Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 3/2/2010 . . SPRINGFIELD Type II tentative SITE PLAN review, staff report & amended decision Project Name: TL 11300 Project Proposal: Construct 4 duplexes Case Number: DRC200f:00072 Project Location: 740 28th Street Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: 7/12/05 Application Submitted Date: 10/6/06 Amended Decision Issued Date: 1/6/06 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: 1/17/06 Natural Features: None De~elopmentlssues: Plan/zone confiict, site restrictions Associated Applications: PRE2004-00046, ZON2005-00070 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Manaqer Planninq Sarah Summers 726-4611 TransDortation Planninq Enaineer Transportation Garv McKennev 726-4585 Public Works Civil Enaineer Utilities Steve Barnes 736-1036 Public Works EIT Sanitary & Storm Sewer Steve Barnes 736-1036 D",nutv Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safetv Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 . Applicant/Owner: Engineer: David Dukes Scott Goebel Dukes & Dukes Construction Goebel Engineering PO Box 71095 1762 West 2nd Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97401 '~', . .. ", . ~ Date R.ecelved: ~~" Planner: AL . / . Page 1 Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 . . SITE NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant submitted a Type II Site Plan Review Application to : the City of Springfield requesting tentative approval to construct four duplex units on 0.54 acre. i The proposed density is approximately 15 dwelling units per acre which is a permitted density ; for Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoned parcels in the City. The Applicant submitted a ~ Pre-Application Report application, #PRE2005-00047, in July of 2005 for staff review and i comment. The application was submitted and accepted on October 6, 2005. I I DECISION: Tentative Site Plan Approval with Conditions as of the date of this letter. This: is a limited land use decision made according to city code and state statute. Unless ~ appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. The standards of the: Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval ~ are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically: noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. OTHER USES THAT MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 3.080, the site plan criteria of approval in SDC 31.060. This application was accepted as complete on October 6, 2005. The original decision was issued on the 69th day of the 120 days mandated by the state. An appeal was submitted by the applicant on December 29, 2005 (ZON2005-00070). LOCATION OF PROPERTY/SITE INFORMATION , The subject prqperty, Assessor's Map #17-03-36-11, Tax Lot 11300, involved in this request is: located inside the city limits at 740 28th Street. There is one existing dwelling on the site which is, Amended Site1Plan Review DRC200S-00072 Date F~eceived:~/o Planner: AL Page 2 . . proposed to be removed. The subject property is zoned Medium Density Residential but designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan. The property is bordered by LDR zoned and designated properties. This portion of the City is not within a Metro Plan refinement plan area. WRITTEN COMMENTS Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 100 feet of the proposed development allowing for a 14-day comment period prior to the staff decision. The following written comments were received: Aimee Roberts and Jason Prophet, 2711 G Street, Springfield oppose the development because the water pressure is not strong enough now for the existing residences and their sewer line drains are on the property to be developed. Most of the homes are owned by the residents and they do not want rentals in their back yards. Staff Response . There is an existing blanket sewer easement to the City on the site that will protect the sanitary . sewers. The water supply will be determined and provided by Springfield Utility Board. The City cannot regulate home ownership. Please see the comments and conditions below. CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: sbc Section 31.060, 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 (1) through (5) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application." (1) The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 1: The current zoning for the site is Medium Density Residential (MDR). The Metro Plan Diagram shows the zoning as Low Density Residential (LDR). This results in a Plan/Zone conflict. In order for the conflict to be resolved, the site must be rezoned to LDR. There is no refinement plan for this area . Finding 2: The maximum number of units permitted on this site under MDR zoning is 10. Eight units are proposed. Finding 3: SDC 16.100(5)(d) states that duplexes on interior lots zoned LDRwhich meet the density requirements of this zoning district, shall not be considered a non-conforming use. Finding 4: The entire property that was held by the original owners of the site, Whitworth, was 2.1 acres. This area now consists of 8 lots and Whitworth Lane. Six of the lots take access off of Whitworth Lane. One lot has no frontage and belongs to an owner of one of the 6 lots with access to Whitworth Lane. The remaining lot, which is the proposed site, contains the Whitworth's original house and fronts on 28th Street. This lot was rezoned to MDR in 1962, but it continued to have one single family residence on the Amended Site Plan Review t DRC200fr00072 .