Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 9/2/2008 y 'J'l . . d)~ , RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE SEP - 2 2908 By:]~db ~ 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'DttC2oo8-0CV"ll l1.ot;U..d};,lJI(;' /"'" - A.ifL ~- Plell" 1 ."Diet.. ~~' (See attachment "A") on -9J L . 2008 addressed to (see Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ' ~o~~oJ~ KARE LaFLEU \- STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane :l 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, ram Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary Before me: . OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO, 420351 'MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011 ~~o/ 8/;~/;/ I I My Commission Expires: Date Received: fliJkDIJ? Planner: AL i-I ,~ . '.- . TYPE n TENTATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Peace Health Birth Center Site Plan Review Project Proposal: Construct a 4,000 fr' professional office on a site containing an existing residential dwelling Case Number: DRC2008-00042 Project Location: 353 Deadmond Ferry Rd. (Map 17-03-15-40, TL 2200) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Refinement Plan Designation: LDR (Gateway Refinement Plan) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: June 13,2008 Application Submitted Date: July 11, 2008 Decision Issued Date: September 2, 2008 Appeal Deadline Date: September 17, 2008 Associated Applications: ZON2007-00060; PRE2008-00036; DRC2008-00043; DRC2008-00044;SHR2008-00007 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner/Applicant: Landscape Architeet: Philip Farrington Peace Health Oregon Region 123lnternational Way Springfield, OR 97477 Project Engineer: Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers 1201 Oak Street, Suite 100 Eugene, OR 97401 David Dougherty DLA Landscape Architects 474 WilIamette Street, Suite 305 Eugene, OR 97401 CITY OF SPRINGFIEW'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION Pro. ect er Trans ortation Planuin Public Works EIT Public Works EIT Fire MarshaI Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planuin Trans rtation Utilities Saui & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safe Building PHONE 726-3784 736-7134 7~155 7~155 726-2293 726-3668 ... '.":\ ... '-,1 ~ . NAME And Limbird J Johnduff Richard Pe Richard Pe Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent Date p,eceived:#~"" - Planner: AI. . .. Site Information: The subject site is ,a 1.1 acre (M7,700 ft') parcel located at 353 Deadmond Ferry Road (Assessor's Map 17-03-15-40, Tax Lot 2200). The subject site has public street frontage on Deadmond Ferry Road and contains an existing single-family dwelling with asphalt mat driveway. The site is inside the Springfield city limits. The southern property line abuts the northern edge of the Sacred Heart Medical Center campus, which is identified for future mixed use development. Zoning for the site is Low Density Residential (LDR) according to the Springfield Zoning Map. The property is designated LDR by the Metro Plan Diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan. Properties to the north across Deadmond Ferry Road are zoned and designated Campus Industrial (Cl) and comprise part of the Gateway Business Park. Properties immediately to the east and west are outside the current City limits and are zoned LDR with Urban Fringe Overlay (UP-IO). The portion of hospital campus abutting the south property line is zoned and designated Mixed Use Commercial (MUC) in accordance with the Gateway Refinement Plan. The proposed use on the site includes a --4,000 ft'; single-story professional office building with 14-stall parking lot and site landscaping. The professional office is proposed to house the Peace Health Nurse Midwifery Center currently located on East 12th Avenue in Eugene. The subject site is within the Gateway Refinement Plan area, but is not adjacent to a Water Quality Limited Watercourse. Portions of the site are within the mapped FEMA 100 year flood hazard area and the applicant has submitted a concurrent application for Floodplain Overlay District (FPO) in accordance with SDC requirements (SHR2008-00007). The site is within the I to 5 year Time of Travel Zone for the Sports Way drinking water wellhead, and is subject tq the provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, SDC 3.3-200. The developer has submitted a concurrent application for Drinking Water Protection (DWP) permit in accordance with SDC requirements (DRC2008-00044). DECISION: This decision grants Tentative Site Plan Approval. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Site Plan Approval are listed herein and are satisfied hy the snhmitted plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Site Plans must conform to the snbmitted 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 Page 19 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 Springfield Development Code, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.1-130 and the site plan review criteria of approval SDC 5.17-125. The subject application was accepted as complete on July 11, 2008. This decision is issued on the 53" day of the 120 days mandated by the State. 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" 14 day comment period on the application (SDC Sections 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration (See Written Comments below and Appeals at the end of this decision). Procedural Finding: On August 5, 2008, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans (16 Sheets - Anderson Dabrowski Architects LLC Sheets Al.O, A2.1~ A2.3, A3.I, A4.1, A4.2 and E3, dated July I, 2008; KPFF Consulting Engineers SheetsCl.0-C6.0, C6.1 and C6.2 dated July 1,2008; and DLA Landscape Architects Sh.eet LA-I dated July 2, 2008) and supporting information. City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria ofSDC 5.17-125. , ~ t........ '. Elate i'(eceived: Q /0 /jop f Planner: AL 0...Y. Page 2 of21 . . Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.17-125 to 5.17-135, the Final Site Planshall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Modification Decision. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to adjacent property . owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on July 16, 2008. One written comment was received from six adjacent residents: Dianna Larsen (377 Deadmond Ferry Road), Sally and Bruce Brown (335 Deadmond Ferry Road), Jeri and Jesse Covington (349 Deadmond Ferry Road) and Judi Willis (349 Deadmond Ferry Road). I live next door to the proposed Peace Health Midwifery Birth Center on Deadmond Ferry Road, and have received the City's recent notices of their building and tree removal applications. This letter is in response to those. Please route the following comments through appropriate channels so that they might weigh in on decisions. This letter also represents the thoughts of Sally and Bruce Brown: 335 Deadmond Ferry Rd., and Jeri and Jesse Covington and Judi Willis: #349. Peace Health's Philip Farrington (Director, Land Use Planning & Development) had previously mentioned the possibility of this project. His description was of a low-key, low-roofed, Northwest natural residential feel, and a low level of traffic to the Center. Aside from leaving the area as residential or green space, this generally seems a fairly compatible use of the lot from a neighborhood viewpoint. Following are specific concerns regarding the building and the tree removal. Tree removal: It was nearly impossible to read the tiny map accompanying the notice, and the trees themselves (in the yard) don't seem to be marked. It would be usefUlfor these notices to show a Web location where the information can easily be studied. Thanks for later providing that during our phone conversation. Given the relatively large number of trees proposed for removal, we're concerned about the effects on the remaining flora and surrounding properties. Fundamental environmental changes will take place in terms of wildlife habitat, air and soil moisture retention, air quality, drainage, and heat and light. (Homes in this area have the luxury of "natural air-conditioning "-a clean, free energy source which Peace Health can also employ, but which diminishes in efficiency as each tree is removed and replaced by impervious surface). We ask that the number of trees cut be limited to what is necessarv for the footDrint of