HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 10/27/2008
.
.
;;;~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
OCT 2 7.2008
BY:\~~~
. "r 111~ .
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of 5ue.ZCJog,ooo43 fLtl't//u ~ ~
(See attachment nAn) on 1"/21 . 200 addressed to (see
Attachment Bn), by causing said . letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
~ALez!~
KAR laFLEUR
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
Detvbtt. 2.1 . 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act Before me:
.
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011
.
'TYPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: PeaceHealth Lot 8 Partition
Project Proposal: Partition one Medical Services parcel from a 56.8 acre parent parcel
Case Number: SUB2008-00043
Project Location: 3333 Riverbend Dr.
(Map 17-03-22-00, Tax Lot #4100)
Zoning: Affected portion of Lot 8 is zoned
Medical Services (MS)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: CI
(Gateway Refinement Plan)
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: Aug. 26, 2008
Application Submitted Date: Sept. 12,2008
Decisiou Issued Date: October 27, 2008
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: November 12, 2008
Natural Features: None
Density: N/A
Associated Applicatious:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
REVIEW OF
Plannin
Trans ortation
Utilities
SanitarY & Storm Sewer
Fire and Life Safe
Buildin
NAME
And Limbird
Judith Johnduff
Richard Pe
Richard Pe
Gilbert Gordon.
Robert Castile
PHONE
726-3784
726-7134
744-4155
744-4155
726-3661
726-3666
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner/Applicant:
Engineer:
Philip Farrington
PeaceHealth Oregon Region
123 International Way
Springfield, OR 97477
Surveyor:
Tod Kelso
KPFF Consulting Engineers
III SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97204
Andrew Haliburton
KPFF Consulting Engineers
III SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97204
.
.
DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the'
Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicahle to each criterion of Partition Approval are listed herein and
are satisfied hy the suhmitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions
necessary for compliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE FINAL
PLAT, MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a limited
land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final.
Please read this document carefully.
(See Attachment A and Page]] for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with
the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable loca], state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type 11 procedures listed in SDC 5.1-]30 and the
partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.]2-100. This application was accepted as complete on September ]2,2008.
This decision is issued on the 45th day of the ] 20 days mandated by the state.
SITE INFORMATION: The subject site (Lot 8 of Riverbend Phase 2) is a large, irregular-shaped lot comprised
of three non-contiguous pieces of land separated by intervening public roads (Riverbend Drive and Baldy View
Lane). The total land area of Lot 8 is approximately 56.8 acres and it contains, in part, the new Sacred Heart
Medical Center at Riverbend. The property is zoned Medical Services (MS),.Medium Density Residential (MDR)
and Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) in accordance with the adopted Riverbend Master Plan and the Gateway
Refinement Plan. The area of Lot 8 proposed for partition is zoned MS and consists of the existing Northwest
Sp,~cialty Clinic building and a five to 10-foot setback area around the building footprint. The Assessor's
description for the affected property (Lot 8) is Map] 7-03-22-00, Tax Lot 4100. Approval of the proposed partition
would separate the Northwest Specialty Clinic building footprint area from the remainder of Lot 8 (proposed
"Parcel 2"), which contains the rest of the hospital campus. Proposed Parcel ] would have frontage on Riverbend
Drive, but would derive physical access from a shared access easement across Parcel 2.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a ] 4 day comment period on the application
(SDC 5.]-130 and 5.2-] ]5). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have
appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration.
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-] 15, notice was sent to property owners/occupants
within 300 feet ofthe subject site on September] 8,2008. No written comments were received.
CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENTATIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Partition Tentative Plan application
upon determining that criteria A through J of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to
satisfY the criteria, the D~tor shall deny the application.
A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions.
Finding]: In accordance with SDC 3.2-5]5, the minimum area for the MS zoning district is 3 or more
contiguous acres. Lot 8 - the parent parcel- contains at least 45 acres of contiguous MS zoning which meets
this requirement.
Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-5 ]5(1), the minimum development area for MS parcels is at least one
(I) acre. Proposed Parcel] is 0.76 acres, and the applicant has submitted anarrative in support of the reduced
parcel size. The applicant contends that the Northwest Specialty Clinic building was constructed as part of a
contiguous development area (the Sacred Heart Medical Center) that exceeds the ] acre size requirement, and
2
.