~ ...: . Date rleCeived:~/';!;1o/d Planner: AL . r Page 3 . . property. The 2.1 acres could have an LDR maximum density of 20 units at 10 units per gross acre. Finding 5: SDC 16.010 states, "In order to fully implement the policies of the Metro Plan, regulate the use of land, structures and buildings, and protect the public health, safety and welfare, the following zoning districts are established in this Article: (1) LDR Low Density Residential District. The LDR District is intended to fully implement the Metro Plan low density residential designation, any applicable refinement plan and establishes sites for Low Density Residential development where the minimum level of urban services are provided. The maximum dwelling units per developable acre is 10, consistent with the provisions of this Code. Fractions will be rounded down to the next whole number." Finding 6: The developable acreage is 1.92 acres. The maximum number of units permitted in the LDR District is 19. There is currently a density of 7 units. If the original house is removed and 4 duplexes are built, there would be a total of 14 units which would meet density requirements for LDR. Conclusion: The property must be rezoned to LDR to eliminate the Plan/zone conflict. The proposal will meet MDR and LDR density requirements. Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to final occupancy of the proposed duplexes, the owner shall file a written consent to rezone the property to Low Density Residential (LOR). . Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal meets this criterion. (2) Capacity requirements of public improvements, 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 regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. General Finding 7: 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 Manual. The private civil engineer shall also be required to provide construction inspection services. General Finding 8: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed site plan. City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein.. General Finding 9: Criterion 2 contains elements with applicable code standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements and code standards of Criterion 2 include but are not limited to: Amended Site Plan Review DRC200S-00072 .. ", -. Date l~eceived:.#A Planner: AL . Page 4 . . Public and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 31 and 32 . Public Street and Related Improvements (32.020-32.090) . Sanitary Sewer Improvements (32.100) . Storm Water Management and Quality (32.110,31.240) . Utilities (32.120(1,2)) . Fire and Life Safety Improvements (32.120(3)) . Public and Private Easements (32.120(1) and (5)) Finding 10: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and the surrounding public services. Except for the following, the proposed public and private improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed development. Public Street and Related Improvements: Transportation System Impacts Finding 11: 28th Street is designated a minor arterial street in the RTP. The roadway is 36 feet wide and is improved with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk and low pressure sodium street lighting. The roadway provides single northbound and southbound travel lanes and a two-way center turn lane. Finding 12: Based on ITE Land Use Code 220 (Apartment), development of the site as proposed (eight dwelling units) would generate 54 additional vehicle trips per day and 5 PM peak-hour vehicle trips onto 28th Street. In addition, assumed development may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 13: To provide for safe pedestrian and vehicular access, street lighting is needed that will adequately illuminate the street and sidewalk areas adjacent to the development site. The city's street lighting standards, which are based on the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8, specify the lighting type and requir~d lighting levels for street and pedestrian areas. In low and medium density residential districts these standards specify high pressure sodium type street light fixtures. For a 36-foot wide asphalt street, such as 28th Street, the table below shows the required horizontal illuminance, street light type and spacing needed to achieve this lighting level. Street, Width, Classification . 