the actual buildini!. but not for a oortion of the oaved areas. We know that this is not just individual trees, but a system of trees, shrubs, etc. which don't observe property lines. The health of the remaining trees is difficult to measure until it's too late. There seems to be a critical point at which the system's tolerance is over-taxed and fails- in the Eugene/Springfield area, often with a 75' Douglas Fir in someone 's kitchen. The spreading nature of the Douglas Fir root system seems to make them particularly dependent on neighboring trees, and susceptible to wind without them. The trees will be fUrther stressed by the construction process and by the permanent covering of roots by impervious materials-all of this, a threat to the tree (diseaseJalling, pests), and consequently, to surrounding properties. In the past, Sperry Tree Care has been hired by Peace Health to work with the trees on the site in question, so they know the property. Alby Thoumsin from Sperry was recently on my property looking east to the target site and lamenting that arborists and architects are not often asked to consult with equal weight well before the drawing and dreaming begin. Perhaps it's not too late to make some small but potent adjustments to the plan. We ask that vou consider alternatives to a simificant oortion of the orooosed 9.900 SQuare feet of imoervious surfaces. Th~se surfaces shed rainfall and surface pollutants, creating new run off and erosion issues for '.... "'......~ ': ~ Date, Received: Planner: AL ?~?"! I Page 3 0[21 . . neighbors and for storm drains into ponds, rivers, lakes, and streams. Instead, pervious pavements are designed to allow percolation or infiltration of storm water through the surface into the soil below it, where the water is naturally filtered, pollutants are removed, roots are fed, and temperatures are mediated. As you know, there are many alternatives for either ''porous'' (infiltrates ~ater across the entire surface) or permeable (can be formed of impervious material, but allows infiltration through a pattern of voids) surfaces. A combination of these could be used to preserve the trees and environment, and to make the Birth Center more aesthetically pleasing. Using bricks, cinders, cobblestones, concrete blocks with planted openings, and/or large void patterns throughout paved areas are some possibilities. This would also be another opportunity for Peace Health to make another "Green Statement". . In any case, there needs to be adequate on-site drainage, to correspond with the reduced ability of the trees and earth to swallow. Our concern here is that run-off from petroleum-based (or other) pollutants will end up on our properties and in the small wetland and seasonal pond to the south, which (in spite of its "insignificant" classification!) is home to a teeming array of wildlife, is a well-used stopcover for migrating ducks and other birds, and is natural perfection in flood control through decades of weather. Building: We are concerned about tree-felling damage liability, facility siinage, lighting, privacy, and security both during construction and fUture operation. You've assured that low-mounted, low-watt, downcast outdoor lighting is the new norm, and we assume this would be used at the Birth Center site. If there is to be street signage, neighbors would like to see a small, low sign in a color and style to blend with the natural surroundings. If a street sign is to be lighted, we request the minimum wattage necessary to illuminate~keeping in mind that there is already a high powered street lamp at the entrance to the property, and that OML lights contribute to evening street lighting. The trend for building site theft may bring criminal attention to the site and the neighborhood during construction. We can also expect a good number of curious wanderers. How will the site be secured during construction and when operational? We ask that if security cameras are used, they not be trained on our properties, and that barriers are established between properties. Representing Peace Health, Mr. Farrington has always been courteous, responsible and accommodating in all aspects, and we have no doubt that this will be the ongoing case during the Birth Center building project and throughout fUture facility operation. As these things become known, we would like to be informed of the project timelines and milestones, including any tree felling. We would also like to know whether egress/ingress is planned for the south end of the property. If so, we would like to comment on that issue at another time. This neighborhood is a unique residential oasis - and now "mixed use ". Mixing uses doesn't necessarily (or even best) imply taking down the old to put up new. Despite some exteriors, this well-established green grove provides a very high quality of living for plants and animals (including humans), which becomes. more and more difficult to find, cannot be truly replicated regardless of landscaping skills~ and . deserves attention toward preservation. It's complex and it works in the strictest sense of the word, and':in myriad ways. Though Peace Health may have already addressed these issues responsibly, the comments are nonetheless offered as a general plea for the City to be genuine in attempts to preserve and protect the extraordinary beauty of Springfield- to balance the need for economic growth with a leaderShip model for green growth and cooperative planning. Thank you for your consideration. Staff Response: Proposed tree removal will be addressed in the companion Tree Felling Permit staff report and decision for this project (Case DRC2008-00043). A report from a certified arborist in support of the tree felling describes the size, species, and condition of68 trees found on the property dnring a site visit in March, 2008. The applicant's project narrative indicates that the proposed building and driveway have been sited to preserve as many trees as practicable, including placement of the building within the area currently occupied by a single family dwelling. ,.,', _ ',:Q~te; Received: f:t/;oor Page 4.of21 f?1~flnE'1r; AL . . There are 15 regulated trees proposed for removal including seven large, mature coniferous trees and eight smaller deciduous, broadleaf evergreen, and coniferous trees. The applicant will be responsible for ensuring the safe felling and removal of trees without adverse impacts to neighboring properties. A professional tree service will be required to undertake the tree felling activity due to the size and nature of the trees proposed for removal. It is not expected that removal of the trees or preservation of the remaining trees will present a hazard to the project site or adjacent properties, The applicant's site plan proposes to direct rooftop drainage from the office building into underground infiltration galleries to maintain moisture regimes for the tree stand and provide groundwater recharge. The roof drainage is considered "clean" water and is not filtered for pollutants before discharge underground. Stormwater drainage from the parking lot is proposed to be directed into a filtered catch basin prior to discharge into underground infiltration galleries. The filtered catch basin is designed to trap pollutants in the surface runoff before the treated water is discharged underground. The applicant's proposed building plans reflect a "Northwest" style of architecture with masonry, cedar shingle, and board and batten accents. It is the opinion of staff that the appearance of the proposed office mimics a residential dwelling (minus a garage structure). A color palette is not provided with the applicant's site plan submittal, but it is assumed the exterior colors will be unobtrusive earth tones. Provisions of the Springfield Development Code (Section 4:5-100) require the applicant to use shielded and downcast site lighting to prevent light trespass onto adjacent properties. The maximum height oflight fixture placement is limited to 12 feet due to the site's residential setting. The applicant also will be required to make separate application for site identification signage under the provisions of the City's Sign Code. In accordance with Section 8.240(3) of the Sign Code, professional office signs in residential districts are limited to one freestanding sign that must be externally lit. An externally-lit wall sign also may be permitted on the building. Due to screening vegetation and