.
that the Development Code does not specify a minimum parcel size for fully developed sites. Staff agree with
the applicant's proposal, and fmd that the parcel size is consistent with provisions of the MS District.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram,
Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding 3: The subject property is zoned Medical Services (MS), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and
Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map and the Riverbend Master
Plan diagrams. The property is designated Community Commercial (Ce), MDR and MUC by the Gateway
Refinement Plan diagram. Previous land use actions for the Riverbend hospital site have determined that the
MS zoning is consistent with provisions of the Metro Plan and the adopted Refinement Plan.
Finding 4: The portion of Lot 8 that is proposed to be partitioned is zOned MS. The applicant is not
proposing to change the zoning designation.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion B.
C. Capacity requirements of public improvemeuts, 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 shaD 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 shaD determine capacity issues.
General Finding 5: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil
engineer to design the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be
required to provide construction inspection services.
General Finding 6: City Building Permits are required for installation of private utilities. The applicant also
may be required to obtain permits from other agencies prior to initiation of construction activity.
General Finding 7: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed partition. City
staff's review comments have been incorporated in fmdings and conditions contained herein.
General Finding 8: Criterion C contains.. sub-elements and applicable code standards. The partItIOn
application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise
noted with specific findings and conclusions. The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but
are not limited to:
Public improvements in accordance with SDC 4.2-100 and 4.3-100
o Public and Private Streets (SDC 4.2-105 - 4.2-145)
o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3- I 05)
o Stormwater Management (SDC 4.3-110 - 4.3-115)
o Utilities (SDC 4.3-120 - 4.3-130)
o Water Service and Fire Protection (SDC 4.3-130)
o Public and Private Easements (SDC 4.3-140)
Public and Private Streets
Finding 9: Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a proposed
land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any
unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage shall be fully improved to
City specifications. Exception (i) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement
3
.
.
shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time as a .
City street improvement project is initiated.
Finding 10: The subject property has frontage on Riverbend Drive, which is developed as a collector street,
but is not specifically identified within the adopted Metropolitan Area Street Functional Classification
Map. Abutting the subject property, Riverbend Drive is a 65-foot wide collector street within a 95-foot
right-of-way. The street is developed with four vehicle travel lanes (two northbound and two southbound)
separated by a 7-foot wide center median with planter strip. Riverbend Drive is improved to full urban
standards with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street trees, street lighting and underground utilities. Average
daily traffic on Riverbend Drive has not been determined yet with actual vehicle counts, although volumes
are expected to increase as new buildings on the hospital campus are completed and operational.
Finding 11: Proposed Parcell will retain street frontage on Riverbend Drive, and Parcel 2 will derive its
access from this public street as well. Because the street is fully developed, there is no requirement for an
Improvement Agreement.
Conclusion: As proposed, existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional
volume of traffic generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Finding 12: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers
shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Finding 13: The applicant's Site Assessment Plan and Tentative Plan depict eXlstmg sanitary sewer
connections serving the building. There are no additional utility installations proposed with the partition
application.
Conclusion: The existing sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve the proposed partition area.
Stormwater Management
Quality
Finding 14: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), 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 to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP).
Finding 15: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's
MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction
Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed
development.
Finding 16: 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 also
must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community.
Finding 17: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to 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 SDC, the City's
4
.
.
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan
(SFMP).
Finding 18: As required in SDC 4.3-11 O.E, "a development shall be required to employ drainage
management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent [with] the Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf'.
Finding 19: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim
design standards for storm water quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and
procedures of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS).
Finding 20: The applicant is not proposing to change the existing storm water management system serving
Parcels I and 2. Therefore, additional water quality measures are not required.
Quantitv
Finding 21: Section 4.3-IIO.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development
approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management system provisions have been
made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM.
Finding 22: Section 4.3-11 O.D of the SDC requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an
approved storm water management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
Finding 23: Section 4.3-IIO.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management
practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water
quality.