28 Street, 36', arterial Re uired Illuminance 0.4 foot-candles T e - S acin 100-watt high pressure sodium @200 Ft. (poles on same side Finding 14: The development site has 70 feet of frontage on 28th Street. Existing lighting which contributes to illumination cif this frontage consists of a 90-watt low-pressure sodium street light on the west side of 28th Street at the southern site boundary. This street light does not provide the quality or quantity of illumination necessary to meet adopted city standards for safe and'efficient traffic movements. Based on 70 feet of street frontage, the proposed development significantly contributes to the need for street and sidewalk illumination required to meet adopted city standards. Construction by the Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 :, . '.', '.':, Date f'{eC€)iVed:~ / :In!'p_ Planner: AL j' Page 5 . . applicant of street lighting improvements, in proportion to the need created by the proposed development, and aimed at meeting the adopted standards wouid be appropriate. However, construction of such limited improvements is not economically or technically practicable at this time. Execution of an Improvement Agreement is an appropriate method of assigning this cost responsibility. Condition of Approval: 2. Execute and record an Improvement Agreement for street lighting on 28th Street. Sanitary Sewer Finding 15: Section 32.100 of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Finding 16: The plan indicates a sanitary sewer easement exists for "sanitary sewer facilities to the City of Springfield." City easement documentation confirms the blanket easement on the property (reference Book 401, page 7). City easement file number is E466. Finding 17: An 8 inch public sanitary sewer line exists on the northerly portion of the site. The tax lots immediately south of the subject property are serviced with sewer from this line. Existing sewer laterals run from the 8 inch line to homes on tax lots 11500, 11302, 11303 and 11305. Finding .18: There are no discrete easements for the lateral lines across the subject property serving the residenceS to the south. The "blanket" sewer easement to the City covers these public lines to the point where they go onto the private lots they serve; however, the City does not maintain these lines. In addition, the owners of the lots the lines serve do not have a right to maintain them. Finding 19: The locations of the proposed buildings are such that the existing sewer laterals for tax lots 11302, 11303 and 11500 will be beneath the structures. The applicant proposes to reroute the sanitary sewer lines for these three existing homes around the proposed dwelling units. Finding 20: Applicant proposes to provide one new c1eanout on each new line. Finding 21: The applicant proposes to connect each new dwelling unit to the main 8- inch wastewater line with a 6-inch connecting pipe. Two "Y" connections are shown on the Eastern and Westernmost duplexes. Conditions of Approval: 3. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall record an easement(s) for the relocation, access to, repair and maintenance of the sanitary sewer lines that cross the subject property, and shall at the applicant's expense relocate all sanitary sewer lines that cross that property. T/Je applicant shall complete the relocation to new locations in a manner and using materials which conform to all applicable City development and building standards. The relocation shall be completed prior to the Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 Date Received: Planner: AL J ~/~/d / Page 6 . . starl of construction. The applicant shall underlake all reasonable steps to minimize any seNice disruption arising from said relocation and shall provide notice to the owners of the properlies seNed by existing sanitary seNicelines of the estimated timing of disconnection and reconnection of seNice. . 4. When moving the existing 3 lines, a new clean out is required where each new connection is made to the existing line and at each turn in that line, so two cleanouts will be required for each new line. 5. An in-line cleanout is required at each of the two "Y" connections shown. Stormwater Management (Quantity) Finding 22: Section 32.110 (5) of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) requires new developments to employ drainage management practices, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote water quality. Finding 23: Section 32.110 (4) of the SDC requires that run-off from a development shall be directed to ari approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 24: Section 32.110 (2) of the SDC 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 Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). Finding 25: Section 32.110 (3) of the SDC requires that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. Finding 26: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 27: As required in Section 31.050 (5) of the SDC, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual." Finding 28: Applicant proposes a valley-gutter conveyance for stormwater from the joint-use driveway to a 6' x 73 foot grassy swale. Finding 29: Storm water runoff from the proposed rooftop areas of three of the four building units are shown piped to the proposed 10-inch storm system. Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 '''. ',. '. r, Page 7 Date Heceiveo:ift);}c'b Planner: AL . . Condition of Approval: 6. Show a stormwater connection for the Eastern-most Duplex unit to the stormwater collection system on Sheet 5 of 7 on the final site plan. Stormwater Quality Finding 30: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM specifies that stormwater quality features may be designed pursuant to interim design standards set forth either by the BES or CWS. Section 3.03.C of the EDSPM requires that all public and private developments employ a system of one or more post-developed Best Management Practices (BMPs) that in combination are designed . to achieve at least a 70% reduction in the TSS in the runoff generated by that development. Finding 31: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) . permit. A provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 32: Federal and Oregon Depart.ment of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's MS4 plan address six "Minimum Control Measures." Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment," applies to the proposed development. . Finding 33: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City must also deveiop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriated for the community. Finding 34: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Pubic Works Department will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of either the City of Portland (BES) or Unified Sewerage Agency (USA), also know as the Clean Water Services (CWS). Finding 35: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post- developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development. Additionally, Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. - Finding 36: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed a "WATER QUALITY FACILITY" to collect and treat stormwater, prior to discharge into the public system. The system has been designed pursuant to the City of Portland's (BES) Stormwater Management Manual. , .... ~ "'; Date Heceived:. ~4~/" Planner: AL Page 8 Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 . . Finding 37: The applicant proposes a valley-gutter conveyance for stormwater from half of the joint-use driveway to a 6' x 73 foot grassy swale, which achieves City standards for 50% vegetative treatment of non-rooftop impervious surface. Finding 38: The vegetation proposed for use in the "WATER QUALITY FACILITY" will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for this site, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants from the stormwater runoff through the process of sedimentation and fiitration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when vegetation has been established. Conditions of Approval: 7. A reference to the Portland BES - approved grass seed mix for the drainage swale is required to be shown on the detail for the swale on Sheet 5 of 7 of the final site plan. 8. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the SDC and the EDSPM, the "WATER QUALITY FACILITY" shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to City issuance of a Final Occupancy Permi!. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time when the "WATER QUALITY FACILITY' vegetation becomes fully established. Site Soils Finding 39: The applicant has listed site soils on Sheet 1 of 7. #32 Coburg- Urban Land Complex Soils that show potential for high water table and high clay content. Finding 40: Some proposed foundation engineering will be required with the building permit application.to ensure the applicant is aware of soil limitations and new homes are built structurally sound. Utilities Finding 41: The Engineer's plans as submitted show additional connections for water service to a waterline located in 28th Street. The City of Springfield Public Works Department will not permit SUB to cut 28th Street to provide additional water service to this development. Water service may be available from a 6" waterline located in an easement along the north edge of the properties immediately south of Tax Lot 11300. Finding 42: The proposed buildings will require water deveiopment fees for connections and metering. Bart McKee of Springfieid Utility Board (SUB) Water Department, (726- 2396) is the contact person. Please refer to his letter of November 3, 2005. . Finding 43: Backflow' prevention devices may be required for this development. Please contact Chuck Davis at 726-2396. Finding 44: SDC 32.120(2) states, "Wherever possible, utility lines shall be placed underground." Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 /"'- . " '.1 ':' Date ~~ceived:Jp/Jo'" Planner. AL . Page 9 . . Finding 45: There is electrical power available from overhead lines along the south property line to serve the site. Ed Head of SUB Electric (726-2395) is the contact person. Services will be installed upon the collection of development charges. Condition of Approval: 9. Utility lines shall be placed underground (SOC 32.120(2)). Easements Finding 46: SOC 32.120 (5)(a) states: An applicant proposing a development shall 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 public utility easements adjacent to street rights of way shall be 7 feet. Finding 47: The Applicant shows an existing 27~foot sidewalk and utility easement along the frontage of 28th Street which includes 9-feet from face of curb for sidewalk and utilities. Finding 48: There is an existing blanket ingress-egress and sanitary sewer easement across the entire property to benefit the City of Springfield. Finding 49: . The applicant shows new private easements for all the new private sanitary sewer relocations. Finding 50: SUB will require public utility easements for lines to serve this property. The preliminary assessment would require easements 5' along the south property line, 5' along the west property line, and 5' beginning at the northwest corner running east along the north property line 85 feet. Finding 51: The applicant must make arrangements with SUB for utility iristallation and location of easements to be dedicated . Fire and Life,Safety Improvements Finding 52: Nci parking is permitted on either side of the fire apparatus access driveways . per Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.1. and SFC Appendix 0103.6. Finding 53: Fire apparatus access roads are required to support an 80,000Ib. imposed load per SFC 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1. Conditions of Approval: 10. The driveway is required to meet Springfield Fire Code 503.2.1 which requires an unobstructed width of 20 feet and 13' 6" clear height. 11. Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 lb. imposed load per SFC 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1. . Amended Site Plan Review' :, ; ":J DRC2005-00072 Date f'{eceived: Planner: AL 3/J./rKJ/o / I . Page 10 . . 12. "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs shall be posted along both sides of the driveway (except the 2 designated parking spaces) per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 103.6. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal meets this criterion. (3) The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. General Finding 54: Criterion 3 contains elements with applicable code standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements and code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: Conformance with standards of SDC 31, Site Plan Review, and SDC 16 Residential Zoning Districts . Permitted uses (16.020) . Lot coverage Standards (16.040) . Setback Standards (16.050) . Height Standards (16.060) . . Off-Street Parking Standards (16.070 and 31.170-230) . Fence Standards (16.100) . Landscaping Standards (31.130-150) . Screening and Lighting (31.160) . Parking Standards (31.170 - 230) Permitted Uses . Finding 55: The site was rezoned from LDR to MDR in 1962. No MDR development subsequently occurred. Finding 56: The entire area west of 28th Street between Centennial and the commercial strip north of Main Street is designated LDR by the Metro Plan. Finding 57: A Plan/zone conflict exists since the site is designated LDR by the Metro Plan and has Springfield MDR zoning. . Finding 58: Metro Plan policies indicate that the Plan takes precedence over local zoning. Chapter I, D., "Use of the Plan" states that where conflicts exist among the General Plan, refinement plans and existing zoning, each jurisdiction will have to establish it own schedule for bringing the zoning and refinement plans into conformance with the General Plan. Chapter 1, E., "Relationship to Other Plans and Policies" states that in all cases, the Metropolitan Plan is the guiding document and refinement plans and policies must be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan. Should inconsistencies occur, the Metropolitan Plan is the prevailing policy document. Finding 59: Springfield Development Code 16.010 establishes residential zoning districts to fully implement the policies ofthe Metro Plan, regulate the use of land, structures and buildings and protect the public health, safety and welfare. The zoning would have to be Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 .:.: , , . ..... .:.. Date Receivt;q:.A (Z/;e>16 Planner: A!.. . t.; . . Page 11 . . changed to LDR (maximum of 10 units per acre) to be in conformance with the Metro Plan. Finding 60: The maximum number of units permitted on this site under MDR zoning is 10. Eight units are proposed. Finding 61: SDC 16.100(5)(d) states that duplexes on interior lots zoned LDR which meet the density requirements of this zoning district, shall not be considered a non- conforming use. Finding 62: The entire property that was held by the original owners of the site, Whitworth, was 2.1 acres. This area now consists of 8 lots and Whitworth Lane. Six of the lots take access off of Whitworth Lane. One lot has no frontage and belongs to an . owner of one of the 6 lots with access to Whitworth Lane. The remaining lot, which is the proposed site, contains the Whitworth's original house and fronts on 28'h Street. This lot was rezoned to MDR in 1962, but it continued to have one single family residence on the property. The 2.1 acres could have an LDR maximum density of 20 units at 10 units per gross acre. Finding 63: SDC 16.010 states, "In order to fully implement the policies of the Metro Plan, regulate the use of land, structures and buildings, and protect the public health, safety and welfare, the following zoning districts are established in this Article: (1) LDR Low Density Residential District. The LDR District is intended to fully implement the Metro Plan low density residential designation, any applicable refinement plan and establishes sites for Low Density Residential development where the minimum level of urban services are provided. The maximum dwelling units per developable acre is 10, consistent with the provisions of this Code. Fractions will be rounded down to the next whole number: Finding 64: The developable acreage is 1.92 acres. The maximum number of units permitted in the LDR District is 19. There is currently a density of 7 