Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 9/28/2009 .. .;: RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE SEP 2 8 2009 BY:4~~ }o+oZlpr 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 ofDReZoo"t-anL0 ~ '. -~~ ':\ (See attachment "A") on 2009 addressed to (see (~a. 9If~ J Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~~fP-J~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ,s.",~" ;;0 .2009. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Prog am Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELL V NOTARYPUBUC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 ~0J~ My Commission Expires: g' /;5/11 :. . City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 SITE PLAN REVIEW Staff Report & Tentative Decision Project Name: Afiya Apartments, Inc. Project Proposal: Develop a three-story 16-unit supportive housing complex . . . Case Number: DRC2009-00029 Project Location: 1062/1072/1082 MainStreet 17-03-35-41-4600/4700/4800/4900 Zoning: Mixed-Use Residential (MUR) OverlayDistrict(s): N/A Applicable Refinement Plan: N/A Refinement Plan Designation: N/A Metro Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) & Mixed-Use Overlay Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: June 12, 2009 Application Submittal Date: July 8, 2009 DRC Meeting Date: July 28, 2009 Decision Issued Date: September 28, 2009 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: October 13, 2009 Associated Applications: SUB2009-00016 (Property Line Adjustment), DRC2009-00030 (Tree Felling Permit), PRE2009-00017 (Pre-Submittal for Site Plan Review), ZON2009-00007 (DIM), ZON2007-00034 (DIM) & ZON2007 -00053 (City-Sponsored Zone Change from CC to. MUR due to plan/zone conflict) ,-; " ',~'-"- v' -,.,.-._- '-'--"'~t' ,-. '''"i --"-", -""-MMITtt .-- ~lIJl~~w;;:":';\'~;;;"~'Y':'''''-'lli'1%~:W:.i&~r,r;;If!'''''&':''li'J't~(%,-'~"ft;j'i:':'''':'''~'!f'~MirE;t-'':;Wl'd<-~~~'!~'~' "_Y'''~'!'i~'t<:'r /DEVEl1QRMENTtREV EWlC.O ; k jEEt:lir c. '~aa;~'7g;::;if!kt%'b,*~;; ';!e." <;fZ; _":,~.I,,,~,'Jtitt.~%\i;a!~li:~l~i~i,;;,)c\:~, ,"~~i.f\1f46i~~;: '..:., .f':J~iJ;'~~L~"%~;f:iJJtf; POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Planner II Land Use PlanninQ Mollv Markarian 726-461 1 Enaineer in Trainina Transportation Jon Driscoll 726-3679 Civil Enaineer Utilities, Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clavton McEachern 736-1036 Deputv Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Enqineerinq Technician SUB Electric Utilities Brian Brewster 726-2395 Civil Enqineer SUB Water Utilities Rebecca Templin 726-2396 Administrative Assistant Willamalane Ronni Price 736-4007 Service Plannina Manaaer Lane Transit District Will Mueller 682-6194 DevRev Coordinator ODOT Dennis Nuuanu Santos 503-986-5762 jAP.F!lllcANnsjDEVEI.!OBMENT,:REVIEW~TEAM~r:~~ili'!~~~~ai~lllu:\1~~I~'!l;1If~11l~~i~~Ii!r.(I'xllTh~i!\\~*.l!-.~ Owner Applicant Applicant's Representative Springfield Church of the Brethern Afiya Apartments, Inc. Ann Delaney 1072 Main Street c/o ShelterCare Bergsund Delaney Architecture & Planning P.C. Springfield, OR 97477 P.O. Box 2338 1369 Olive Street 7(t'i!OI Euqene, OR 97402 EUQene, OR 97'-- .0 Planner: MM f~ 1~/1 Case No. DRC2009-00029 10119 . . .. DECISION. This staff report and decision grants tentative approval with conditions to the sLibject application, as of the date of this decision. 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 in this decision with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The Final Site Plan, including the landscape plan; as well as building plans, site development, and the installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved site plan or as conditioned herein. Any substantive changes to the approved site plan must be approved throygh the Site Plan Modification application process. 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 in its. entirety. USES AUTHORIZED BY THIS DECISION . . . '. . '. . The proposed use of this site for multi-family dwellings is permitted in accordance with SDC 3,2-610. No other uses are authorized' by this. decision.' ,. REVIEW PROCESS .... . . .' This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130, Type II Applications, and SDC5.17-100, Site Plan Review. This application was accepted as complete on July 8,2009, and this decision is issued on the 82nd day of the 120 days permitted per ORS 227.178. It should be .noted that issuance of this decision was delayed .since the. applicant submitted a revised plan set and narrative on September 17, 2009 for this application in <::onjunction with the submittal of a revised Preliminary Property Line Adjustment Survey on September 23, 2009 for the concurrent application SUB2009-00016 in response to concerns the Building Division raised during the Property Line Adjustment review process. COMMENTS RECEIVED Applications for Type II limited land use decisions require notification of property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property and any applicable neighborhood association, allowing for a 14- day comment period on the application per SDC 5.1-130. The property owner, applicant, if different, and parties submitting written comments during the comment period have appeal rights' and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. In accordance with SDC 5.1-130, notice was mailed to the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property on July 15, 2009. The following written comments were received during the comment period: One letter was received on July 20, 2009 from Virginia Lassen of 1095 A Street that outlined several concerns regarding the proposed developrnent, including the concurrent Tree Felling Permit Case No. DRC2009-00030. The complete transcript of the letter is made a part of this decision by reference and is available for review at the Development Services Department. In summary, the letter focuses on issues relating to the felling of trees, noise during and after construction, and past and possible future property damage. A response to these concerns is included below, as well as by reference to other sections of this staff report and the staff report associated with Case No. DRC2009-00030. Tree Felling The concern raised regarding the felling of 15 trees on the subject property is addressed on p.2 of the staff report associated with Case No. DRC2009-00030. Construction Noise The letter states that "the noise during...construction will be a nightmare." While it is inevitable that noise will be created during the construction of the proposed development, noise that is considered to be loud, disturbing, or unnecessary is regulated by the standards outlined in the City of Springfield's ._' _~.uni~p~I._l?_?8~"?5.9.~ioPr)Y,,;~~0. As such, the process of erecting, excavating, demolishing, altering, or !\:;rv; t~~~, Ifln.i~ Case No. DRC2009-00029 2 of 19 "e' . repairing buildings is not permitted between the hours of 6:00 pm and 7:00 am to minimize the impact on nearby residents, In addition, Condition #4 on p.6 of the staff report associated with Case No. DRC2009-00030 aims to limit the impact of noise and vibration associated with the tree felling on neighboring properties"' . . Post Construction Noise The letter also expresses concerns that noise after construction will increase in the neighborhood, especially with increased traffic along the public alley north of the subject property. However, the ailey does not serve as the primary access to the proposed development: The primary access to the, proposed development is provided via a shared driveway off Main Street that runs north-south through the subject property. In addition, the applicant has proposed positioning two bollards with a chain across this driveway where, it meets the alley to reduce thru-trafficfrom the development to the alley, other than to access' the parking located along the alley as required by SDC 3,2-240 D.9,d., which states that for multi-unit developments, parking areas shall be accessed from alleys when properties ~~.