Finding 24: To comply with Sections 4.3-11 O.D & E, stormwater runoff from Parcels I and 2 is directed to
the existing on-site private stormwater management system. From there, storm water is conveyed to the
adjacent public stormwater system in Riverbend Drive and eventually discharged to the McKenzie River.
Finding 25: The applicant is not proposing to change the existing stormwater management system servmg
Parcels I and 2.
Finding 26: The applicant is proposing a reciprocal utility easement to address the interconnected utilities
between Parcels I and 2. However, the proposed reciprocal . easement does not specifically address
stormwater drainage (overland and underground) between Parcels I and 2.
Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall revise the Declaration of Reciprocal Easements to
provide for stormwater cross-drainage between Parcels I and 2.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the existing storm water management system is adequate to serve the
proposed development.
Utilities
Finding 27: Section 4.3-120.B of the SDC requires each developer to make arrangements with the utility
provider to provide utility lines and facilities to serve the development area. Springfield Utility Board
(SUB) Electric is the provider for electrical service to the subject property.
Finding 28: The applicant is responsible for the cost of design and installation of utility lines and facilities.
In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be placed underground.
5
.
.
Finding 29: The site is already served with underground utilities, and SUB Electric and SUB Water are not'
requesting additional utility services or easements to serve the partition area. The applicant is proposing a
reciprocal utility easement to accommodate the existing utility lines running between and serving Parcels I
and 2.
Finding 30: The proposed reciprocal utility easement does not provide details on a maintenance agreement
for the existing utilities running between and serving Parcels I and 2. A recorded Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Riverbend Campus (Document #2008-019743, Lane
County Deeds and Records), delegates responsibility for general maintenance and repair of common area
improvements - including utilities - serving Parcels I and 2. However, the recorded CC&Rs are not cited
in the proposed reciprocal utility easement.
Conditions of Approval:
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the reciprocal utility easement document shall be revised to incorporate
the CC&Rs for Riverbend Campus (Document #2008-019743, Lane County Deeds and Records) by
reference.
3; The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of the reciprocal utility easement, as amended, to
accommodate the interconnected utility lines running between and serving Parcels I and 2.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Water Service and Fire Protection
Finding 31: Section 4.3-130.A of the SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water
system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and
sufficient access for maintenance. The subject site is within the service area of SUB Water.
Finding 32: The site is served with existing water lines that cross between Parcels I and 2. The applicant
is not proposing to change the existing water service.
Finding 33: There are two existing fire hydrants located on the north side of the Northwest Specialty
Clinics building, and a dedicated Fire Department connection at the northwest corner of the building.
Additionally, the building is equipped with a sprinkler system. The applicant is not proposing to change
the fire protection system for the site.
Finding 34: The existing developed public and private streets provide suitable Fire and emergency access
to the partition area, and the applicant is not proposing to change the access scheme.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion.
Public aud Private Easements
Finding 35: Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments to make
arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to
fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUEs
adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements
shall be 7 feet unless the' Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate
maintenance.
Finding 36: There is an existing 10-foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the Riverbend Drive
frontage of the site. The applicant is not proposing to dedicate additional PUEs to serve the partition area.
6
.
.
Finding 37: As previously noted and conditioned, the applicant will be dedicating a private reciprocal
easement agreement for the shared utilities running across and through Parcels I and 2.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. As noted and conditioned herein, this
proposal satisfies Criterion C.
D. 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 38: Criterion D contains two elements with sub-elements and applicable Code standards.
The partition application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless
otherwise noted with specific fmdings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and Code standards of
Criterion D include but are not limited to:
D.I Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-500 (Medical Services Zoning), SDC 4.4-100
(Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and
Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review)
o Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3.2-515)
o Height Standards (SDC 3.2-515)
o Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105)
o Screening (SDC 4.4-110)
o Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115)
o On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC 4.5-100)
o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100)
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements
o The site is within the 5-10 Year Time of Travel Zone for Springfield drinking water wells.
o The site is within the Gateway Refinement Plan area.
o The site is within the mapped FEMA floodplain.
o The development is subject to provisions of the City's adopted Fire and Building Codes.
D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-500 (Medical Services Zoning), SDC 4.4-100
(Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and
Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review)
Parcel Coverage and Setbacks
Finding 39: The minimum front yard setback is 10 feet in accordance with SDC 3.2-515. The existing
building is between II and 23 feet from the edge of right-of-way for Riverbend Drive, which meets this
standard.
