Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/2/2010 .. .. /~ "',..;", RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FEB - 2 2010 BY:f)~ oj ~ I o.p / 5 p~ 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 DRC-200 - 000 . '. -::JU-t) ~ "- (See attachment "A") on ;t.. ;L.. 2010 a dressed to (see c.77)~.J Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~aJ1ML ctr-~ KAR N LaFLEUR ST TE OF OREGON, County of lane ::s 2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, rogram Tec ician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELL V NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 ~.~ ?; JC;-/II I My Commission Expires: .. .. Notice of Decision -Site Plan Review Project Name: Mohawk Taco Bell Project Proposal: Replace the existing Til.cO Bell Restaurant with a new style Taco Bell Restaurant. Case Number: DRC2009-00049 Project Location: 1505 Mohawk Blvd. Tax parcells): 17-03-25-34 TL4101 Property size: 0.39 acre. Leased portion of the referenced tax lot. Base Zone: MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) Overlay District(s): Nodal Development, Drinking Water Protection Overlay: 1 - 5 year Time of Travel Zone (16th & Q Street well) Metro Plan Designation: Nodal Development Area Refinement PlanfDesignation: n/ a Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: November 10, 2009 Application Submitted Date: December 21, 2009 Decision Issued Date: February 2, 2010 Appeal Deadline Date: February 17, 2010 Other Application(s): none CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM " .. .... , , .:'... . POSmON REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Steve Hopkins 726-3649 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Jon Driscoll 726-3679 Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities, Sanitary & Clayton 736-1036 Storm'Sewer Mceachern Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 'APPLICANT'S DEVELOPlVIENtREVIEW TE:AI\.f"~I'Y."i"'''''8'''''\!ii';'''~'')ji'''i''''''''''''4':.''''"'''',\'j~'il""'"~f.''''' :. - /' ~.: 'j!J '. ',.: _ ".,"1',''< ":-_~,i;".;~.,,1> r" ,. ie'_;" ;i'.1 -'lii~- .H-'~"":~::,,;< ,;, ,:,~ ,.$!t~::""".;l."j:;;;- ;,:t:'IK:::;1:1i.'1:'~:illr~i~'Fd;!'J;_';~~lf;;.;~;:i::M~;tj~.&?t~,/ ~t.~l~;.J!i;;. ;:!;,,;$1~- ,,'- ,,;.~'~if~iJr Owner: Applicant Representative Cuddeback Commercial Properties, Robin and Mike Sanders Larry Reed Inc/Campbell Commercial Real Bellco Enterprises, LLC JRH Estate PO Box FF 4765 Village Plaza Loop, 859 Willamette St, Suite 520 Springfield OR 97477 #201 Eugene OR 97401 Eugene OR 97401 T QeD Bell Case No. DRC2009-00049 .. .. Site: Summary of proposal: The applicant submitted plans to replace the existing Taco Bell Restaurant with a new style Taco Bell Restaurant. The existing building has a footprint of approximately 1,800 sf. It is primarily a drive-thru restaurant with minimal indoor seating. The new building will have a footprint of approximately 2,500 sf, with a reconfigured drive aisle that will eliminate or significantly reduce the pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The site is designated Nodal/Mixed Use in the Metro Plan. The site is zoned MUC (Mixed Use Comrnercial)/Nodal Development. The proposed use is an eat-in restaurant with a drive thru. SDC 3.2-610 lists "Drive-up restaurants", as well as "sit-down restaurants" as allowed uses in the MUC zone. In addition to the Mixed Use design standards contained in SDC 3.2-625, drive-up restaurants are also subject to Special Design standards contained in Section 4.7-180. Because the site is within the Nodal Development Overlay District, it will include pedestrian- friendly, human sdtle characteristics that define nodal development. The specific requirements are contained in SDC 3.3-1005. The site is within the 1-5 year Time of Travel Zone of the 16lh & Q Street well. This application is exempt from a DWPapplication, as evidenced by a letter from SUB dated December 17, 2009. Taco Bell Case No. DRCl009-00049 2 .. .. The following design standards and approval criteria are applicable to this application: . Site plan approval criteria (5.17-100) . Mixed Use design standards (3.2-625) . Drinking Water Protection (3.3-200) . Nodal Development standards (3.3-1005) . Special design standards (4.7-180) Decision: Tentative Approval with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The Final Site Plan must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to city code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. Other Uses Authorized by the Decision: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Review Process: These applications are reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1- 130 and the Site Plan Review Criteria in SDC 5.17-100. Procedural Findings: . 