~ . .' . , Property Damage .' . . The letter discusses current problems with graffiti and damage to property abutting the alley to ihe north of the subject property. The letter also suggests that such problems will be exacerbated and new problems will arise with additional development and population growth in this area. The letter questions whether the property owner pays property taxes, and who will pay for the purported problems resulting from the proposed development.. These concerns are largely civil matters that are unrelated to the land . use approval process. However, it should be noted that the developer is required to 'pay systems development charges to cover the impact the proposed development will have on public infrastructure, such as the sanitary sewer, stormwater, transportation, and parks. Additionally, the proposed development is subject to the multi-unit design standards and the mixed-use design standards of the. SDC that aim to reduce the' impact of more intense development on neighboring less intense , development, and the applicant has met these standards as conditioned in this staff report. SITE INFORMATION The subject property is comprised of four irregularltshaped tax lots totaling just over an acre on the north side of Main Street between 10th and 1i Streets, inside the City limits. The property currently contains three buildings (an approximately 4,000 square foot L-shaped residential structure on the west side of the property, an approximately 2,000 square foot residential structure on the east side of the property, and an approximately 2,000 square foot mixed-use structure also on the west end of the property). All existing structures are proposed to remain on the site at this time. The development of a multi-unit housing complex is proposed on the vegetated but vacant northeast corner of the site. This development area is currently comprised of two tax lots, 4700 and 4600. The concurrent Property Line Adjustment Case No. SU82009-00016 proposes adjusting the property lines so that the development area is wholly contained within one tax lot that measures 12,254 square feet. Property to the north of the public alley that borders the site on the north is zoned Low-Density Residential while property to the east and west of the site is zoned Community Commercial. SITE PLAN REVIEW - CRITERIA SDC 5.17-125 states that an application shall be approved or approved with conditions upon determination that the criteria listed in SDC 5,17-125 A. through E. have been satisfied and that if conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the application shall be denied. Criterion 1 (SDC 5.17-125 A.I The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram, and/or the applicable Refinement Plan Diagram, Plan District Map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Case No. DRC2009-00029 30119 . . Finding: The subject property is zoned Mixed-Use Residential and is designated Medium Density Residential with a Mixed-Use Overlay by the,' Metro Plan 'diagram, and there is no applicable refinement pla'n. There are no applicable Plan District maps or Conceptual Development Plans for this property, and no change to the zoning designation or boundaries is proposed. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 1 (SDC 5.17-125 A.). Criterion 21SDC 5.17-125 B.l Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to water and electricity; sanitary sewer and storm water 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 i$sues. Finding: ' The Development Review Committee (DRC), including representatives from -the City's Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire and Life Safety Depart'ment, as well as the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, Lane Transit District, and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) reviewed the application, and their comments have been inc;orporated into the findings and conditions below. Finding: Criterion 2 contains two' categories of development standards with sub-sections. The' application as submitted complies with any applicable sub-section of the development standards unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions. The development standards relating to Criterion 2 include, but are not limited to, the infrastructure standards discussed in SDC 4.1-100, 4.2-100, and 4.3c100: 4,2-100 Infrastructure Standards- Transportation 4.2-105 Public Streets 4.2-110 Private Streets 4.2-115 Block Length 4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways 4.2-125 Intersections 4.2-130 Vision Clearance 4.2-135 Sidewalks 4.2-140 Street Trees 4.2-145 Street Lighting 4.2-150 Bikeways 4.2-155 Pedestrian Trails 4.2-160 Accessways 4.3-100 Infrastructure Standards- Utilities 4.3-105 Sanitary Sewers 4.3-110 Stormwater Management 4.3-115 Water Quality Protection 4.3-120 Utility Provider Coordination, 4.3-125 Underground Placement of Utilities 4.3-130 Water Service and Fire Protection 4.3-135 Major Electrical Power Transmission Lines 4.3-140 Public Easements 4.3-145 Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities Public Streets Finding: Abutting the subject property to the south is Main Street, a 48-foot wide asphalt-paved two-lane arterial street within a 70 to 105-foot wide right-of-way. The street is improved to urban standards with one on-street bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, and metal halide street lighting. Average daily traffic along this section of Main Street is estimated to be approximately 13,000 vehicle trips per day. ' Finding: Abutting the subject property to the north is a 14-foot wide, asphalt-paved public alley. Finding: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 220 (Apartments), the proposed development of 16 one-bedroom apartment units would generate 107 weekday vehicle trips and 9 afternoon peak-hour vehicle trips onto the surrounding street system. In addition, assumed Case No, DRC2009-00029 40119 . . development may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the LCOGhousehold survey from 1994, 12.6% of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8% are made via public transit. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including the subject property. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signais, crosswalks, bicycle parking, and bicycle lanes'. . . . . . Finding: Existing off-site transportation facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional trips that would be generated by the proposed development.' . Finding: As submitted, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.2-105. Sanitary Sewers .Finding: SDC 4.3-105 A. states that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development. within the city limits and to connect developments to existing mains. It also states that installation of. sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities and shall comply with the provisions of the Standard Construction Specifications, the City's EDSPM, the Springfield Municipal Code, and the Department of Environmental Quality regulations. Finding: SDC 4.3-105C. states that proposed sewer systems shall include design considerati()n of additional development within the area as projected by the Metro Plan. . Finding: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the 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. Finding: The application indicates that the existing buildings on the subject property are currently served by laterals from the 8-inch sanitary sewer main in the alley right-of-way to the north of the property. The applicant has proposed serving the new development, including the solid waste storage area, with sanitary sewer laterals in a joint utility trench from the above-mentioned sanitary sewer main as depicted on the tentative plan. The applicant has also proposed providing a lateral for future sanitary sewer service to future development on the south end of the subject property. In addition, the applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide private utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer lateral that crosses the development area to serve the building southeast of the proposed development. Condition 1: Prior to Final Site Plan ap'proval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan the proposed five-foot wide private utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer lateral that crosses the development area to serve the building southeast of the proposed development. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.3-105 A. Storm water Manaaement Finding: SDC 4.3-110 B. states that development approval shall only be granted where the Public Works Director has determined that adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems provisions, consist~nt with the EDSPM, have been made. Finding: SDC 4.3-110 D. states that run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding: SDC 4.3-110 E. states that developments are required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with the EDSPM that minimize the amount and rate, and increase the quality, of surface water run-off into receiving streams. Finding: The application indicates that stormwater runoff from the site will be directed into a vegetative rain garden and two catch basins with filters prior to discharge into the public system as depicted on the tentative plan. No specificatons or maintenance plan for the catch basins has been submitted with the application. Case No. DRC2009-00029 50119 . . Utilitv Provider Coordination . Finding: SDC 4.3-120 states that all utility providers shall be responsible for coordinating utility installations with the City and the developer through the Development Review Committee or by separate written correspondence and that the developer shall be responsible for the design, installation, and cost of utility lines and facilities to the satisfaction of the utility provider. Finding: The application indicates that the proposed development will be served by SUB Electric via underground lines from a three-phase pole on the north side of the alley that abuts the property to the north. The applicant has also proposed locating an electrical transformer north of the trash/recycling area as depicted on the tentative plan. Finding: SUB Electric has stated that that the existing public and proposed private electric facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development provided that a seven-foot wide Public Utility Easement is provided from the south edge of the alley right-of-way to the proposed transformer location. Condition 5: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan a seven-foot wide Public Utility Easement from the south edge of the alley right-af-way to the proposed transformer location. Finding: Existing facilities, a proposed easement, and the above conditions, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-120. Water Service and Fire Protection Finding: SDC 4.3-130 states that each development area shall be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish an adequate water supply to the development and that fire hydrants and mains shall be installed by the developer as required by the Fire Marshall and the utility provider. Case No. ORC2009-00029 60119 . . Finding: The application indicates that the proposed development will be served with water meters, backflow prevention devices, and a lateral from a new public water line that is proposed to be constructed from a twelve-inch water main located in the right-of-way south of the subject property as depicted on the tentative plan. The new public line will be located in a new seven-foot wide Public Utility Easement within the proposed shared use,access, and maintenance easement as depicted on the tentative plan. The applicant has also proposed installing laterals from this new public line to stub to adjacent lots for future site redevelopment. . . Finding: SUB Water has stated that that the existing public and proposed public and private water facilities are adequate to serve the proposed development provided that a seven-foot wide Public Utility Easement is provided to cover the proposed new public water line on the property. . . . . . .' . . .. Condition 6: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plim a seven-foot wide public Utility Easement to cover the proposed new public water line on the property. . . . Finding: As discussed under Criterion 4 on page 14 below, constructing the proposed driveway access for the. proposed development requires relocating the existing L TO bus stop in the right-of-way south of the property approximately 1 0 feet to the east. An existing fire hydrant is currently located approximately 20 feet east of the existing L TO bus stop. . . Finding: Oregon Revised Statute 811.550(16) prohibits parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant, and so the Fire and Life Safety Department has stated that the L TO bus stop sign and pad may be moved to the east as proposed, provided that the sign and pad are no closer than 10 feet from any edge of the fire hydrant. Condition 7: Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall comply with ORS 811.550(16) in. moving the L TO bus stop sign and pad. Finding: Existing facilities, a proposed easement, and the above conditions, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-130. Public Easements Finding: SDC 4.3-140 A. states that the applicant shall make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. This policy dictates that the minimum width for Public Utility Easements (PUE) adjacent to street rights-of-way, as well as all other PUEs, shall be seven feet, unless otherwise specified. Finding: Provision of water and electric facilities to the proposed development requires additional Public Utility Easements, as discussed and conditioned above in the Utility Provider Coordination & Water Service and Fire Protection sections of this staff report. Finding: As conditioned in Conditions 5 and 6 above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.3-140 A. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 2 (SDC 5.17-125 B.) as conditioned herein. Criterion 31SDC 5.17-125 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: Criterion 3 contains four categories of development standards and requirements. As such, the application must comply with the development standards of SDC Chapter 4 not addressed by Criterion 2, as well as the development standards for the applicable zoning district. In addition, the application must comply with the requirements of any applicable overlay district and/or refinement plan. Case No. DRC2009-00029 70119 . . The application as submitted complies with the applicable development standards and requirements unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions. The development standards and requirements relating to Criierion 3 include, but are not limited to, the following: Chapter 4 - Development Standards . 