Finding 40: There are no required side yard or rear yard building setbacks between abutting MS parcels.
The applicant is proposing to create a 5-foot setback around the building footprint excepting the canopy
(porte cochere) across the driveway on the north side of the building.
Finding 41: There is no maximum lot coverage for MS parcels in accordance with SDC 3.2-515.
Height Standards
Finding 42: In accordance with SDC 3.2-515, there is no maximum building height for structures in the
MS District unless it abuts an MDR District. Portions of Lot 8 (proposed Parcel 2) are zoned MDR.
However, proposed Parcel I is zoned MS and will abut propertY with MS zoning.
7
.
.
Landscaping Standards
Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 3.2-515, all required building setbacks shall be landscaped. Proposed
Parcel I has frontage on Riverbend Drive, and the building front yard setback area will be landscaped in
accordance with the approved site plan for the Northwest Specialty Clinic.
Screening
Finding 44: There is no requirement to install screening between the MS parcels. The applicant .is not
proposing to install any screening within the partition area.
Fence Standards
Finding 45: There is no requirement to install fencing between the MS parcels. Fencing is at the discretion
of the two abutting landowners.
On-Site Lighting Standards
Finding 46: The applicant is not proposing to change the site lighting scheme for the Sacred Heart Medical
Center and the Northwest Specialty Clinic. [t is not expected that the proposed partition will have any
appreciable effect on the' outdoor lighting scheme for the development site or cause light trespass onto
adjacent properties.
Vehid" Parking Standards
Finding 47: In accordance with SDC 4.6-100 and Table 4.6-2 a minimum of one off-street parking space is
required per 300 if of building gross floor area. The applicant is proposing to record a reciprocal easement
for the Northwest Specialty Clinic building allowing for use of the adjacent parking lots and parking
structures already developed on the Riverbend Campus. Previous land use decisions for the Sacred Heart
Medical Center determined that the parking provision met or exceeded SDC requirements.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D.l.
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
Finding 48: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water
Protection Overlay District and Refinement Plan requirements. The subject site is within the 5-10 year
time of Travel Zone for the Sports Way drinking water wellhead. In accordance with the approved Site
Plan Modification for the Riverbend North Campus (Case DRC2006-00059, Condition 15), a Drinking
Water Protection (DWP) approval for the Northwest Specialty Clinic is required prior to issuance 'of
occupancy.
Finding 49: The applicant obtained conditional DWP approval for the Northwest Specialty Clinic building
in accordance with Case DRC2007-00073.
Finding 50: The proposed partition is consistent with provisions of the Gateway Refinement Plan.
Finding 51: The proposed partition is consistent with provisions of the Floodplain Overlay District
approval issued for the PeaceHealth Campus (Case SHR2005-00001).
Finding 52: The proposed partition line around the building footprint will cause property lines to intersect
the existing sky bridge, which may trigger special Building and Fire Code regulations affecting fire
separation for building openings and operation of the interconnected building sprinkler system. The
applicant is advised to review all relevant Building Code and Fire Code requirements with the City's
Building Official and Fire Marshal, respectively.
8
.
.
Condition of Approval:
4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide written conrmnation that all Building Code
and Fire Code issues arising from property lines that intersect the sky bridge building openings have been
addressed to the satisfaction of the Building Official and the Fire Marshal.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.2.
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions;
areas with susceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the
Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; other riparian areas and
wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117; rock outcroppings; 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 features have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code or
in State or Federal law.
Finding 53: The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable soils.
Finding 54: The subject area does not contain any trees and shrubs that warrant special protection.
Finding 55: Provisions have been made on the parent parcel (Lot 8) for protection and restoration of
riparian areas. There are no affected riparian areas within proposed Parcel I.
Finding 56: Nothing in this decision shall be construed as relieving the property owner from their ongoing
duties, rights and responsibilities for protecting and preserving natural and historic features on the
remainder of Lot 8 (proposed Parcel 2.
Finding 57: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated
Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Map and the list of Historic
Landmark sites have been consulted and there are no features needing to be protected or preserved on
. proposed Parcel I. If any artifacts are found 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.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion E.
