: "All lighting shall be arranged to reflect away from less intensive uses and public rights of way. " ' According to the site plan, one 175 watt mercury vapor utility security lamp will be attached to the front of the garage. It is not clear from the site plan that the light will reflect away from less ' intensive (LDR) uses or the Main Street right of way. Finding: Because it is unclear whether the light cast from the proposed lighting will create Mgative impacts such as overly bright and intrusive glare, this criterion has not been met. Lighting equipped with glaze shields will minimize impacts to abutting less-intensive uses: ~ONOTTlO~ Revise the Final Site Plan to show on-site lighting equipped with glaze shields to reflect away from less intensive uses. " . ,. ". . . "I 6 SDC 31.160(1)(a) states:...screening shall be required where commercial and industrial districts abut residential districts and no approved screening exists." (2) Screening shall be vegetative, earthen, and/or structural... A five foot high chain link fence currently separates the subject property from the abutting residential property to the north., A 20 foot high laurel hedge sufficiently screens the commercial use from the residence. Finding: The Site Plan as submilled, provides screening as required by SDC 3/. /60(/)(0). Parkin!!. SDC Section 18.070 - Off-Street Parking Standards states, "The following off- street parking standards have been established for commercial districts: (3) Animal Service: 1 for each 300 square feet of gross Door area." SDC Section 16.070 - Off-Street Parking Standards, (5) Dwellings (a) Attached single family: 2 for each dwelling. The submitted parking lot design meets the parking requirements for the proposed use because the site plan shows four parking spaces for 1144 square feet of gross floor area for the business. An additional 2 parking spaces can be provided in the detached garage. NOTE: The disabled pelSon parking space must meet access aisle and width requirements. Please contact Lome Pleger in the Community Services Division (726-3669) with any questions. Finding: The parking spaces indicated are sufficient for the use proposed as indicated on the Site Plan. ProDosed on-sit~,:,nt.l off.site Duhlic and Drivate imDrovements are sufficient to accommodate the Dronn~ed develon.mm.1.as snecified in anv 8DDlicable refinement nlan. Conformance with the Applicable Mid-Springfield Refinement Commercial Policies: (Ordinance No. 5341, as adopted July 1986, and amended March 1987) 4. Apply site plan review conditions (Article 31, Springfield Development Code) to commercial development to: 2) minimize conDicts with residentially designated areas. (pg. 9) The proposed use is subject to a Type II Site Plan Review process. The development provides landscaping and off-street parking to improve the appearance of Main Street. Screening will , minimize conflicts with the abutting residential district, meeting the intent of Policy #4, part 2). S. Reduce, the number of curb cuts and require tbe rebuilding of curbs tbrougb tbe site plan review process, especially along Main Street. The submitted site plan proposes one curbeut on Main Street. The r'-r-';, is not accessible by any other street. The curbeut will be rebuilt to decrease safety hazards and traffic conflicts. This application meets the intent of Policy #5. Staff finds, as conditioned, all applicable Mid-Springfield Refmement Plan Commercial Policies have been met. Finding: Staffflnds this cr/Jerlon Is met bl!cau~e Subcr/Jerlll a), b) and c), as cond/JlIlned,fully conform to the requirements of this Code penaining.fo sufficient publk and private Improvements to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with SDC Ankles 18, 31,32 and The MId-Springfkld Refinement Plan. / . . 7 (3) INVENTORIED NATURAL ONCLUDING REGULATED WETLANDS) AND HISTORIC FEATURES OF THE SITE HAVE BEEN ADEQUA TEL Y CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN. The Mid-Springfield Refmement Plan, the Draft Natural Resources Special Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the draft Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted. No wetland, natural or other cultural resources have been identified on the site. There are no inventoried historic features or archeological sites located on the development site. If any artifacts are encountered during construction, there are state laws that could apply, ORS 97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construction it is a Class 'C' felony to proceed under ORS 97.740. Finding: This criterion Is met because the aforementioned resources were consu/Jed and no natural or historic resources have been Identified. (4) PARKING AREAS AND INGRESS-EGRESS POINTS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED SO AS TO FACILITATE TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, TO AVOID CONGESTION AND TO MINIMIZE CURB CUTS ON ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREETS AS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLES 31, 32, THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ANDIOR ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICf ARTICLE AND ANY APPLICABLE REFINEMENT PLAN. Inl>ress and Ene<' "nin!... SDC 32.080 (l)(c) states, "Access to designated State Highways shall be subject to the provisions of this Article in addition to requirements of the Highway Division, Oregon Department of Transportation." SDC32.080(2)(b) states, "Where a proposed development abuts an existing or proposed arterial street, the development design and off-site improvements shall minimize the traffic conflicts." Access to the required parking is proposed via a curbeut on Main Street. The existing curbeut is 40' in width. SDC 32.080(3) specifies a 35'maximum curb cut for commercially zoned ...v.._..:es. The location and use of approach crossings upon state highways is under the jurisdiction of OOOT. In order to secure access to the site, an OOOT road approach pennit must be obtained prior to Final Occupancy. Mike Barker, ODOT access and development specialist, is the contact person (726-2552). In accordance with SDC 32.070, landscaping, ground cover, and sign pedestals must not exceed 30 inches in height within the 25' vision clearance area at the intersection of the private driveway and the public right of way. Finding: Stal/flnds the s/Je plan, as submitted does not meet the driveway design specifications of SDC 32.080(3) because an approach permlJ has not yet been securedfrom ODOr, and the driveway she and location does not meet the requirements of SDC 32:080. However, this cr/Jerlon can be met when the permlJ Is obtained and the driveway location and dimensions have been reviewed and approved by the ciJy's ~ransportatlon division. . ' : ~" CONDITION 4) The driveway design shall be approved by the City of Springfield prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Provide a copy of an ooor road approach pennit prior to obtaining Final Site Plan Approval. A copy of the ~rr' _ _d pennit shall be provided prior to Final Occupancy. . . , 8 ,>>:hat Need'1J/..Re Done Rv The ADDlicant To Obtain Final Site Plan ADDroval? Three copies of a Final Site Plan and any additional required plans, documents or infonnation are required to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date of this letter showing compliance with SDC Article 31 Criteria of Approval 1-4, as conditioned: CONDITION n The Final Site Plan shall indicate that footings and building structures are not located over sewer laterals. CONDITION 2) The Landscape Plan shall be revised to include irrigation and the sufficient number and sized plantings in accordance with SDC 31.140. CONDITION 3) Revise the Final Site Plan to show on-site lighting equipped with glaze shields to reflect away from less intensive uses. CONDITION 4) The driveway design shall be approved by the City of Springfield prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Provide a copy of an ODOT road approach pennit prior to obtaining Final Site Plan Approval. A copy of the approved pennit shall be provided prior to Final Occupancy. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is required to ensure that the tenns and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by Staff and upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building penn it. 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 sign pennit is required. Lisa Hopper (726-3790) is the contact person. t\dditional 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 at a cost of $0.75 for the first page and $0.25 for each additional page at the Development Services Depamnent, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. ADDeal: If you wish to appeal this Type II Limited Land Use Site Plan Review Approval decision, you must do so min..10 dav. of the date of this letter. Your appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Article IS, Appeals. Appeals must be submitted on a City fonn with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the applicant if the Planning Commission a,-~._,.> the appeal application. Ouestions: Please call Lauren Lezell in the Planning Division of the Development Services Depamnent at (541) 726-3660 if you have any questions regarding this process. ; \:~