HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 12/16/2009
1..' "
ZON2009-OO026
Meeting date: December 17, 2009
Proposal: 24,000 sf church with 300 parking spaces
Zone: MDR (Medium Density Residential)
Overlays: Drinking Water Protection Overlay (0-1 and 1-5 year Time of Travel Zones)
Streets: 31" Street is a major collector. Oak Prairie will be classified as a collector.
Applicant: LDS
Staff: Steve Hopkins
Questions
1. Are there any overall impediments foreseen by the City of Springfield to the approval of theLDS
Church development shown on the submitted drawings? Please note that the driveway has been
relocated to align with 'W" Street and the second drivewal; has been eliminated as requested at
the'first DIM meeting.
2. Would the City approve the Church proceeding indryendently from the Marcola Meadows
subdivision with regard to our Discretionary Use application?
3. Is there a process by which the Church could proceed witlwut waiting for Plan modification In;
the Marcola Meadows developers?
No. A plan modification is required. The property contains a deed restriction that
requires compliance with the masterplan. The:rezone also contained a condition that
required compliance with the masterplan.
4. If not, what is the approximate time frame for the Church to be able to obtain approval to proceed
with Discretionary Use?
a. Master Plan Amendment process
b. Discretionary Use
c. Site Plan Review
d. Major Variance
e. Drinking Water Protection
Limited land use decision: 120 days.
5. Is it possible for the Church to connect to utilities as shown (attached) indepeizdent of Marcola
Meadows development schedule?
Date R~lvoo;J]'-\~
~I~flnl;m 4(~
\ 0-+ ~~
'. '
Issues to address in the Master Plan Amendment
Residential density:
. The minimum net density for Marcola Meadows is 12 dwelling units per net acre. Refer
to Condition #8 in Ord. No~ 6196.
Traffic:
. This site is near Yolanda Street, a county road that is outside the city limits. Comments
frofIl Lane County indicate a church may impact that street.
. The TIA for Marcola Meadows assumed residential traffic in the area of the church.
Would this change in traffic have an impact to the assumptions of the TIA? Would this
change the mitigation measures recommended in the TIA?
Internal trips and phasing:
. A ~ertain percentage of. the residential portion of the site should be developed with a
similar percentage of the commercial.
. Refer to Condition #10 of Ord. No. 6196.
Connectivity:
. Condition #13 that requires connectivity betw~en the residential and commercial
development areas.
5.9-120 Criteria
A Discretibnary Use may be approved only if the Planning Commission or. Hearings Official
finds that the proposal conforms with the Site Plan Review approval criteria specified in Section
5.17-125, where applicable, and the following approval criteria:
A. The proposed use conforms with applicable:
1. Provisions of the Metro Plan;
2. Refinement plans;
3. Plan District standards;
4. Conceptual Development Plans or
5. Specific Development Standards in this Code;
B. The site under consideration is suitable for the proposed use, considering:
1. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the use (operating
characteristics include but are not limited to parking, traffic, noise, vibration, emissions,
ligJ:1.t, glare, odor, dust, visibility, safetY, and aesthetic considerations, where applicable);
2. . Adequate and safe circulation exist? for vehicular access to and from the
pnwosed site, and on-site circulation and emergency response as 'Yell as pedestrian,
bicycle and transit circulation;
J: .
3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, riparian
areas, regulated wetlands, natural stormwater management/ drainage areas and
wooded areas shall be adequately considered in the project design; and
4.. Adequate public facilities and services are available, including but not limited to,
utilities, streets, storm drainage facilities, sanitary sewer and other public infrastructure.
C. Any adverse effects of the proposed us~ on adjacent properties and on the public can be
mitigated through the:
1. Application of other Code standards (iricluding, but not limited to: buffering from
less intensive uses and increased setbacks);
,
2. Site Plan Review approval conditions, where applicable;'
3. Other approval conditions that may be required by the Approval Authority;
and/ or .