F. 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 driveways 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.
Finding 58: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 2-lot partition at a meeting on
October 7, 2008. As noted and conditioned herein, the existing public and private streets are sufficient to
serve proposed Parcel I.
Transportation System Impacts
Finding 59: Abutting the subject site to the west, Riverbend Drive is a 65-foot wide collector street within
a 95-foot right-of-way. The street is developed with four vehicle travel lanes (two northbound and two
southbound) separated by a 7 -foot wide center median with planter strip. Riverbend Drive is improved to
full urban standards with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street trees, street lighting and underground utilities.
Average daily traffic on the street is estimated to be more than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. However, actual
traffic counts have not been conducted.
9
.
.
Finding 60: The existing building on Parcel I was contemplated in traffic studies that were previously .
reviewed and accepted for the Riverbend Campus. Therefore, there will be no appreciable impact on the
adopted Riverbend TIA or local traffic patterns upon recording of the partition.
Finding 61: Assumed development also 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 62: Regular transit bus service is provided by LTD Route #12 (Gateway) operating along
Riverbend Drive. Additionally, a north leg of the rapid transit bus line (ErnX) is planned to operate along
Riverbend Drive and MLK Jr. Parkway.
Finding 63: As proposed and conditioned in previous land use decisions for the Riverbend Campus,
existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposed
development.
Site Access and Circulation
. Finding 64: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. A greater
number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 4.2-120 permits each parcel to
have one driveway access.
Finding 65: The applicant is proposing to use the existing private streets and driveways from Riverbend
Drive to serve Parcels 1 and 2. As previously noted and conditioned herein, proposed Parcels 1 and 2 will
have a reciprocal access arrangement for the shared driveways serving the partition area.
Finding 66: The private streets and driveways serving Parcels I and 2 have been designed to handle an
80,000 lb. imposed load and provide at least 20 feet of clear width for emergency vehicles.
Finding 67: The existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access, driveway, and vision clearance
requirements of SDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion F.
G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as
specified in this Code.
Finding 68: There are adopted provisions for future development on the remainder of Lot 8 (proposed Parcel
2), including an approved Master Plan for the hospital campus and future residential neighborhood.
Therefore, this requirement has been met.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion G.
H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this
Code.
Finding 69: Adjacent properties to the north and south are currently developed with residential dwellings and
have access to public streets. The applicant has developed public and private streets to provide access to the
entire Riverbend Campus as depicted in the adopted Master Plan.
ConClusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H.
10
.
.
'L Where the Partition of property that is ontside of the city limits hnt within the City's urbanizable area
and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shaD also apply.
Finding 70: The property involved in this proposal is inside the City limits. Therefore, this criteria is not .
applicable to the subject site.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I.
CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A-I of SDC
5.12-125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during platting
without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5;12-145.
What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to one vear from the date of this letter to meet the applicable
conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Partition Plat. Please refer to SDC
5.12-135 & 5.12-140 for more information. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE
FINAL PLAT MUST BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE TENTATIVE PLANS AND
THE CONDmONS OF APPROVAL.
The Final Plat is required to go through a pre-submittal process. After the Final Plat application is complete, it
must be submitted to the Springfield Development Services Department. A separate application and fees will be
required. Upon signature by the City Surveyor and the Planning Department, the Plat may be submitted to Lane
County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until the plat is
recorded and five (5) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development Services Department by
the applicant.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall revise the Declaration of Reciprocal Easements to provide
for stormwater cross-drainage between Parcels I and 2.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the reciprocal utility easement document shall be revised to incorporate the
CC&Rs for Riverbend Campus (Document #2008-019743, Lane County Deeds and Records) by reference.
3. .The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of the reciprocal utility easement, as amended, to accommodate the
interconnected utility lines running between and serving Parcels I and 2.
4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide written confirmation that all Building Code and Fire
Code issues arising from property lines that intersect the sky bridge building openings have been addressed to the
satisfaction of the Building Official and the Fire Marshal.
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 Partition 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. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be
submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission
approves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a I5-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures,
Rule I O( c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on November 12,
2008.