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 applications (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. . Notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on December 23, 2009. . On January 12, 2010, the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed plans. City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the following: . Tentative Site Plan Criteria of Approval contained in SDC 5.17-125 . Mixed-Use Commercial development standards, contained in SDC 3.2-625 . Drinking Water Protection Overlay standards, contained in SDC 3.3-235 . Nodal Development standards, contained in SDC 3.3-1000 . Specific Development Standards in Mixed Use Districts, contained in SDC 4.7-180 . This decision was issued on the 43'ct day of the 120 days mandated by the state. . In accordance with SDC 5.17-135, the Final Site Plan shall comply with the requirements of the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this decision. The revised Final Site Plan otherwise shall be in substantial conformity with the tentative plan ToeD Bell Case No. DRC2009-00049 3 .. .. reviewed: Portions of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively changed during Final Site Plan approval. Comments Received: No comments were received. SDC 5.17-125 Site Plan Review Criteria of Approval The Director shall approve or approve with conditions: a Type II Site Plan Review application upon determining that approval criteria A. through E., below have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the Director shall deny the application. A. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or 'the applicable Refinemen~ Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding: The site is zoned MUC (Mixed Use Commercial) and Nodal Development. This area is designated Mixed Use/Nodal by the Metro Plan. There is no refinement plan applicable to this site. Con~lusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(A). B. Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stonnwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by , this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility 'provider shall determine capacity issues. SANITARY SEWER Finding: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual 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. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Finding: Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote water quality. Finding: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site will be directed intp a bio swale prior to discharge into the public system. The public system is located under the existing paving for Mohawk St. WATER QUALITY Finding: Under Federal regulation of the Oean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield has obtained a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A Taco Bell Case No. DRCl009-00049 4 .. .. provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding: Federal and Oregon Department qf Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's MS4 plan address six "Minimum Control Measures." Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment," applies to the, proposed development. Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City must also develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriated for the community. Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post construction runoff from new and re- development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding: As required in Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual." Finding: 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: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. Finding: The vegetation proposed for use in the swales will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established. Finding: The plans provided by the applicant show that less than 50% of the non building rooftop impervioUs area (parking lot in this case) is not being vegetatively treated. It appears possible to route the runoff currently being directed into the catch basin at the ,northeast comer of the building to the bio-swale at the northeast comer through either a valley gutter or trench drain. It also appears possible to route the catch basin at the south east comer into the bio-swale near the drive-through exit. Alternatively the applicant can provide mechanical treatment to reach the 50% treatment requirement with the individual system to be approved by the public works department. Taco Bell Case No. DRC2009-00049 5 .. .. 1. Condition: Prior to approval of the final site plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed bio-swale. The plan shall designate operation and maintenance responsibility. Proof of compliance will be a required element of the operations and maintenance plan. 2. Condition: The final site plan shall show at least 50% of the impervious area will be vegetatively treated, in accordance with Section 3.03.4.E of the city's EDSPM. 3. Condition: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private vegetative water quality swale shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to occupancy. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. TRAFFIC Finding: Abutting the subject site to the west, a Mohawk Boulevard is a 58-foot wide paved roadway within a liO-foot wide right of way. It is a iniTIor arterial with three lane~, improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, and LPS street lighting. It provides three motor vehicle lanes (one in each direction, and one turning lane), and one bicycle lane in each direction. Average daily traffic along Mohawk Boulevard is estimated to be approximately 16,900 trips per day. Finding: Based on ITE Land Use Code 934 (Fat-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through Window) the total trip generation from this developmep.t upon completion of the proposed development would be as follows: . Average Weekday = 496.12 trips/lOOO sq. ft. x 2556 = 1268 trips . PM Peak Hour = 33.84 trips/lOOO sq. ft. x 2556 = 26 trips Finding: The changes in the orientation of the building has allowed for a deeper driveway throat and a much longer queuing in the drive through without interfering with the ingress/ egress of vehicles onto the mall site. The new development creates a much safer site than the existing layout from a transportation perspective. Finding: At the exit point of the drive through, the radius of the inside curve near the "site lighting" (i.e. the curve in which lies the most westerly "Do Not Enter" sign) is approximately four feet. Using the passenger car design vehicle template from the AASHTO (American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials) "Green Book" (See Exhibit 2-3, page 21), it is apparent that a passenger car exiting the drive- through will strike the inside curb in positioning itself to be in the driveway's right turn lane. T aca Bell Case Na. DRCl009-00049 6 " .. .. 4. Condition: The final site plan shall show an enlarged inside curve radius at the exit point of the drive-through lane that will allow for AASHrO's passenger car to maneuver into the driveways right-turning exit lane without encroaching into the adjacent left-turning exit lane. ' Finding: To provide for pedestrian and vehicle safety, street lighting is necessary to illuminate street and sidewalk areas adjacent to the proposed development site to an adequate level during night time hours. Currently, low pressure sodium lighting has been installed on power poles along Mohawk Boulevard. This type of street lighting does not meet current City standards. However, it is not practicable or justifiable to require the applicant to bring the street lighting on Mohawk Boulevard up to current standards at this time. It is appropriate to require an improvement agreement for street lighting so that the property owner pays a proportionate share of costs when the City upgrades the street lighting system. 5. Condition: Execute and record an Improvement Agreement for street lighting on Mohawk Boulevard. Finding: Section 2B.05 of the MUTCD requires a stop sign if engineering judgment indicates that, among others, the following condition exists: "Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law." Finding: As conditioned above, existing and proposed transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate additional trips that would be generated by the proposed development. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(B). C. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained'in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding: The site is zoned MUC (Mixed Use Commercial)jNodal Development. Uses allowed in the MUC District require Type II site plan review. The proposed use is an eat-in restaurant with a drive thru. SDC 3.2-610 lists "Drive-up restaurants", as well as "sit-down restaurants" as allowed uses in the MUC zone. Finding: In addition to the Mixed Use design standards contained in SDC 3.2-625, drive- up restaurants are also subject to Special Design standards contained in Section 4.7-180. Finding: The proposed development shall comply with the following design standards contained in the Springfield Development Code: . Mixed Use design standards (3.2-625) . Nodal Development standards (3.3-100) . Special design standards (4.7-180) SDC3.2-625 Mixed-Use District Development Standards - General A. Building Design Standards. Intent: New structures and improvements to fa~ades requiring building permits shall provide architectural relief and interest, with emphasis at building entrances and along sidewalks, to promote and Taco Bell Case No. DRCl009-00049 7 T aca Bell .. .. enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and orientation. Blank walls shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by complying with the following minimum requirements. The following standards are intended to be specific and quantifiable while allowing for fleXibility in design.. B. Building Orientation and Maximum Setbacks. Intent: To the greatest extent practicable, all new buildings in a mixed-use development shall be oriented toward both exterior and internal streets in a manner that accommodates pedestrian comfort, convenience and safety. G. Pedestrian Amenities. Intent: To provide appropriate pedestrian amenities in mixed-use developments, pedestrian amenities, including, but not limited to: benches, omamental paving and public art shall be provided and durably designed and integrated into an overall design scheme or pattem. 