3.2-600 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 4.4-100 Landscaping, Screening, & Fence 3.2-605 Establishment of Mixed-Use Zoning Districts Standards 3.2-610 Schedule of Use Categories 4.5-100 Oli-Site Lighting Standards 3.2-615 Base Zone Development Standards 4.6-100 Vehicle Parking, Loading, & Bicycle 3.2-620 Mixed Use District Development Standards - ' Parking Standards , Conflicts and Exemptions 4.7-100 Specific Development Standards for 3.2-625 Mixed Use Development Standards- General Certain Uses 3.2-630 Mixed Use Development Standards. Specific 4.8-100 Temporary Uses 3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards , 3.2-250 Multi-Unit Design Standards Variances Applicable overlay District: N/A' , Applicable Refinement Plan: N/A Landscapino. Screenino &' Fence 'Standards Finding: SDC 4.4-105 states that all required setback areas, parking lot planting areas, and any additional required planting areas as specified in the SDC shall be landscaped. The additional required' planting areas that apply to the proposed development are outlined in SDC3.2-240 0.6. and are discussed and conditioned in the Multi-Unit Design Standards section below. ' Finding: SDC 4.4-105 E. outlines the minimum planting acceptable per 1,000 square feet of required planting areas, SDC 4.4-105 F. specifies the minimum planting acceptable for landscaped parking and driveway setbacks, and SDC 4.4-105 G. stipulates that all new requried planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground irrigation system unless where planted with native species or plant communities. Finding: SDC 4.4-105 I. outlines the regulations relating to the protection of existing plants, including trees, to remain during the construction process, and it also states that nursery tags identifying variety and species shall remain on plant specimens until occupancy to enable inspection of the site to ensure that placement, quantity, size and variety conform to the approved Planting Plan and the requirements of that Section prior to occupancy. Finding: Existing conditions on the site, in addition to the proposed plan for landscaping, irrigation system, and protection of existing plants to remain on site during construction included with this application, are adequate to meet the landscaping requirements of the SDC 4.4-105. Condition 8: Prior to Occup.ancy, the applicant shall install the required setback and 'parking lot planting areas and irrigation system as proposed on the tentative plan and as conditioned in this staff report. Nursery tags identifying variety and species shall remain on all plants until the Final Site Inspection is completed and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Finding: SDC 4.4-110 A.4. and B.3.c. state that screening shall be required for refuse disposal areas, SDC 4.4-110 A.2, states that screening is required for outdoor mechanical devices, SDC 4.4-110 A.6 states that screening is required for multifamily developments, and SDC 4.4-110 A.1. states that screening is required where commercial districts abut residential districts. Finding: SDC 4.4-110 B. states that screening shall be vegetative, earthen, and/or structural, and that for structural screening, a fence or masonry wall shall be constructed to provide a uniform sight- obscuring screen continuous to at least six feet above ground level. SDC 4.4-110 B.3.b. states that Case No, DRC2009-00029 B of 19 . . wherever a required screen in the form of a fence is adjacent to...a commercial district..., it shall be non-metallic and of a subtle color to blend with surrounding vegetation. Finding: The application indicates that a garbage/recycling area will be located on the north end ofthe property and that the receptacle area will be screened to at least six feet above ground level. The trash enclosure area is proposed to be screened on the north, west, and part of the south sides with a' sight- obscuring wood fence or concrete masonry units. The other part of the south side and east side is proposed to be screened with a chain link fence with a stiffening frame. Therefore, the south and .east elevations will not provide a uniform sight-obscuring screen as required per SDC 4.4-110 B.3. Condition 9: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall indicate how the south and east elevations will provide a uniform sight~obscuring screen, such as through the use of sight-obscuring fence slats or wood gates. . In addition, prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall screen the trash' enclosure as per the require/l1enis of SDC 4.4" 110. .. Finding: An existirig 6-foot sight-obscuring chain-link fence is proposed to remain along the east property line and screen the proposed multi-family development from the adjacent commercial development. A new cedar sight-obscuring fence is proposed between the 'existing fence on the east property line and the building to discuroage cut-through pedestrian traffic from the alley. The existing fence along the east property line does not meet the requirements 'of SDC 4.4-110 B.3.b. for a fence that is non-metallic and of a subtle color to blend with surrounding vegetation. Conditioi'l10: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicarit shall demonstrate compliance with SDC 4.4-110 B.3.b. for the fence along the east property line of the proposed development. Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall replace the existing chain-link fence on the east property line of the. proposed development in compliance with SDC 4.4-110 B.3.b. . . Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.4-105 through 115. On-Site LiCJhtinCJ Standards Finding: SDC 4.5-110 A. states that on-site lighting shall be the minimum illumination. necessary for a . given application and that all on-site lighting fixtures shall be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflection are contained within the boundaries of the property and directed downward and away from abutting properties and public rights-of-way. Finding: SDC 4.5-110 B. states that the height of a free-standing exterior light fixture within 50 feet of any residential district... shall not exceed 12 feet. Finding: The application, including lighting cut-sheets, indicates that lighting for the parking along the alley will be provided by building-mounted shielded light fixtures not to exceed 12 feet in height along the north fa<;:ade of the building. The application narrative states that additional lighting will be provided for the porch and walkways along the path of egress for the dwelling units and common areas, but no details regarding height or shielding of these lights were provided. Condition 11: Prior to Occupancy, all on-site lighting installed to serve the proposed development shall meet the requirements of SDC 4.5-100 regarding illumination, shielding, and height of on-site lighting. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.5-110. Vehicle ParkinCJ. LoadinCJ. & Bicvc/e ParkinCJ Standards Finding: SDC 4.6-125 states that a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit for multi-family dwelling units. The proposed development is comprised of 16 dwelling units, which would result in a requirement for a minimum of 24 parking spaces. Case No. DRC2009-00029 90119 . . Finding: SDC 4.6-110 A.3.c. states that the Director may authorize a reduction in the number of required parking spaces based on an affirmative finding by the Director that the exception will have no negative impacts on neighboring properties and all installed parking conforms to the design standards of 4.6-110,4.6-115, and 4.6-120. " Finding: SDC 4.6-125 G.3. states that the Director may reduce the minimum residential parking standard in Mixed-Use Zoning Districts when it is demonstrated that the proposed housing is along a frequent service transit line. Finding: The applicant has requested a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the proposed development based on a) de'monstration that the proposed development is along a frequent transit service line and b) population demographics of residents served by the proposed development' are such that the requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit far exceeds the need. The applicant has proposed'a parking ratio of 0.25, which would result in the need for a minimum of four parking spaces for the proposed development. ' , ' " , , Finding: A Lane Transit Di~tri~t (LTl)) bus steip exists in the right-of-way south of the prop~sed development. This bus stop is along Route 11, which runs between Springfield Station and Thurston Station. The proposed development is also approximately six blocks from L TD's Springfield, Station, which provides access to numerous L TD routes, including the region's EmX bus rapid transit lines. Finding: The applicant has submitted data from three similar existing housing developments run by the applicant's non-profit parent corporation, ShelterCare, that indicate that the ratio of vehicles owned by residents to dwelling units at those developments ranges from 0.13 to 0.20. Finding: Given the data from housing developments serving similar populations as the proposed development, and given the proximity of the proposed development to both an L TD bus stop and the downtown Springfield L TD Station, the requested parking space exception will have no negative impact on neighboring properties. Finding: The application for the proposed development proposes site improvements, including ttie location and design of parking for the other uses on the subject property. Therefore, parking for the proposed development must be analyzed within the context of the entire subject property, comprised of four tax lots and three existing buildings with a variety of uses, including religious assembly and non- assembly uses, retail uses, residential uses (with residents of similar demographics to the residents that will be served by the proposed development), and residential office uses. ' Finding: The applicant has demonstrated in the table that accompanies the project narrative in the application packet that all non-residential uses on the site meet the parking space requirements of SDC 4.6-125. If the requested adjustment to 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit is also applied to the existing dwelling units, all existing residential uses on the site have adequate parking provided on-site, as well. Base Zone Development Standards Finding: SDC 3.2-615 states that the building setbacks in the Mixed Use Residential zoning district shall be as outlined in SDC 3.2-215 for residential zoning districts. SDC 3.2-215 states that the minimum front yard setback for primary structures is 10 feet, and Footnote 9 states that architectural extensions may protrude into any 5-foot or larger setback area by not more than 2 feet. Finding: The application indicates that the front fagade of the proposed building is set back 10 feet from the property line. However, the porch that provides the principal entryway into the development extends five feet into the setback. Finding: The proposed development is subject to the Multi-Unit Design Standards of SDC 3.2-240. SDC 3.2-240 A. states that in cases where the standards of this Section conflict with other standards in this Code, the standards of this Section shall prevail. Case No. DRC2009-00029 10 of 19 . . Finding: . SDC 3.2-240 D.2. outlines the building form requirements for multi-unit developments, including the provision of windows and doors, as well as other design features intended to provide architectural relief and interest. The entryway porch that extends five feet into the setback area helps the development meet the building form requirements of SDC 3.2-240 D.2. and will not create any adverse impact on adjacent properties. Therefore, the requirements of sot 3.2-240 D.2: supersede the requirements of SDC 3.2-215 as they relate to architectural extensions into front yard setbacks. Mixed-Use Development Standards - General & Specific' . .' . Finding: . SDC 3.2-620 A.1. states that in cases where the development standards of this Section conflict with standards found in other Sections of this Code~ the standards of this Section shall prevail. . . '. Finding: SDC 3.2-630 CA states that.all development in the Mixed-Use ResidEmtial District must . comply with the Multi-Unit Design Standards specified in SDC 3.2-240.. . '. . . Finding: SDC 3.2"240 A. states that in cases where the standards of this Section conflict with other standards in this Code, the standards of this' Section shall prevail. . . . . . Finding: . Given that the proposed development is a residential use within a Mixed-Use Residential . zOning district, a number of. the Mixed-Use Development Standards either are not applicable to the proposed development or conflict with the requirements of similar intent outlined in the' Multi-Unit . Design Standards of 3.2-240. In cases of conflict, the Multi-Unit Design Standards prevail.' . Finding: As proposed, and as conditioned elsewhere in this staff report, the application meets all of the Mixed-Use Development Standards, General and Specific, in SDC 3.2-625 and 3.2-630. Multi-Unit Desicm Standards Finding: SDC 3.2-240 DAb. states that trash receptacles shall be screened and that obscuring landscaping shall be planted a minimum of 24 inches in height at planting around all exposed sides of the wall or fence that screens the trash receptacle, unless breaks are provided for gates. Finding: The applicant has proposed landscaping around all exposed sides of the trash receptacle area's wood or masonry screen. However,. the landscape details included with the planting plan indicate the minimum size of the shrubs to be planted in gallons rather than height, so it is not possible to determine if the requirements of SDC 3.2-240 DA.b. have been met. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 DAd. states that ground-mounted equipment shall be screened and that landscaping screening shall be planted tall enough to attain 50% coverage after two years and 100% coverage after four years. Finding: The applicant has proposed landscaping around the ground-mounted utility vault in the northwest corner of the site. However, the landscape details included with the planting plan do not indicate the screening coverage of the plants to be achieved, so it is not possible to determine if the requirements of SDC 3.2-240 DAd. have been met. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.6.a. states that all trees planted on the site shall be a minimum of two inches in caliper and all shrubs planted on the site shall be a minimum of 24 inches in height at planting, and SDC 3.2-240 D.8.d. restates this requirement for the planting areas that screen parking from living area windows. Finding: The applicant has proposed landscaping 30% of the site with a mix of vegetative ground cover, shrubbery, and trees. However, the landscape details included with the planting plan indicate the minimum size of the shrubs to be planted in gallons rather than .height, so it is not possible to determine if the requirements of SDC 3.2-240 D.6.a. and D.8.d. have been met. In addition, the size of the proposed Coral Bark Maples at 1.5 inches in caliper does not meet the requirements of SDC 3.2- Case No. DRC2009-o0029 110119 . . 