Loading...
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.