1. All new structures and substantial improvements to existing buildings shall provide pedestrian amenities, as specified in this Subsection. The number of pedestrian amenities provided shall comply with the following sliding scale. Size of Structure or Number of Substantial Improvement Amenities <5,000 sq. ft. 1 2. Acceptable pedestrian amenities include: b. A public outdoor seating plaza adjacent to, or visible and accessible from, the street (minimum useable area of 300 square feet). c. Sidewalk planters between the sidewalk and building including stormwater swales. Finding: The proposed buildIDg contains a variety of design elements that are required in the MU district. The roofline contains offsets and breaks that are at least 3 feet or more in height and there are a combination of architectural elements that break up expanses of single element elevations (offsets, windows, recessed entries, and varied siding). Finding: The constraints of the site require the drive thru aisle to be located between the building and the street. The proposal complies with the intent of the MU district by increasing the queing distance at the drive thru and separating vehicle and pedestrian traffic better than the existing development. Finding: Headlight glare onto Mohawk Blvd. will be minimized with a 3' high decorative wall and landscaping adjacent to the public sidewalk. Finding: The proposed building has less than 5,000 sf. Based on this, one pedestrian amenity is required. Finding: The proposal includes an outdoor seating plaza and a stormwater swale adjacent to the sidewalk along Mohawk Blvd. Case Na. DRC2 009-0004 9 8 T oco Bell .. .. 3.2-620 Mixed Use District Development Standards - Conflicts and Exemptions B. Exemption Process. 1. Sections 3.2-625 and 3.2-630 detail a series of design standards that seek to achieve attractive, pedestrian oriented development where mixed- , use is applied. Developers may choose to meet these standards as prescribed, or they may propose other design ideas which are equal to or superior in meeting the objective of a particular standard. When a developer requests an exemption from a required standard, it is their responsibility to propose an alternative that fulfills the intent of the standard to the Director's satisfaction. The Director has the authority to authorize the exceptions and to determine the acceptability of the alternative the developer proposes. SDC 3.2-630 Mixed-Use Development Standards-Specific A. MUC Development Standards. 3. Minimum Floor Area Ratio. AFAR of .30 is required for new development on lots/parcels greater than 1 acre in the MUC District outside of the Downtown Mixed Use Area. FAR is defined for this purpose as the amount of gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the building lot/ parcel divided by the total lot/ parcel area. Finding: The proposal complies with the intent of the MUC zone and the Director grants an exemption to SDC 3.2-630(A). Compliance with the FAR standard is not reasonable due to existing development. SDC 3.3-1020 Minimum Density and General Development Standards The General Development Standards for Mixed-Use described in Section 3.2-625 describe the pedestrian-friendly and transit oriented'design standards that apply to mixed 1.\se and nodal development. These standards apply to de~elopment within the ND Overlay District. In addition to those standards found in Section 3.2-625, the following apply: A. Minimum Density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). FAR means the amount of gross floor area of all buildings and structures on a building lot/ parcel divided by the total lot/ parcel area. A 2 story building that covers 50 percent of a lot/ parcel would have aFAR of 1.0. Typical suburban FAR's range from 0.3 to 1.0 in mixed-use centers. 2. Where the base zone is NC, CC, MRC, MUC, or GO, the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) is .40. C. Parking Between Buildings and the Street. 1. Automobile parking, driving, and maneuvering areas shall not be located between the main building and a street. Case No. DRCl009-00049 9 .. .. Finding: The proposal complies with the intent of the MUC zone and the Director grants an exemption to SDC 3.3-1020(A)(2) and 3.3-1020(C)(1). Compliance with these standards is not reasonable due to constraints created by the existing development. SDC 3.3-1025 Specific Design Standards B. Specific Development Standards for Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed- Uses. Specific development standards for commercial, industrial and mixed-uses within the ND Overlay District shall conform to those standards specified in Section 3.2-630. SDC 4.7-180 Mixed Use Districts A. Specific development standards for the MUC District shall be the same as those specified in Section 3.2-310 as an "5" use and listed in applicable Subsections of Section 4.7-100, and the following: EXCEPTIONS: 1. Drive-through uses may conflict with safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and bicycles within MUC Districts. A drive-through use, for the purposes of this Section, is defined as a business activity involving buying or selling goods or provision of services wherever one of the parties conducts the activity from within a motor vehicle. Facilities usually associated with a drive- through usually involve queuing lines, service windows, service islands, and service bays for vehicular use. Drive-through uses are therefore not permitted in MUC Districts unless the use is incidental to -a primary -site use, and when designed in conformance with the following standards: a. The drive-through use shall be limited to service windows which are part of a primary use structure, and no more than 2 queuing lanes. b. Drive~up facilities shall be designed so that circulation and drive- up windows are not adjacent to sidewalks or between buildings and the street, to the maximum extent practicable. Finding: The tax parcel is developed as a shopping mall and the proposed use occupies a leased portion of that parcel. In the context of the entire development, the drive thru is not the primary site use. The proposal otherwise complies with (a) and (b). Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(C). 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 driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Taco Bell Case No. DRCl009-00049 10 ..' .. Finding: There are no changes to the existing access to Mohawk Blvd. Finding: The site plan increases the queing for the drive thru and significantly reduces the vehicle pedestrian conflicts. Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.17-125(D). 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 WQLW 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. Finding: The site is within the 1-5 year Time of Travel Zone of the 16th & Q Street well. . , Finding: Based on the comments from the Springfield Utility Board dated December 17, 2009, the requested exemption is granted subject if a wellhead protection sign is placed in the parking lot. 6. Condition: Prior to occupancy of the building, place a wellhead protection sign in the parking loti entrance area. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.1-125(E). DETERMINATION: Based on the evidence in the record, the Director determines the site plan complies with SDC 5.17-125(AHEI. subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to this report. What Needs To Be Done? SDC 5.17-135 states: "Within 90 days of an affirmative decision by the Approval Authority, a complete Final Site Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department. The Final Site Plan submittal shall incorporate all approval conditions listed in the staff report. The Final Site Plan shall become null and void if construction has not begun within two years of the signing of the Development Agreement required in Section 5.17-140." A Final Site Plan application is charged upon submittal of the complete application and all required documents and after all conditions of approval are met, including the construction of public and private improvements and extension of utilities required through this decision. 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 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 Decision Modification. T aca Bell Case Na. DRCl009-00049 II .. .. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: In accordance with SDC 15.17-140, a Development. Agreement is required to ensure that the terms and conditions of site plan review are binding upon both the applicant and the City. This agreement will be prepared by Staff upon approval of the Final Site Plan and must be signed by the property owner prior to the issuance of a building permit. SECURITY AND ASSURANCES. All required improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection. Refer to SDC 5.17-150 for details regarding bonding for required improvements. Summary of Conditions of Approval: Unless otherwise noted, all conditions must be met prior to approval of the final site plan. 1. Condition: Prior to approval of the final site plan, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed bio-swale. The plan shall designate operation and maintenance responsibility. Proof of compliance will be a required element of the operations and maintenance plan. 2. Condition: The final site plan shall show at least 50% of the impervious area will be vegetatively treated, in accordance with Section 3.03.4.E of the city's EDSPM. 3. Condition: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private vegetative water quality swale shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to occupancy. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion controlf water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the swale vegetation becomes fully established. 4. Condition: The final site plan shall show an enlarged inside curve radius at the exit point of the drive_through lane that will allow for AASHTO's passenger car to maneuver into the driveways right-turning exit lane without encroaching into the adjacent left-turning exit lane. 5. Condition: Execute and record an Improvement Agreement for street lighting on Mohawk Boulevard. 6. Condition: Prior to occupancy of the building, place a wellhead protection sign in the parking loti entrance area. T aca Bell Case Na. DRG009-00049 12 .. .. 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 decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Section 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115(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 p.m. on February 17, 2010. Questions: Please call Steve Hopkins in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3649 if you have any questions regarding this process. Prepared by: Steve Hopkins, AICP Planner II Development Services - Urban Planning Division. ToeD Bell Case No. DRQ009-00049 13 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET S.PRINGPIELD, OR 97477 -""..-..I--'_."~ ~-._.., . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 .. ~..... .. Cuddeback Commerci~J. Properties, lnc. Campbell Commercial Real Estate 859 Willamette Street, Suite.520 Eugene, OR 97401 filA:. tI!I"'- Robin and Mike S~~ders Bellco Enterprises, LLC PO Box FF Springfield,. OR 97477 Larry Reed JRH 4765 Village Plaza Loop #201 Eugene, OR 97401 ~Q~i'6<'