4. A proposal by the applicant that meets or exceeds the cited Code standards
and/ or approval conditions.'
SDC 5.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan-Criteria
A PrelimiJ;1ary Master Plan shall be approved, or approved with conditions, if the Approval
Authorityifinds that the proposal conforms with all of the applicable approval criteria.
A. Plan/Zone Consistency. The existing or proposed zoning shall be consistent with the
Metro Plap. diagram and/ or applicable text. In addition, the Preliminary Master Plan shall be in
compliance with applicable City Refinement Plan, Conceptual Development Plan or Plan
District strmdards, policies and/ or diagram and maps:
B. Zobmg District Standards. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be in compliance with
applicable standards of the specific zoning district and/ or overlay district.
,
C. Transportation System Capacity. With the addition of traffic from the proposed
developm~nt, there is either sufficient capacity in the City's existing transportation system to
accommodate the development proposed in all future phases or there will be adequate capacity
by the time each phase of development is completed. Adopted State and/ or local mobility
standards; as applicable, shall be used to determine transportation system capacity. The
Preliminary MasterPlan shall also comply with any conditions of approvalfrom a Metro Plan
.' ..
diagram and/ or text amendment regarding transportation and all applicable transportation
standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. ,I
D. Parking. Parking areas have been designed to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid
congestion; provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the property and to nearby
transit stops and public areas. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with all applicable
vehicular Fd bicycle parking standards specified in SDC Chapte~ 4.
E. Ingress-egress. Ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate traffic safety and
avoid congestion; provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the property and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial,
0.'
industrial and public areas; and mmrrruze driveways on arterial and collector streets as
specified in this Code or other applicable City and State regulations. The Preliminary Master
Plan shall also comply with all applicable ingress/ egress standards specified in SDC Chapter 4,
F. Availability of Public Utilities. Existing public utilities, including, but not limited to,
water, electricity, wastewater facilities, and, stormwater management facilities either have
sufficient capacity to support the proposed development in all future phases adequately, or
there will be adequate capacity available by the time ,each phase of development is completed.
The Public Works Director or appropriate utility provider shall determine capacity issues. The
Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with applicable utility standards specified in SDC
Chapters 4 and 5.
G. Protection of Physical Features. Physical features, including, but not limited to slopes 15
percent or greater with unstable soil or geologic' conditions, areas with susceptibility to
flooding, significant clusters of trees and .shrubs, watercourses shoWn on the Water Quality
Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock
outcroppings and open spaces and areas of historic 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 Fede!allaw. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also
, . comply with applicable physical feature protection st~dards specified in SDC Chapter 4.
H. Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan shall: demonstrate that the construction of required
public facilities shall occur in a logical sequence, either in conjunction with, or prior to each
phase, or that there are appropriate financial guarantees as specified in Subsection 5.13-120M. to
ensure the phased public facilities constructio~ will occur.
I. A<;ljacent Use Protection. The proposed Preliminary Master Plan contains design,
, elements including, but not limited to landscaping/screening, parking/traffic management,
and multi7modal transportation that limit and/ or mitigate identified conflicts between the site
and adjacent uses. (6238)
SDC 5.13-135 Modifications to master plan
E. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Section 5.1-120C., is required prior
to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan modification application.
F. For all Final Master Plan modification. applications described in Subsections A and B,
above, the 'applicant shall demonstrate compliimce with the following:
1. Any applicable Preliminary Master Plan criteria of approval specified in Section
5.13-125; and
2. Any other applicable standard of this:,Code that may be required to justify the
pr~posed modification.
Ord 6195 (Metro Plan amendment)
Ord 6196 (Zone Change)
::-'
Questions
1. Are there any overall impediments foreseen by the City of Springfield to the approval
of the LDS Church development shown on the submitted drawings?
.'
The following applications are required:
Master Plan amendment: to change basic assumptions (use, traffic, conditions).