units. If the original house is removed and 4 duplexes'are built, there would be a total of 14 units which would meet density requirements for LDR. Conclusion:. The property must be rezoned to LDR to eliminate the Plan/zone conflict. The proposal will meet MDR and LDR density requirements. Condition of Approval: 13. The site shall be rezoned from MDR to LDR prior to final occupancy of the proposed duplexes. . Height Standards Finding 65: SDC 16.060 states that no building shall exceed 30 feet in height in the LDR District. Finding 66: The proposal is conditioned to have the site rezoned to LDR. Finding 67: No architectural plans were submitted with the proposal. Amended Site Plan Review DRC200S-00072 , :""~' ... '::, Date! Received:-44/~/o Planner: AL I Page 12 . . Condition of Approval: 14. The final site plan shall show buildings no higher that 30 feet in order to conform to SDC 16.060(1). ' Off-Street Parking Standards Finding 68: SDC 16.070(5) requires 2 parking spaces for each dwelling unit in a duplex. A total of 17.5 (18) spaces is required. The proposal shows 8 spaces in garages and 8 outside spaces. Finding 69: SDC Table 32-2 specifies that the throat depth for driveways serving multi- family residential developments shall be a minimum of 18 feet as measured from the curb face to the first parking stall. Parking stall #1 depicted on Plan Sheet 4 of 7 is located 12 feet from the face of curb on 28th Street. Conditions of Approval: 15. The on-site parking layout shall be re-designed to comply with the standards in SDC Table 32-2. 16. The final site plan is required to show 16 off-street parking spaces. Fence Standards/Screening Finding 70: The proposal shows various existing fences on the south and west side of the site. Finding 71: Screening for'multi-family developments is required in SDC 31.160(f) and for trash receptacles (d). . . Finding 72: No trash receptacle is shown on the proposal. Condition of Approval: 17. The applicant is required to construct a 6-foot high solid wooden fence along the south, east and north sides of the site. This fence is required to be shown on the final site plan. . Lighting . Finding 73: Outdoor lighting must be arranged to reflect light away from less intensive uses and public rights of way as referenced by SDC 31.160(3). Finding 74: The applicant shows no exterior lighting on the buildings or in the parking areas. No illumination plan was submitted. Finding 75: The standards that are, generally accepted by Oregon cities for outdoor lighting are set by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) . Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 Page 13 . ,.', .. ~ . ,'; Date Received: ~4/M'D . Planner; AL . . Conditions of Approval: 18. On the. Final Site Plan show the locations for any proposed outdoor lights. 19. If there is any outside lighting proposed, in order to show compliance with SDC 31.160(3), the applicant is required to submit a lighting spill plan for measurable light and glare level approved by the City as part of the final site plan. The calculations must be done in accordance with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook, 9th edition in accordance with City req uirements. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal meets this criterion. (4) 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 Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for state highways. Site Access and Circulation Finding 76: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 32.080(1) (a) stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to E public street." Finding 77: Current access to the site is via a 16-foot wide driveway onto 28th Street located near the southern site boundary. The applicant proposes to close this access and construct a new 20-foot wide driveway at the northern site boundary. Finding 78: SDC Table 32-2 specifies that the throat depth for driveways'serving multi- family residential developments.shall be a minimum of 18 feet as measured from the curb face to the first parking stall. Parking stall #1 depicted on Plan Sheet 4 of 7 is located 12 feet from the face of curb on 28th Street. Conditions of Approval: . 20. The on-site parking layout shall be re-designed to comply with the standards in SDC Table 32-2. 21. Provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corner of the site driveway per SDC 32.070. Conclusion: As conditioned, ingress-egress points will be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC Articles 31 and 32, applicable zoning and or overlay district Articles, and applicable refinement plans. Amended Site Plan Review DRC200S-00072 ',', ., Date Received: ~klJ4/l' Planner: AL . Page 14 . . (5) Physical features, including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations. The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield Wetland Inventory Map, Wellhead Protection Overlay, and the list of Historic Landmark Sites have been consulted. Finding 79: Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subject to protection in accordance with SDC Article 17. Finding 80: The subject site is located within a Drinking Water Protection Overlay District. It is within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone (TOTZ) of the Maia Wellhead. Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subjeCt to protection in accordaQce with SDC 32.11 0(4) and SDC Article 17. Finding 81: SDC 17.050 requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District development application be submitted to the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review when the storage, use and/or production of materials hazardous to groundwater are affected. Finding 82: SDC 17.070(3)(a) allows the storage, handling, treatment, use, or production or otherwise keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs only upon compliance with containment and safety standards set by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City. Finding 83: SDC 17.070(3)(b) states that all hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be stored in areas with approved secondary containment in place. Finding 84: SDC 17.070(3)(c) prohibits the new use of all DNAPLs. Finding 85: SDC 17.070(3)(d) Requirements found in Springfield Fire Code for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly in-house inspection and maintenance of containment and emergency equipment for all amounts of hazardous material, that pose a risk to groundwater except those exempted shall be met. Finding 86: Roof drainage may be discharged directly into the storm water system if there is no roof top equipment, or the roof top equipment is fully self-contained with a connection to the sanitary system or the equipment is provided with secondary containment and weather resistant. enclosures to ensure that, in the event of a spill, no fluids will migrate into the site storm drainage system. Finding 87: Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual 3.03.4.C Roof- mounted Equipment states all building rooftop mounted equipment, or other fluid containing equipment located outside of the building, shall be provided with secondary containment or a weather resistant enclosure to ensure that, in the event of a leak or Amended Site Plan Review DRC200!>-00072 , . ". , Date, Heceiv!;ld: ';~/;CIO Planner: AL -=;-=-r Page 15 . . . spill, any fluids will not be able to migrate into the storm drainage system or any Underground Injection Control facility. Finding 88: Organics and other pollutants from trash receptacle areas may not be discharged into the public storm water system and must go to the sanitary sewer. The applicant does not show a trash receptacle. Conditions of Approval: 22. The applicant shall submit a DWP Overlay District Development Application to the , City prior to Final Site Plan approval if more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs will be on the premises. SDC 17.050 requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District development application be submitted to the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review when the storage, use and/or production of materials hazardous to groundwater are affected. If an application is not deemed necessary, a letter to that effect must be submitted with the final 'site plan. ,23. No DNAPLs are permitted to be used or stored at this site (SDC 17.070(2)(c). 24. All on-site landscaping shall be designed,. selected, installed and maintained to limit the need, to the maximum extent practicable, for chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Conclusion: The tentative site plan satisfies this criterion as conditioned. Finding 89: The proposal, as previously conditioned, provides storm water quality protection. Conclusion: The tentative site plan satisfies this criterion as conditioned. Conclusion: The site plan as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria 1-5 of SDC 31.060. WHAT NEEDS TO BEDONE 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. This decision is based on the submitted Tentative Site Plan. The Final Site Plan must show conformity with the Tentative Site Plan, compliance with SDC Article 31 Criteria of Approval 1-5, and the conditions of approval. 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 and upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance' of a building permit. Amended Site Plan Review.. DRC2005-00072 . ''. c, , ~ ,(. Date ;'(GCeived:-#J4'/n Planner: AL " Page 16 . . Condition of Approval: 35. The applicant shall not commence any construction activities on the site unless and until the Development Agreement is signed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to final occupancy of the proposed duplexes, the owner shall file a written consent to rezone the property to Low Density Residential (LOR). 2. Execute and record an Improvement Agreement for street lighting on 28th Street. 3. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall record an easement(s) for the relocation, access to, repair and maintenance of the sanitary sewer lines that cross the Subject property, and shall at the applicant's expense relocate all sanitary sewer lines that cross that property. The applicant shall complete the relocation to locations in a manner and using materials Which. conform to all applicable City development and building standards. The relocation shall be completed prior to the start of construction. The applicant shall undertake all reasonable steps to minimize any service disruption arising from said relocation and shall provide notice to the owners of the properties served by existing sanitary service lines of the estimated timing of disconnection and reconnection of service. 