orientation of the building entrance, it is not expected that a wall sign would be conspicuous from the street or neighboring properties. The applicant's proposed site plan does not contemplate a vehicle access from the property to the south. Additionally, the Master Plan for the Riverbend Hospital does not indicate a future road or. driveway connection to the subject property. Vehicle access will be limited to Deadmond Ferry Road. Other issues raised by the respondents regarding site security during and after construction, use of closed circuit cameras, and preventing trespassers from entering the site are private operational issues that do not fall within the purview of the. Site Plan Review section of the City's Development Code. The applicant will be responsible for implementing appropriate site security measures during construction and operation of the facility. CRITERIA OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SDC 5.17-125, 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 A through E of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application." A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptnal Development Plan. Finding I: The site is zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in the Metro Plan diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan diagram. The current zoning for the site is LDR which is consistent with the Metro Plan and the adopted Refmement Plan, and there are no proposed changes to the zoning for the site. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A. B. Capacity requirements of public improvements, inclnding but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety ...... .' '-", Date Received: j~/.;>.tor Planner: AL ( Page 5 of21 . .. .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. .' Fiodiog 2: Approval of this proposal would allow for construction of a -4,000 ft' professional office buildiog with 14 developed parking spaces for guest and staff parking, paved driveway and sidewalk extendiog from Deadmond Ferry Road, outside trash enclosure, and site landscapiog. The development proposal replaces a siogle family dwelliog and asphalt mat driveway cUrrently on the property. Fiodiog 3: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retaio a private professional civil engioeer to design the site 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 iospection services. ' Fiodiog 4: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed site plan and landscapiog plan on August 5, 2008. City staff's review comments have been iocorporated io 'findiogs and conditions contaioed hereio. Water and Electricity Improvements Fiodiog 5: SDC 4.3-130.A requires each development area to be provided with a water system haviog sufficiently sized mains and lesser lioes to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maiotenance. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordioates the design of the water system withio Springfield city limits. Fiodiog 6: Section 4.3-l40.A of the SDC requires applicants proposiog developments to make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements that may be necessary to serve the deveiopment site and land beyond the development area. The mioimum width for all public utility easements (PUEs) shall be 7 feet unless the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maiotenance and access. Fioding 7: As shown on Sheet C3.0, the applicant is proposiog a streetside 7-foot wide PUE along the Deadmond Ferry Road frontage of the site. However, the proposed 7-foot wide PUE is not shown on other plan sheets such as the Site Plan (A2.l), Grading Plan (C4.0), and Landscapiog Plan (LA-l). Fiodiog 8: The existing public water and electrical services available to serve the site are located along the public street frontage, and are adequate for the proposed development. An existing overhead power lioe runs east-west along the northern edge of the site, and an overhead service line runs diagonally through the north half of the property to the existiog dwelliog. The applicant is proposiog to remove the overhead power lioe serviog the dwelling and iostall a new underground electricallioe and transformer to serve the development. The preferred location of the underground lioe and transformer is to be identified by SUB Electric. The proposed electricallioe and transformer are shown on a supplementary utility plan, but not on Sheet C3.0 of the site plan submittal. Findiog 9: A PUE may be required to accommodate the electrical lioe and transformer proposed to serve the development site. . Fiodiog 10: The applicant's proposal shows extension of a one-ioch waterlioe to serve the building. The buildiog is not proposed to be fitted with a fire suppression system. Therefore, the proposed water service should be sufficient for the proposed buildiog and the site irrigation system. All water facilities, iocludiog meters, must be constructed io accordance with SUB Water Division standards. Additionally, backflow prevention devices will be required for the proposed water service. Please contact Chuck Davis at SUB Water (541) 726-2396 for technical assistance on the system design prior to iostalliog the water service. , l_ ., ~ " . Date Received: '!/~/J8ot p'~f!ner: AL . Page 60f21 . . Finding II: There is an existing fiber-optic line running diagonally from the northwest comer of the property to the house in the center of the site. The fiber-optic line does not appear to be within an easement, and the applicant is proposing to remove the line with the site development. Conditions of Approval: 1. The Final Site Plan shall depict the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed easements affecting the property. Easement information shall be consistent among all Final Site Plan sheets. 2. The Final Site Plan shall depict the location of underground electrical lines and transformers . required to serve the development site. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record Public Utility Easements as may be necessary to provide utility services to the site, and provide evidence thereof to the City. The Public Utility Easement dimensions and configurations shall be satisfactory to the City's Public Works Department. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, existing SUB Water and Electric facilities are adequate to serve the site and the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Facilities Sanitary Sewer 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: Section 4.3-105.C of the SDC requires that proposed sewer systems shall include design consideration of additional development within the area as projected by the Metro Plan: Finding 14: Section 2.02.1 of the City's EDSPM states that when land outside a new development will logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers shall be public sewers and shall normally extend to one or more of the property boundaries. Finding IS: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the City's EDSPM and Section 4.4 of Portland's Stormwater Management Manual, solid waste storage areas shall be covered and hydraulically isolated from potential stormwater runoff, and directed to the sanitary sewer system. The applicant has proposed to connect a floor drain for the trash enclosure to the sanitary sewer system as shown on Sheet C3.0. Finding 16: The applicant has proposed to connect the proposed building to an existing 4-inch sanitary sewer lateral serving the property as shown on Sheet C3.0. The 4-inch lateral flows to an existing 10- inch sanitary sewer line in Deadmond Ferry Road. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Quantity) Finding 17: SDC 4.3-11 O.B 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 EDSPM. Finding 18: SDC 4.3-110.C states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development. . . :.' Date Received: ~?