Refer to SDC 5.13-100. Fee: $9,672 (base fee) + 5%(tech fee) +$385 (mailing fee).
Discretionary Use: required for'churches in the MDR zone. Refer to SDC 5.9-100
& 4.7-130. Fee: $3,828(base fee);: 5 % (tech fee) +$385 (mailing fee).
Site Plan Review: required for churches in the MDR zone. Refer to SDC 5.17-100
& 3.2-200. Fee: $4,222+$317/1000 sf (base fee) + 5% (tech fee) +$160 (mailing fee).
Based on an impervious area oH54,141 sf, the fee is app'roxirna:tely $56,000. The
final site plan fee: 10% of the base fee +5% (tech fee). This is about $5800.
Major Variance: max height is 35 feet. Refer to SDC 5.21-100 & 3.2-200. Fee:
$3,828(base fee) + 5 % (tech fee) +$385(mailing fee).
,
Drinking Water Protection Overlay: within the 1-5 Time of Travel Zone. Refer
to SDC 3.3-200. Fee: $1,020(baseJee) + ~%(tech fee).
2. Are the utilities proposed by Marcola Meadows development team generally
approvable in the configuration presented by the developer to the City of
Springfield? '
The first round of Public ImprovementProject:'(PIP) review is complete. The applicant is
now addressing the City's comments at'td revising the plans. Each round of review takes
approximately 6-8 weeks. At least two ,more rounds are expected prior to approval of
the PIP.
Until the PIP is approved and bonded, review of development applications will be based
upon the existing infrastructure. I, , .
3. What is the process and time frame anticipated by the City of Springfield for the
reviewing and approval of our anticipated amendment to the Marcola Meadows
Master Plan?
SDC 5.13-135 requires a Type 3 modification to the Master Plan. This involves a public
hearing before the planning commissioh. A public hearing will be held within 75 days
of submittal of a complete application. ,state law requires a final decision within 120
days.
What triggers the ne,;d for a modification?
. Proposing a Discretionary Use. 'Refer to SDC 5.13-135(C).
:'.'
.
. Change to basic assumptions of the master plan.
. Possible change the open space requirements.
. Traffic pattern will be altered.
, . Change to conditions of approval of master plan.
4. Wl).at is the process and time frame for approval of the Discretionary Use for the LDS
Church Development, and is it subsequent to or concurrent with the Master Plan
aIIJendment process? '
Th~ Discretionary Use, Site Plan Review and Variance apps can be processed
concurrently. '
I Application
I Master Plan amendment
I Discretionary Use
I Major Variance
I Site plan
IDWP
Process
Type 3
Type 3
Type 3
Type 2
Type 1
Review
PC at hearing
PC at hearing
PC at hearing
Director, no hearing
Staff
The DU j site planjvariancejDWP apps can be concurrently processed with the Master
PI~ Amendment. The Planning Commission can approve or deny the DU andj or ,the
master plan amendment. If denied, th.:; site plan, variance and DWP will be denied as
well.
All anticipated changes to the Master Plan should be included in the master plan
modification. The master plan amendment could include a height allowance that would
preclude the need for a height variance: There may be similar items to include in the '
amendment.
5. What is the anticipated time frame for approval of construction drawings for the
Marcola Meadows development team designed site utilities serving the LDS Church
site? Have the Marcola Meadows developers indicted their time line to serve this site
to the City of Springfield?
The public and private infrastructure to serve the commercial Lots will be extended and
built during Phase 1. Because Lots 1-6 (the residential lots) will be re-subdivided, public
streets and other infrastructure will be stubbed to them. When those lots are further
diyided, the infrastructure will be extended to ,each future lot.
The first round of Public Improvement Project' (PIP) review is complete. The applicant is
no~ addressing the City's comments and revising the plans. Each round of review takes
approxiillately 6-8 weeks. At least two more rounds are expected prior to approval of
the PIP. It is reasonable to anticipate PIP approval in March 09.