4. When moving the existing 3 lines, a new cleanout is required where each new . connection is made to the existing line and at each turn in that line, so two c1eanouts will be required for each new line. 5. An in-line c1eanout is required at each of the two 'Y" connections shown. 6. Show a stormwater connection for the Eastern-most Duplex unit to the stormwater collection system on Sheet 5 of 7 on the final site plan. 7. A reference to the Portland BES - approved grass seed mix for the drainage swale is required to be shown on the detail for the swale on Sheet 5 of 7 of the final site plan. 8. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the SDC and the EDSPM, the "WATER QUALITY FACILITY" shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to City issuance of a Final Occupancy Permit. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time when the "WATER QUALITY FACILITY" vegetation becomes fully established. 9. Utility lines shall be placed underground (SDC 32.120(2)). 10. The driveway is required to meet Springfield Fire Code 503.2.1 which requires an . unobstructed width of 20 feet and 13' 6" clear height. Amended Site Plan Review DRC2005-00072 i-:,. t~{_ ~ Date Received:~/~Jo Planner: AL ( . Page 17 . . 11. Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 lb. imposed load per SFC 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D102.1. 12. "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs shall be posted along both sides of the driveway (except the 2 designated parking spaces) per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 103.6. 13. The site shall be rezoned from MDR to LOR prior to final occupancy of the proposed duplexes. 14. The final site plan shall show buildings no higher that 30 feet in order to conform to SDC 16.060(1). 15. The on-site parking lay"out shall be re-designed to comply with the standards in SDC Table 32-2. 16. The final site plan is required to show 16 off-street parking spaces. 17. The applicant is required to construct a 6-foot high solid wooden fence along the south, east and north sides of the site. This fence is required to be shown on the final site plan. 18. On the Final Site Plan show the locations for any proposed outdoor lights. 19. If there is any outside lighting proposed, in order to show compliance with SDC 31.160(3), the applicant is required to submit a lighting spill plan for measurable light and glare level approved by the City as part of the final site plan. The calculations must be done in accordance with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook, 9th edition in accordance with City requirements. 20. The on-site parking layout shall be re-designed to comply with the standards in SDC Table 32-2. 21. Provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corner of the site driveway per SDC 32.070. 22. The applicant shall submit a DWP Overlay District Development Application to the City prior to Final Site Plan approval if more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs will be on the premises. SDC 17.050 requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District development application be submitted to the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review when the storage, use and/or production of materials hazardous to groundwater are affected. If an application is not deemed necessary, a letter to that effect must be submitted with the final site plan. 23. No DNAPLs are permitted to be used or stored at this site (SDC 17.070(2)(c). 24. All on-site landscaping shall be designed, selected, installed and maintained to limit the need, to the maximum extent practicable, for chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Amended Sfte Plan Review DRC2005-00072 Date \'1eceived: .I1,../).o/~ Planner: AL r/ . Page 18 , ' . . 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 permit is required. David Bowlsby (726-1029) is the contact person. Permits: The applicant may submit construction or building plans to other city departments for review prior to final site plan approval in accordance with SDC 31.080 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 31.090 will not be issued until all plans submitted by the applicant have 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, Article 15, 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 15.020 which provides for a 10-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 3:00 PM on January 17, 2006. Fees and Permits Systems Development Charges: 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.) Additional permits/approvals may be necessary: . Plumbing Permit . Encroachment Permit . Sewer Hookup Permit . Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) . Floodplain QUESTIONS Please call Sarah Summers in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-4611 if you have any questions regarding this process. .' . Amended Site Plan Review~ DRC2005-00072 <. ..' , Date f'~eCeived:..;...#~/" Planner: AI. Page 19 . . . , PREPARED BY: ~ Sarah Summers Planner Amended Site Plan Review DRC200frOOO72 . -"I',f,.,' _', Date R~cei"ed:-";/.}o/" Planner. AL . . Page 20