#d' Page 7 of21 Planner: AL . . .. Finding 19: SDC 4.3-11O.D requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved 'stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 20: SDC 4.3-110.E requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 21: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be directed into a series of soakage trenches located on the property and will not discharge into the public stormwater system. Runoff from the parking lot area is proposed to be directed into a filtering catch basin before discharge into underground infiltration galleries. Finding 22: Injection of stormwater into the ground will require approval from the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and sign-off from SUB Water Quality Protection. Drinking water protection issues are addressed in the companion Drinking Water Protection Overlay District application (DRC2008-00044). c Condition of Approval: 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain an Underground Injection Control Permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and provide evidence thereof to the. City. The on-site stormwater management system shall be constructed in accordance with the Final Site Plan. . Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Stormwater Management (Ouality) Finding 23: 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 to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 24: 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 25: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants. in stormwater.hmoffto 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 26: 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 Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 27: As required in SDC 4.3-] 10.E, "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 Manuaf'. " .... ~. . Date f~eceived:$,.j.D! Planner: AL 't' Page 8 of21 . . Finding 28: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public 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 the Clean Water Services (CWS). Finding 29: 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 the development. Section 3.03.4.E of the matiual 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 30: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City's EDSPM;the applicant has proposed to direct all non-rooftop runoff through a Con-Tech Stormfilter Catch Basin. An operations and maintenance plan that would ensure long-term viability of the filtering catch basin was not submitted by the applicant. Condition of Approval: 5. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan for the Stormfilter Catchbasin for review and acceptance by the City. The operations and maintenance plan shall ensure the long-term operation of the Stonnfilter Catchbasin consistent with criteria established by Stormwater Management Inc. The operations and maintenance plan shall designate responsibility for operating and maintaining the system, and shall be distributed to the property owner and tenant(s) of the site. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Streets and Traffic Safety Controls Finding 31:- SDC 4.2-105.G.2 requires that wherever.a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any unimproved street frontage abutting a full improved street, that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications. Exception (i) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of development approval .postponing improvements until such time that a City street improvement project is initiated. Finding 32: The subject site has frontage on Deadmond Ferry Road along the northern boundary; Along the site frontage, Deadmond Ferry Road is a 48-foot wide collector street within a 68-foot wide right-of-way. The street supports multi-modal travel and is improved to City standards with asphalt paving, curb and gntter, sidewalks, lane striping, bike lanes and street lighting. Along the site frontage, the street provides one vehicle travel lane in each direction with a bi-directional center turn lane. Estimated average daily traffic on Deadmond Ferry Road is 2,700 vehicles per day. Finding 33: There are no street trees along the frontage of the subject property and the applicant is not proposing to install street trees with the site landscaping plan. Placement of street trees along the Deadmond Ferry Road frontage is constrained by above- and below-ground utility installations within the planter strip, the proposed driveway location, and vision clearance areas. However, there may be an opportunity to plant a discontinuous line of street trees along the property frontage. Street tree species selected for the site frontage would have to be shade-tolerant and suitable for planting beneath overhead power lines. Finding 34: The existing street lights along Deadmond Ferry Road do not meet current City illumination requirements and will require future upgrading. The applicant will be responsible for a proportionate share of the upgrade costs when a future. streetlight project is initiated. Date Heceived: Planner: AL ~/;i t/dt?,f / Page 9 of21 . . Finding '35: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 610, the total trip generation from the proposed development would be approximately 71.3 vehicle trips per weekday with 4.8 PM peak hour trips. Finding 36: The proposed development may generate additional pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6% of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8% 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 37: Regular bus service is provided by Lane Transit District's #12 (Gateway) route operating along Deadmond Ferry Road adjacent to the subject property. Occasional bus service (morning/afternoon schedule on weekdays only) also is provided by route #7X (International Way) operating along Deadmond Ferry Road. The #12 Gateway route has been changed recently to serve the Sacred Heart Medical Center at Riverbend, and now runs along Deadmond Ferry Road in front of the subject site. Finding 38: The existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Conditions of Approval: 6. The Final Site Plan shall provide for suitable street trees along the Deadmond Ferry Road frontage of the site. Where street tree installation is not feasible, provision shall be made for future installation of street trees through execution of an Improvement Agreement. 7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute an Improvement Agreement for Deadmond Ferry Road for street trees and street lighting. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicahle puhlic and private design and construction standards contained in thiS Code and other applicable regulations. Finding 39: Criterion C contains three different elements with sub-elements and applicable code standards. The site plan application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: 1. Infrastructure Standards in accordance with SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100 & 4.3-100 . Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) . Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 - 4.3-140) 2. Conformance with standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review and SDC 3.2-200 Residential Zoning District . Special Development Standards (3.2-210 & 4.7-190) . Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures (3.2-215) . Height Standards (3.2-215) . Solar Access Standards (3.2-215 & 3.2-225) . Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (3.2-215 & 4.4-100) . On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) . Vehicle rarking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4.6-155) . \ Page 10 of21 O!'jtE;J Received; Planner: AL ~/Jj :;000 ! . . . 3. Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements . Gateway Refinement Plan . Drinking Water Protection Overlay District . Floodplain Overlay District C.l Pnblic and Private Improvements in accordance with SDC 4.1-100,4.2-100 & 4.3-100 Water Service and Fire Protection (4.3-130) Access Finding 40: All fire apparatus access routes are to be paved all-weather surfaces able to support an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with the 2007 Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D I 02.1. The applicant has provided a pavement cross-section on Plan Sheet C6.0 that shows 2.5 inches of asphalt over 12 inches of aggregate base course. The applicant has submitted a letter from .K. A Engineering that confirms the proposed pavement desigo can support an 80,000 lb. imposed load. Finding 41: Access to the site is afforded by the adjacent public street system (Deadmond Ferry Road). The principal Fire Department access route to the building will be via the proposed driveway. The proposed driveway is 24 feet wide from the curb cut on Deadmond Ferry Road to the parking lot area. Finding 42: "No Parking - Fire Lane" sigoage will be required for the portion of driveway between the parking lot and Deadmond Ferry Road to ensure unobstructed Fire Department and emergency vehicle passage can be maintained at all times. The applicant is proposing to install "No Parking - Fire Lane" sigoage along the entry driveway as depicted on Sheet A2.1. Finding 43: At least three (3) feet of clear space must be maintained around the circumference of all fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5.5 and 912.3. This includes preventing obstruction by fences, trees, shrubs, walls, or any other objects. Water Supply Finding 44: The proposed development is not equipped with a sprinkler system and will be covered by existing fire hydrants on Deadmond Ferry Road. The applicant's site plan does not show or describe the location of the nearest fire hydrant that would serve the proposed development. Finding 45: The existing public water system is adequate to provide fire protection coverage for the site. Conditions of Approval: 8. The Final Site Plan shall indicate or describe the location of the nearest fire hydrant serving the site. 9. At least three (3) feet of clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of all fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5.5 and 912.3. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Public and Private Easements (4.3-120 - 4.3-140) Finding 46: The applicant is proposing a 7-foot wide PUE along the Deadmond Ferry Road frontage of the site as depicted on Sheet C3.0. As previously noted and conditioned (Condition I), the submitted site plan sheets do not consistently depict easement information. '.", '., ':~'---',"~..l:_7;t?/;o.,{ Planner: AL / Page 11 of21 . . Finding 47: As previously noted and conditioned (Condition 3), additional PUEs may be required to provide utility services to the site. Finding 48: The subject site is encumbered by a tri-partite Access and Maintenance Easement between Peace Health, the City of Springfield, and Willamalane Park and Recreation District in accordance with the instrument recorded on May 10,2006 as Reception No. 2006-032093. The Access and Maintenance Easement describes the ongoing maintenance responsibilities for public walkways, stormwater ponds, paths, and landscape areas within the Peace Health campus and the subject property. Finding 49: The subject property was initially identified in the Riverbend Master Plan as a possible location for a public walkway connection between St. Joseph Place and Deadmond Ferry Road. Subsequent changes to the configuration of the Riverbend Master Plan, and the nature of the proposed development, make a public walkway connection unfeasible at this location. Conclusion: Safe and efficient provision of public access and utilities requires the provISIon of corresponding access and utility easements. As proposed and previously conditioned, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. . C.2 Conformance with Standards of SDC 5.17-100, Site Plan Review, and SDC 3.2-200, Residential Zoning District Special Development Standards (3.2-210 & 4.7-190) Finding 50: In accordance with"SDC 3.2-210, professional offices are listed as a Special Use in the Low Density Residential District. The proposed use is allowable if it meets the specific criteria listed in SDC 4.7-190. Finding 51: In accordance WIth SDC 4.7-190.A, professional office sites in residential districts must be adjacent to commercial districts, and the bulk of the office building must be within 100 feet of the commercial district. Finding 52: The adjacent property to the south is zoned for mixed use development, which includes a major commercial element. The subject site also is just over one-quarter mile (linear distance) from the new Sacred Heart Medical Center building on Riverbend Drive. It is the determination of staff that the . subject site meets the criteria of SDC 4.7-190.A for proximity to commercial sites. Finding 53: In accordance with SDC 4.7-190.B, professional offices exceeding 2,000 ft"shall abut a collector or arterial street. The proposed building is just over 4,000 ft' and it abuts Deadmond Ferry Road, which is classified as a collector street. Finding 54: In accordance with SDC 4.7-190.C, parking is not permitted within the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. The proposed parking area is internal to the site and set back at least 100 feet from Deadmond Ferry Road. It is the determination of staff that existing and proposed vegetation will provide adequate screening of the parking area. Site and parking lot landscaping is also discussed in a following sub-section. Finding 55: In accordance with SDC 4.7-190.D, external modifications to structures on the Springfield Historic Inventory shall be compatible with the original design. The existing residential dwelling is not on the Springfield Historic Inventory and is proposed to be removed. A new professional office building with a residential character is proposed for the site. Finding 56: In accordance with SDC 4.7-190.E, professional offices in residential districts include medical practitioners and those engaged in support services to their parent companies. The proposed '.\ . [Jpt~ Heceived: rli1mner: AL qlJ-/~Dr I I Page 12 of21 . . birthing center is for medical practitioners, and provides a support service for the parent Sacred Heart Medical Center (aka Peace Health organization). Finding 57: In accordance with SDC 4.7-190.F, a minimum of25% of the site area shall be landscaped. The applicant's site plan and project narrative indicates the proposed landscaping constitutes approximately 67% of the site area. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures (3.2-215) Finding 58: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, the minimum setbacks to primary structures in the LDR District is 10 feet for front and rear yards and 5 feet for interior side yards. The proposed building is set back approximately 170 feet from the front property line, 38 feet from the rear property line, and 27 feet from the nearest side yard - in this case the east property iine. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Height Standards (3.2-215) Finding 59: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, the maximum building height for structures in the LDR District is 30 feet. Building height is measured from a ground level reference point to the mid-point of the highest roof gable as described in SDC 6.1-110 "Building Height". The proposed professional office is about 22.3 feet high at the peak of the highest roof gable, and about 16.5 feet high as measured according to SDC 6.1-110. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Solar Access Standards (3.2-215 & 3.2-225) Finding 60: In accordance with SDC 3.2-225, the building placement shall protect the solar access for neighboring residential properties. The applicant has provided a shade point diagram on Sheet A2.3 confmning that the proposed building will not affect solar access for neighboring properties. Finding 61: There are no residential properties that abut the site to the north. Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards (3.2-215 & 4.4-100) Finding 62: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215(F00tuote 5), 4.4-105 and 4.7-190.F, all yard setbacks and at least 25 percent of the site must be landscaped. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the existing mature trees and vegetation on the site, and install new landscaping around the edge of the parking lot and office building perimeter. At least 53 of the 68 mature trees on the site are proposed to remam. The applicant's proposed landscaping plan appears to meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-215 and 4.4-100. Finding 63: The City's Development Code does not distinguish between required and "discretionary" landscaping for development sites. Therefore, all site landscaping must meet the requirements of the Development Code for species selection, tree caliper size, planting densities, etc. In accordance with SDC 4.4-105.E.2 and F, landscaping trees must be at least2-inch caliper size at time of planting. Two varieties of trees proposed by the applicant do not meet the 2-inch standard. "\,: .. Date I~eceived: Planner: AL ~/')/~r / Page 13 of21 . .. Finding 64: The applicant is proposing to close the existing driveway approach onto Deadmond Ferry Road, remove the asphalt paving, and restore the former driveway area with a grass seed mix. Finding 65: As previously noted and conditioned, the applicant will be responsible for installation of street trees along the property frontage on Deadmond Ferry Road Unless it can be demonstrated that street trees are not feasible. Finding 66: There is no requirement to screen the building from vie~, but the parking lot is required to be screened in accordance with SDC 4.7-190.C. As stated above, the parking lot setback and existing and proposed vegetation will provide visual screening of the parking lot. The existing tall hedges along the north and east property lines also perform a screening function. Finding 67: There is no requirement to install fencing between residential properties. The applicant is proposing to install a 6-foot high wood screening fence along the south property line. The fence is proposed to contain a gate that allows for access between the subject property and the adjacent mixed use site (currently vacant). Both adjoining properties are owned by Peace Health. Installation of fencing for the subject property is at the discretion of the property owner, provided the fence meets the standards ofSDC 4.4-100. Finding 68: The applicant's proposed landscaping plan has notes describing the automated irrigation system that will be designed for the project. In accordance with SUB Water requirements, backflow prevention devices for irrigation connections will be required as part of the site water system design. Condition of Approval: 10. The Final Site Plan shall provide for site landscaping trees that are at least 2-inch caliper at the time of planting. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. On-Site Lighting Standards (4.5-100) Finding 69: In accordance with SDC 4.5-lI0.B.2.b, the maximum height of freestanding light fixtures in a residential district is 12 feet high. The applicant's project narrative confirms that light poles in the parking lot area will be no greater than 12 feet high, and the driveway will be illuminated by 3.5-foot high bollard lights. However, there are no plan details that confirm the maximum light fixture placement height. Finding 70: The applicant's site photometric grid (Sheet E3) indicates that illumination levels near the midpoint of the subject property will extend into the adjacent property to the east. The photometric grid indicates that .illumination levels will be up to 1.5 lumens approximately 15 feet into the adjacent property. This is comparable to most of the calculated illumination levels within the middle of the parking lot area. The applicant's project narrative indicates the photometric measurement does not account for the existing screening hedge along the east property line.. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the screening hedge on the subject site to ensure there is no glare and light trespass onto the adjacent property. Removal of the screening hedge will require the applicant to replace and/or adjust illumination fixtures so as to not exceed 1.0 lumen at the property line. Conditions of Approval: . 11. The applicant's photometric plan shall be adjusted as necessary to indicate the presence of a screening hedge along the eastern property line that prevents light trespass onto the adjacent property. -, Date Received: r!;-/ ~O( Planner: AL Page 14 of21 . . 12. In the event the screening hedge along the east property line of the subject site is altered in height or , , removed, the applicant shall replace and/or adjust the light fIxtures in the parking lot as may be necessary to prevent illumination levels from exceeding 1.0 lumen at the east property line. The Final Site Plan shall contain a note of this condition for future reference. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfIes this sub-element of the criterion. Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards (4.6-100 - 4.6-155) Finding 71: In accordance with SDC Table 4.6-2, the minimum parking requirement for the proposed use is I perJOO tY of floor area. The proposed professional office is just over 4,000 tY and therefore generates a parking requirement of 14 spaces, The applicant is proposing to construct 14 parking spaces on the site including one handicapped-accessible space. Finding 72: In accordance with SDC 4.6-120.C, all parking stalls that front a sidewalk or a landscaped area shall have a wheel' bumper set back at least two feet to allow for vehicle encroachment. Alternatively, the width of sidewalks and landscaped areas can be increased by two feet to allow for vehicle encroachment. The applicant has proposed 2 feet of extra bumper overhang along the sidewalk and landscaping areas on the east and west sides of the parking lot. The sidewalk on the west side of the parking lot is proposed to be 7 feet wide to accommodate the bumper overhang and still afford users a 5-foot wide walking surface. . Finding 73: In accordance with SDC Table 4.6-1, the minimum driving aisle width for two-way traffic is 24 feet. The applicant is proposing to install a 24-foot wide curb cut and driveway to serve the property. As previously noted and conditioned, the entry driveway will have parking restricted to ensure it remains open for ~o-way traffic and emergency vehicles. Finding 74: There is no requirement for commercial loading zones in residential districts. The nature of the proposed development will preclude frequent and large-scale deliveries to the site. It is expected that regular truck traffic' to the site will be limited primarily to garbage and recycling pickup. The applicant has provided a screened, covered trash enclosure for solid waste generated by the proposed development. Finding 75: In accordance with SDC 4.6-155 and Table 4.6-3, at least one bicycle parking space per 3000 tY of floor area is required for professional ,offices. The proposed development requires a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces, including at least one covered space. The applicant is proposmg to install three bicycle parking racks near the front entrance to the office. One of the bicycle racks is covered. Conclusion: The proposal satisfIes this sub-element of the criterion. C.3 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 76: The subject development site lies within the Gateway Refinement Plan area. The proposed development is consistent with tI:ie provisions of the adopted Refmement Plan. Finding 77: The subject site is located within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District. The development area is within the 1-5 year time of travel zone (TOTZ) for the Sports Way wellhead. Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identifIed and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subject to' protection in accordance with SDC 4.3-115 and SDC 3.3-200. Finding 78: SDC 3.3-225 requires a Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District development .application be submitted to the City in conjunction with Site Plan Review when a new or expanded use includes the introduction, expansion, storage, and/or production of hazardous materials in a time of Date Received;~;( 1RJ'--:.. Planner: AL ~ Page 15 of21 . . travel zone. The area is highly susceptible to contamination from chemicals that may spill or leak onto the ground surface, including fuel and automotive fluids (such as lubricants and antifreeze, etc.). Fluid- . containing equipment, including vehicles parked on the site, shall be monitored for leaks and spills. Any chemical spills or leaks must be cleaned up inunediately and cleanup materials disposed off-site in accordance with Lane County and State DEQ requirements. . Finding 79: The applicant is proposing to construct Ii -4,000 if professional office building with outdoor parking lot and site landscaping in accordance with provisions of the LDR zoning district. The professional office use and residential setting does not typically affect the storage, use or manufacture of hazardous materials in quantities regulated in accordance with SDC Article 3.3-200. However, due to the sensitive nature of the 1-5 year TOTZ, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) must be precluded and reasonable measures. must be taken during design and construction to guarantee compliance' with SDC 3.3-200. Chemicals used duringeonstruction, including paint and cleaning materials, must not enter the soil or be washed into the stormwater system. Finding 80: Rooftop mounted equipment and other fluid-containing equipment located outside the building should be sealed and provided with secondary containment or a weather resistant enclosure. Finding 81: The