II
.
.
QUl!stions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541)
726-3784 or email alimbird@ci.soringfield.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared By: .
1::!~
PIlllmer II
End: Attachment A - Tentative Partition Plan
12
.
.
'Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the
partition decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Svstems Development Charges:
The applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when 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 (Springfield Code
Chapter II, Article II). Some exceptions apply to Springfield Urban Growth areas.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements within the
subject site. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings or site
improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected at time of building permit
issuance for a future house on Parcel 2, and would be based on the SDC policy in effect at that time. WilIarnalane
Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recreation improvements is presently $2,513 for
each new single-family dwelling.
Sanitarv Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property or
portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost of
a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is
. applicable. [Ord. 5584]
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the
property.
Other City Permits:
. Building Permits - In addition to standard requirements, the developer shall abide by the solar setback
requirements of SDC 3.2-225 when submitting for building permits for the dwelling on Parcel I.
. Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit - Required for working within a right-of-way or public
easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate
is $135 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits.
. Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for new home construction. Contact
the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements.
Additional permits/approvals that mav be necessary:..
. Plumbing Permit to install stormwater drain pipes, sewer laterals, water lines, etc.
. Electrical Permit
. Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
· Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands)
. US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
13
wo
:r:~~ .....JL(J
il:: f ,,' <l:: II
o ~ U:
Z ~ (f)~
>- ATTACHMEW A
. ~
;:5 0: ;j
Wwil! W>->-!lI Zw Q)
'lZ::J ~~~I:lljj~z >
' !< 5::J" F "- >- Q Q ::J '_Q)
5 Q:;;IFw1:::>O!l:O:::EO: 0
.. W c:J" Z 0:" I-' m 0: I!!
Z"",O::JW::J>-_>-O< Q)
~::J"F ~mli~",>-",
o 1lm9"ffi!:!0:::>iE"''''~, 0:::
Z ,,0: 5 ~ ~ " .. .. , , 0-: >- in
w <Om '0-:':O-:inin!!l813 Q)
~ I! i !i i! : II i'i I I ;!j
III I ~ : : ~ .
~ 0 ~ I I II I II
t j III Iii /
~~ '; 0/
Os I
I I
Os I
~~
-
..... -
- E
.c
Q.. ~
UJ en
en Iii
c
'61
.;::
o
~.
(L
:::;E
0:::
~
~/(jO ON
'.)8(j::J-1/(j
u
<(
(D
If)
o
(D
If)
[I
<(
NW
.0:::
ro<(
-' -'
ww
UU
0:::0:::
<(<(
(L(L
s
ro'
o
z '---..
Ooro
I-zjN
I- W '---..
o::cof'
<l::Q:10
0.. ~ I
roO::;LL
I- IILL
O]jo..
.....JoJ~
U
::2'
I
U1
(
&2
.
.
,0' 'CITYOF SFiRING~Llj" "
"DEVELOPMENT SERVICE~AR'j]I;lENT
, 225 5ttlST " ",
'SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477'
..~. ". . ';J
Andrew Haliburton
KPFF Consulting Engineering
III SW Fifth Ave; Ste 2400
Portland, OR 97204
<~;~,:',;:~~~
,""i,
,__. 9;<.
.... _~~.i~ .
(..,
_>1,,'
.1:' I' ~ :t~
'"
, ,
~"I"< .~ "~' '\ ::t;~~~
- ,,"', " " '~Y',_~ :>~~;",;,l'<,,;<,i',:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'" ;,' t,
0' .. . , . '\"'''';>
,'" , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
'. :', 225 5th ST ''.: .,.:'
.', . ',.'. ,_0', ,- ,t, '" . '.
, SPRINGFIELD' OR 97477:" ,~;;. ':,
. '. . I .' " '_.,:_ J~~;:::'
, 'CITY OF SPRINGFiELD , 'F';
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
' 225 5th ST' ' , .'1
SPRINGFIELD: OR 97477 "
Tod Kelso
KPFF Consulting Engineering
III SW Fifth Avenue, Ste 2400
Portland, OR 97204
Philip Farrington
Peacehealth Oregon REgion
123 International Way
, Springfield, OR 97477
D