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