applicant has submitted a companion Drinking Water Protection Overlay District application (DRC2008-00044) for review and approval by the City and SUB Water Quality. In addition to the construction and operation of a professional office, the proposed injection of stormwater into the ground will be reviewed by SUB Water Quality for consistency with drinking water protection requirements. Finding 82: Because stormwater recharges the aquifer, including stormwater infiltrating on the subject property, SUB Water requests that wellhead protection signs are placed temporarily at the site during construction, and permanently installed at strategic locations when the site is operational. Please contact Amy Chinitz, SUB Water Quality Protection at 744-3745 for more details on fulfilling the information requirements and installing wellhead protection signs. Finding 83: In accordance with SDC 3.3-410, the regulations of Section 3.3-400 apply to all areas of special flood hazard within the City and its urbanizable area. Where the regulations and permitted uses of an underlying district conflict with those of an overlay district, the more restrictive standards shall apply. Finding 84: The subject site is partially within the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain for the McKenzie River, and lies within Zone X as shown on FIRM Map 41039CI134F dated June 2,1999. The applicant has submitted a: companion Floodplain Overlay District application (SHR2008-00007) for review and approval by the City. Conditions of Approval: 13. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain a Drinking Water Protection approval pursuant to Planning Action DRC 2008-00044. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate pre~autions are. observed during site construction to protect groundwater and to prevent spills or leakage of materials into the stormwater system. Wellhead protection signs shall be posted at conspicuous locations to alert contractors, subcontractors, employees and others to the importance of reporting and cleaning up any spills. Additionally, DNAPL materials shall be prohibited on the site during construction and operation. 15. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain a Floodplain Overlay District approval pursuant to Planning Action SHR2008-00007. I)<\te, Heceived: . q!:J-1 ,",0 f Planner: AL / I Page 16 of21 . . Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub"element of the criterion. D. 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. Finding 85: 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. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways; increasing distances between intersections and driveways; and establishing adequate vision clearance where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques permits a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number and difficulty of decisions that drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety. Finding 86: SDC 4.2-120.A.l stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to l! public street". An existing 17-foot wide curb cut on the northeast edge of the property is proposed to be expanded to 24 feet wide with two 6-f60t wings and constructed in accordance with the' City's Standard Construction Specifications. Finding 87: The property has an eXisting curb cut and driveway approach in th.e northwest corner of the property. The applicant is proposing to remove the driveway apron and asphalt paving, and re-seed the affected area. It is not clear from the applicant's submittal whether the northwest driveway curb cut is to be replaced with vertical face curb and gutter. Finding 88: Ingress-egress points will be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC 4.2, 4.6, 5.15 and 5.17, applicable wning and/or overlay district requirements, and applicable refmement plans. Conditions of Approval: 16. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate clear vision triangles at the corners of the site driveway in accordance with SDC 4.2-130 and Figure 4.2-A. . 17. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve this property. The Final Site Plan shall provide a note and plan detail indicating that the northwest driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with vertical face curb, gutter, sidewalk (if necessary) and planter strip in accordance with City standards. Conclusion: With the conditions noted above, existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access, driveway and vision clearance requirements of SDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this criterion. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; 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 as specified in this Code or in State or. Federal law. ".1<.-",-, /,,-c,,,,v"'a:_~4;.j.,t>,f Planner: AL / Page 17 of21 . . Finding 89: 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 and there are no significant natural features on this site. Finding 90: The subject site is within a drainage basin that discharges to the Willamette and McKenzie River systems. These rivers are listed with the State of Oregon as "water quality limited" streams for numerous chemical and physical constituents, including temperature. Provisions have been made in this decision for protection of stormwater quality. The applicant is proposing to inject stormwater from the site directly into the ground allowing for infiltration. Finding 91: Springfield's drinking water aquifer is an identified and delineated Goal 5 natural resource subject to protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200. The subject site is located within the 1-5 year TOTZ of the Sports Way wellhead. As previously conditioned herein, and pursuant to DRC2008- 00044, groundwater protection . must be observed during construction on the site. The applicant/landowner shall maintain the pnvate stormwater facilities on the site to ensure the continued protection of groundwater resources. Finding 92: The tree stand on the property is part of the mapped Natural Assets as depicted in the Gateway Refinement Plan (page 39). As previously noted and conditioned, the applicant has submitted an application for tree felling (DRC2008-00043) for 15 mature trees on the site. Approval of the Tree Felling Permit will be required prior to initiation of any site grading and construction activity on the site. Conditions of Approval: 18. The property owner shall be responsible for ongoing and perpetual maintenance of the private stormwater facilities on the site to ensure they function as designed and intended, and to ensure protection of groundwater resources. Annual maintenance records shall be kept by the property owner and provided to the City for review upon reasonable request - normally within five business days. 19. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Tree Felling Permit initiated by Planning Action DRC2008-00043. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the .proposed development provides storm and ground water quality protection in accordance with SDC 3.3-200 and receiving streams have been protected in accordance with SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3-115. . CONCLUSION: The Tentative Site Plan, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with Criteria A- E ofSDC 5.17-125. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL? Five copies of a Final Site Plan and any additional required plans, documents or information ;rre required to be submitted to the Planning Division within 90 days of the date of this letter (ie. by December 1, 2008). In accordance with SDC 5.17-135 - 5.17-140, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed duril)g [mal site plan approval. Approved Final Site Plans (including Landscape Plans) shall not be substantively changed during Building Permit Review without an approved Site Plan Decision Modification. 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 Dat::, i"":lCeived:_~!:hI;)cOf . Planner: AL Page 18 of21 . . City. This agreement will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Final Site Plan shall depict the location and diniensions of all existing and proposed easements affecting the property. Easement information shall be consistent among all Final Site Plan sheets. 2. The Final Site Plan shall depict the location of underground electrical lines and transformers required to serve the development site. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute and record Public Utility Easements as may be necessary to provide utility services to the site, and provide evidence thereof to the City. The Public Utility Easement dimensions and configurations shall be satisfactory to the City's Public Works Department. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain an Underground Injection Control Permit from the Oregon Department. of EnvironmentaI Quality and provide evidence thereof to the City. The on- site stormwater management system shall be constructed in accordance with the Final Site Plan. S. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan for the Stormfilter Catchbasin for review and acceptance by the City. The operations and maintenance plan shall ensure the long-term operation of the Stormfilter Catchbasin consistent with criteria established by Stormwater Management Inc. The operations and maintenance plan shall designate responsibility for operating and maintaining the system, and shall be distributed to the property owner and tenant(s) of the site. 6. The Final Site Plan shall provide for suitable street trees along the Deadmond Ferry Road frontage of the site. Where street tree installation is not feasible, provision shall be made for future installation of street trees through execution of an Improvement Agreement. 7. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall execute an Improvement Agreement for Deadmond Ferry Road for street trees and street lighting. 8. The Final Site Plan shall indicate or describe the location of the nearest fire hydrant serving the site. 9. At least three (3) feet of clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of all fire hydrants and Fire Department connections in accordance with SFC 508.5.5 and 912.3. 10. The Final Site Plan shall provide for site landscaping trees that are at least 2-inch caliper at the tiine of planting. 11. The applicant's photometric plan shall be adjusted as necessary to indicate the presence of a screening hedge along the eastern property line that prevents light trespass onto the adjacent property. 12. In the event the screening hedge along the east propertY line of the subject site is altered in height or removed, the applicant shall replace andlor adjust the light fixture's in the parking lot as may be necessary to prevent illumination levels from exceeding 1.0 lumen at the east property line. The Final Site Plan shall contain a note of this condition for future reference. 13. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain a Drinking Water Protection approval pursuant to Planning Action DRC 2008-00044. ~ : .) . " Daw, ~~6ceived: ~4~;.f Planner: AL Page 19 of21 . .. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring appropriate precautions are observed during site construction to protect groundwater and to prevent spills or leakage of materials into the stormwater system. Wellhead protection signs shall be posted at conspicuous locations to alert contractors, subcontractors, employees and others to the importance of reporting and cleaning up any spills. Additionally, DNAPL materials shall be prohibited on the site during construction and operation. 15. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan, the applicant shall obtain a Floodplain Overlay District approval pursuant to Planning Action SHR2008-00007. 16. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate clear vision triangles at the comers of the site driveway in accordance with SDC 4.2-130 and Figure 4.2-A. 17. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve this property. The Final Site Plan shall provide a note and plan detail indicating that the northwest driveway approach shall be removed and replaced with vertical face curb, gutter, sidewalk (if necessary) and planter strip in accordance with City standards. 18. The property owner shall be responsible for ongoing and perpetual main1enance of the private stormwater facilities on the site to ensure they function as designed and intended, and to ensure protection of groundwater resources. Annual maintenance records shall be kept by the property owner and provided to the City for review upon reasonable request - normally within "five business days. 19. Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan,the applicant shall obtain approval of a Tree Felling Permit initiated by Planning Action DRC2008-00043. The applicant may submit permit applications to other city departments for review prior to fmal site plan approval in accordance with SDC 5.17-135 at their own risk. All concurrent submittals are subject to revision for compliance with the fmal site plan. A development agreement in accordance with SDC 5.17-140 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 5.3-100, \\ppeals. 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 5.3-115.B which provides for a 15-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 5:00 PM on September 17,2008. QUESTIONS: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726"3784 or email alimbird@ci.sorinl!field.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process. PREPARED BY ~.~~ An,~imbird Planner IT . Date Received:_q! )-!a-coi Planner: AL Page 20 of21 . . Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the Site Plan Modification decision. FEES AND PERMITS Svstems 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. 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 submittal for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment Charge: 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 the 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. Other City Permits: Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit (working within right-of-way or public easements). For example, new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $130 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. Land and Drainage Alteration Permits (LDAP). Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate applications/requirements. Additional DermitslapDrovals mav be necessarY: . Plumbing Permits . Building Permits . Floodplain Overlay . Tree Felling . Drinking Water Protection . ODOT Drainage Permit. Contact Lynn Stuckrath at (541) 726-2577 for the application requirements. Date Received: Planner: AL ~k!.k&J" / Page 21 of21 ~. .. . . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ',," ' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT' ' 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 " " y, t_,. Philip Farrington Peacehealth, Oregon REgion 123 International Way Spfld., OR 97477 . 3:'.~?~~ '\,:::_7"1< ~;" ~ I\~.l,"~ "", . .1~"'~t.:: , '",' CITY'OF SPRINGFIELD ", ,,'," DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTfv1,ENT ", 225 5th ST '", SPRINGFIELD': OR 97477 , ':-:::'-;,,;f'11 ,t," ~';, ~. ".'L,"- ,:~~~. Matt Keenan KPFF Consulting Engineers 1201 Oak Street, Ste 100 Eugene, OR 97401 . , ~" "'j , , .' .', ~ '~)\;" CITY OF SPRINGI=iELD " , . ,'-. '~'.,. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT' 225 5th ST' ' SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 David Dougherty DLA Landscape Architects 474 Willamette St, Ste 305 Eugene, OR 97401 . '" ..... . Date "eceived: ~~~"~J' ' Planner: AL 13 ",~ . ...' ... .' ~- OOWt....( '1j .,." "'Do. . 1-'- 1-'_ " '=' (JQ '" >:: I-tt Pl 1-'_ 1-'- p,.,..... '" S f-' ,..... 0 1-'_ 0. " '" . 0. 0.." :>,,,, " " 'D'<: " "':>' "0 "" 0. . . . ,,; '.," ~.::,' I - ,~~'?~- ~~:,5~, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ,.' , :"', , DEVELOPMENT SERVICESDEPARTrvll:NT .:, . ',; " . , _!"_.'''''' _","l, ,J'" 225 5th ST ' " . ,. ' " : SPRIf'lGFIELD, OR 97 4~7 ,',. :",. Dianna Larsen 377 Deadmond Ferry Road Springfield, DR 97477 ',IO"_ m' < m' r- - en ~o '1J :S:-' - ;E,' m ~ z z GJ ,-i 0 ,', . JJ ~_ (J) "T1 mc;.nmC/) -rU1:tJ""D , ' ".0 g::. :5 :c "'O.~.~z .:1) ,en.G> .co 0," -;;! m ,m .': ..-oJ "0,_, .: '-J' >.")>,"' "d , . :1)'0 '~:;-";"~:,L.. ~,.'~~f}~tS:~;,~'. _J....,. ,,_' 0 ,- ""~S/~~~:~_;::~<j,;:~ " J CITY OF SPRINGFIELD" , , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT . 225 5th ST ., SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477. ;,,)-'0 , ' Bally and Bruce Brown 335 Deadmond Ferry Road Springfield. OR 97477 :.l.... CITY OF SPRINGFiELD, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 , " !, r . ""; , .....,. """,', <;;' '" ~ " .'~ .,' Jeri and Jesse Covington 349 Deadmond Ferry Road Springfield, OR 97477 Date Received: 1';,2 Ihp,? / / 'Planner: AL