240 D.6.a., and the proposed size of the Vine Maples and Hinoki False Cypress is stated in height not caliper, so it is not possible to determine if the requirements of the SDC 3.2-240 D.6.a. have been met. Condition 12: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the landscape plan details shall include the planting height and size requirements of SDC 3.2-240 DAb., SDC 3.2-240 D.6.a., and sot 3.2-240 D.8.d., and the planting coverage requirements of SDC 3.2-240 DAd. Prior to Occupancy, all landscaping shall be planted on the site as depicted on the Tentative Plan and as conditioned herein. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.5.c. states that private open space shall be provided in all newly constructed. multi-unit developments to comply with the standards outlined in SDC 3.2-240 D.5.c.i. through iii. Finding: SDC 3.2-250 allows for the Director to approve an adjustment of up to 20% of the multi-unit design standards listed in 3.2-240 provided that the adjustment is necessary due to topography, natural. features, easements, and similar physical or legal constraints. SDC 3.2-250 G.3. states that the Director. may approve a reduction in the required private open space if the proposal includes a proportional increase in the required common open space areas. . . . . Finding: The narrative included with the application states that given the.population who will live in the. proposed development and the developer's goal of creating a supportive living enviro.nment through. community interaction and strengthening of social skills, the applicant has proposed omitting the required private open spaces. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.5.c. does not provide a minimum numerical requirement for private open space other than for dwelling units at grade. For units located at grade, a minimum of 96 square feet of private open space must be provided. The proposed development includes four dwelling units at grade, which would require a minimum of 384 square feet of private open space. Finding: To comply with SDC 3.2-240 D.5.a.ii., the proposed development must provide at least 1,225 square feet of open space .that can be any combination of yards, common open space, and private open space. While the SDC does outline minimum numerical requirements of common open space for multi-unit developments at densities less than 30 units per acre, it does not provide similar requirements for those at densities over 30 units per acre. The proposed development has a density of nearly 57 units per acre. Finding: The application indicates that 1,688 square feet of common open space will be provided on the site, including an indoor recreation room, an indoor meeting room, and an outdoor courtyard. Therefore, the applicant is providing 463 square feet of common open space more than that which is required. The amount of common open space thus includes more than the proportional increase of private open space omitted from the development. Therefore, the application meets the open space numerical requirements of SDC 3.2-240 0.5. as permitted to be varied as outlined in SDC 3.2-250. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.7.f. states that where internal sidewalks cross a vehicular circulation area, they shall be clearly marked with contrasting paving materials, elevation changes, speed humps, or striping. Finding: The applicant has proposed striping the pedestrian crossing across the driveway from the ADA parking area to the internal sidewalks. However, no striping or other similar marking is proposed across the driveway where pedestrians will likely cross to access the trash enclosure at the north end of the property: Additionally, the lack of a curb ramp from the sidewalk at the north end of the property to the driveway near the trash enclosure results in an unsafe and inconvenient route from the development to the trash enclosure for those with physical disabilities. Therefore, the proposed application does not meet the intent of SDC 3.2-240 0.7. to provide safe and continuous pedestrian circulation routes throughout the site. Condition 13: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall provide for some type of marking from the internal sidewalk to the trash enclosure across the driveway and shall provide for a safe and Case No. DRC2009-00029 120119 . . convenient route for persons with physical disabilities to access the trash enclosure from the proposed building in conformance with SDC 3.2-240 D.7. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.8.c. states th~t there shan be one planter island for every eight parking spaces. Finding: The application indicates that nine parking spaces will be provided along the north fac;:ade of the proposed development. The applicant has proposed tWo planter islands that exceed the minimum planter island requirements for size and plantings on either end' of the nine proposed parking spaces to make efficient use of the parking area. . Finding: SDC 3.2-250 allows for the Director to approve an adjustment of up to 20% of the multi-unit design standards listed in 3.2-240 provided that the adjustment is necessary due to topography, natural features, easements, and similar physical or legal constraints,. SDC 3.2-250 J. states that for parking adjustmemts, the adjustmenf must result in greater or significant vegetation that provides parking' lot screening. . , . . Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.8.a. states that parking lots $hall be placed to the rear of buildings. Physical constraints on the site thus prevent the proposed development from meeting both SDC 3.2-240 D.8.c. and D.8.a. while accommodating sufficient parking spaces on the subject. property as per SDC 4.6-125. The proposed parking lot planter island adjustment meets the Multi-Unit Design Standards Exceptions requirements of SDC 3.2-250. '. Finding: SDC 3.2~240 D.8.c. states that trees in the planter islands shall be specimens capable of attaining 35 feet or more in height at maturity and shall not 'produce excessive fruit, nuts, or sap. Finding: The applicant has proposed planting Oregon Ash and Silver Linden trees in the planter islands. However, there is no indication on the landscape plans as to whether these trees meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-240 D.8.c., so it is not.possible to determine whether the application meets these requirements. Condition 14: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall include a note on the landscape plan details stating that the proposed plantings for the planter islands meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-240 D.8.c. regarding mature height and production of excessive fruit, nuts, or sap. Finding: SDC 3.2-240 D.8.d. states that a minimum 6-foot wide planter area shall separate and visually screen parking from living area windows and shall include a mix of ground cover, shrubbery, and trees with appropriate growth habit. Finding: The applicant has proposed a six-foot wide planter area with a mix of plantings in between the proposed building and the sidewalk adjacent to the parking area north of the building along the alley. However, given the number of proposed trees and the number of living area windows on the second and third floors of the building that overlook the parking area, the planting mix does not adequately meet the intent of this regulation to visually screen the parki!1g from living area windows. Condition 15: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall include additional trees on the landscape plans, to the extent practical, on the east and west ends of the planter area along the north side of the building to provide adequate screening of the parking area from the second- and third-story living area windows. Finding: As conditioned above, the application meets all of the Multi-Unit Design Standards of SDC 3.2-240. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 3 (SDC 5.17-125 C.) as conditioned herein. Case No. DRC2009-00029 130119 . . Criterion 4 ISDC 5.17-125 D.l 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 ODOr access management standards for State highways. Finding: The DRC, including representatives from the City's Public Works Department, L TD, and ODOT, reviewed the application, and their comments have been incorporated into the. findings and conditions below. Finding: 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.. Therefore, SDC 4.2-120 A 1. states that all developed parcels shall have an approved access to a public street or alley along the frontage of the property, a private street that connects to the public street system, or a public street by an irrevocable joint use/access easement serving the subject property. Finding: SDt 4.2-120 C..states that driveways shall be designed to allow safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2-5, the City's EDSPM, and the Public Works Standard Construction Specifications. According to Table 4.2"2, multi-family residential development must conform to a driveway minimum and maximum of 24 feet and 35'feet, respectively. . Finding: The application indicates that existing access to the subject property is currently available via three driveways onto Main Street, none of which have ODOT access permits. In an ODOT Application for State Highway Approach dated July 7, 2009, the applicant has proposed accessing the proposed development via a driveway that modifies the driveway that currently exists in the center of the subject property. This modified driveway is proposed as a 24-foot wide asphalt-paved driveway that meets City and ODOT standards. Finding: As stated in the site description on p. 3 of this staff report, the proposed development will be located on one tax lot as per the decision issued for the concurrent Property Line Adjustment Case No. SUB2009-00016. However, the driveway proposed to provide access to the development is located along the eastern boundary of Tax Lot 4800. Finding: The applicant has proposed recording an irrevocable joint use, access, and maintenance easement and agreement for the driveway to provide access to the proposed development from Main Street. Condition 16: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a draft of the joint use, access, and maintenance easement and agreement to the City of Springfield for review and approval prior to recording the easement and agreement. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan, an irrevocable joint use, access, and maintenance easement and agreement along the 24-foot wide driveway located on Tax Lot 4800 to benefit the proposed development. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.2-120 A 1. and SDC 4.2-120 C. Finding: SDC 4.2-120 A2. states that driveway access to designated State highways is subject to the requirements of the ODOT Highway Division. Finding: None of the subject property's three existing driveways are officially permitted by ODOT. Therefore, the applicant submitted an Application for State Highway Approach to ODOT on July 7, 2009 for the two driveways that are proposed to remain on the property. The applicant has not received approval as of the issuance ofthis staff report. Case No. DRC2009-00029 140119 . . Condition 17: Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall provide a copy of an approved ODOT access permit for the proposed driveway access to the proposed development. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.2-120 A.2. Finding: Constructing the proposed driveway access requires relocating the existing L TD .bus stop in the. right-of-way south of the property approximately 10 feet to the east. L TD has stated thai the applicant's representative coordinated with L TD staff in proposing the bus stop relocation, and that L TD is in agreement with the relocation. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 4 (SDC 5.17-125 D.) as conditioned herein: Criterion 51SDC 5.17-125 E.l 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 . WQL W Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic arid/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 mw .. Finding: . The Metro Plan and any applicable refi~ement plans, Water Quality Limited W1jtercourses . Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Natural Resources Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Maps, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and the list of Historic Landmark sites have been consulted, and there are no features needing to be protected or preserved on the subject property. Finding: If any historic or archaeological artifacts are discovered during construction, ORS97.740- 760, 358.905-955, and 390.235-240 may apply. If any human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class C felony to proceed under ORS 97.745. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 5 (SDC 5.17-125 E.). SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: This summary of the conditions of approval is provided as a courlesy to the applicant. The applicant should, however, carefully read the decision in its entirety to understand the basis for each condition. In addition, as stated e8rIier, the applicant must comply with the entire decision, and the Final Site Plan, including the landscape plan, as well as building plans, site development, and the installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved site plan or as conditioned herein. 1. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan the proposed five-foot wide private utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer lateral that crosses the development area to serve the building southeast of the proposed development. 2. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall provide specifications for the proposed catch basins and an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long- term mainteneance and operation of the proposed catch basins, consistent with maintenance criteria required by the manufacturer. The plan should designate maintenance responsibility for operating and maintaining the system. In addition, prior to Occupancy, the operations and maintenance plan shall be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site. 3. Prior to Occupancy, the proposed vegetative rain garden shall be fully vegetated with all plant species established to ensure a fully functioning water quality system. Alternatively, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control I water quality measures Case No. DRC2009-00029 150119 . . - acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as the vegetative swales become fully established. 4. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall add a note to the grading plan and the landscape plan that the vegetated rain garden area will be scarified/roto-tilled to remove any compaction of the soil prior to the planting of the rain garden. Aterl1atively, the area can be protected from equipment compaction silimar to tree protection areas. 5. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan a seven-foot wide Public Utility Easement from the south edge of the alley right-of-way to the proposed transformer location. - - - - - 6. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan a seven-foot wide Public Utility Easement to cover the proposed new public waterline on the property. _. - - - . '. . . 7. Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall comply with ORS 811.550(16) in moving the L TO bus steip sign and pad. - - - -. 8. Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall install the required setback and parking lot planting - areas and irrigation system as proposed on the tentative plan and as conditioned in this staff report. Nursery tags identifying variety and species shall remain on all plants until the Final Site Inspection is completed and a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 9. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall indicate how the south and east elevations will provide a uniform sight-obscuring scree-n, such as through the use of sight-obscuring fence slats or wood gates. In addition, prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall screen the trash enclosure as per the requirements of SDC 4.4-110. 10. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with sot 4.4-110 B.3.b. for the fence along the east property line of the proposed development. Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall replace the existing chain-link fence on the east property line of the proposed development in compliance with SDC 4.4-110 B.3.b. 11. Prior to Occupancy,_ all on-site lighting installed to serve the proposed development shall meet the requirements of SDC 4.5-100 regarding illumination, shielding, and height of on-site lighting. 12. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the landscape plan details shall include the planting height and size requirements of SDC 3.2-240 D.4.b., SDC 3.2-240 D.6.a., and SDC 3.2-240 D.8.d., and the planting coverage requirements of SDC 3.2-240 D.4.d. Prior to Occupancy, all landscaping shall be planted on the site as depicted on the Tentative Plan and as conditioned herein. 13. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall provide for some type of marking from the internal sidewalk to the trash enclosure across the driveway and shall provide for a safe and convenient route for persons with physical disabilities to access the trash enclosure from the proposed building in conformance with SDC 3.2-240 0.7. 14. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall include a note on the landscape plan details stating that the proposed plantings for the planter islands meet the requirements of SDC 3.2- 240 D.8.c. regarding mature height and production of excessive fruit, nuts, or sap. 15. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall include additional trees on the landscape plans, to the extent practical, on the east and west ends of the planter area along the north side Case No. DRC2009-00029 16 of 19 . . of the building to provide adequate screening of the parking area from the second- and third- . story living area windows. ' 16, Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a draft of the joint use, access, and maintenance easement and agreement to the City of Springfield for review' an'dapproval prior io recording the easement and agreement. Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall record and document on the Final Site Plan, an irrevocable joint use, access, and maintenance easement and agreement along the 24-foot wide driveway located on Tax Lot 4800 to benefit the proposed development. 17, Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the applicant shall provide a copy of an appr~ved ODOT . access permit for the proposed driveway access tei the proposed development. CONCLUSION ' ..... ." . The application, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with ihe five criteria listed in SDC 5, i 7- 125 A, through E. The site plan approved as submitted and conditioned herein may not be. substantively changed, Any changes to the approved site plan must be approved through the Site Plan Modification application process in accordance with SDC 5.17-145,. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? Final Site Plan SDC 5,17-135 A states that within 90 days of an affirmative site plan review decision, a complete Final Site Plan shall be submitted to the Development Services Department. Therefore, the,applicant has until 5:00pm on December 27, 2009 to meet the SDC standards and the conditions of approval contained herein and to submit a Final Site Plan application. Please refer to the Final Site Plan application packet available at the Development Services Department for more detailed information on the Final Site Plan application submittal requirements and review process, Please note that the Final Site Plan, including the landscape plan, as well as building plans, site development, and the installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved site plan or as conditioned herein. Therefore, the applicant may, at hislher own risk, submit construction or building plans, However, all concurrent submittals are subject to revision for compliance with the final site plan. A Development Agreement will not be issued until all plans submitted by the applicant have been revised. Conflicting plans cause delays. DeveloDment Aareement SDC 5,17-140 states that to complete the Site Plan Review process, a Development Agreement shall be prepared by the Director to be signed by the applicant. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to ensure that the terms and conditions of Site Plan Review approval are understood and binding upon both the applicant and the City, The Development Agreement and Final Site Plan approval are valid for two years from the date the Development Agreement is signed, If construction does not begin within this timeline, both the Final Site Plan and the Development Agreement shall become null and void, However, one extension, not to exceed one year may be granted by the Director upon receipt of a written request by the applicant, including an explanation of the delay, Please note that building permits will not be issued until the Development Agreement is signed by the applicant. Furthermore, no building or structure shall be occupied until all improvements are made as specified in 5.17-100, Case No, DRC2009-00029 17 of 19 . . Final Site Insoection . SDC 5.17-140 D. states that upon completion of site development, the City shall conduct a Final Site Inspection. Please call the Planner to schedule the Final Site Inspection. Upon satisfactory Final Site Inspection, final building inspections may occur, public facilities and services maY be provided,. and a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. . ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The application, all documents, and supporting evidence are available for free inspection (copies are available for a fee) at the Development Services Department. APPEAL . '.. . This gecision is considered. a . Director's Type II decision and as such, may be appealed to the Planning Commission. SDC. 5.3-115 states that only the property owner, applicant, if different, arid those persons who submitted written comments within the 14-day comment period have standing to appeal this decision. SDC 5.3-115 also states that an appeal application in accordance with 5.3-100 shall be filed with the Development Services Department within 15 calendar days of the Director's decision (the date of this decision). In accordance with this policy and the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c), the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00pm on October 13, 2009. QUESTIONS Please call Molly Markarian in the Development Services Department Planning Division at 726-4611 or email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.usif you have any questions. PREPARED BY Molly Markarian Planner II Community Planning & Revitalization Section Case No. DRC2009-{J0029 180119 APPENDIX A i I I I 1 , t , I , , I I ?:l; ~!, :<l6J? '!:-~ H~i' '-'~"'~ ;;. f. "~. Z. to -< " m m -< \l ~ ,~ " !S , . , II . BERGSUND . DELANEY . Ari:6itWn Ct PIazsi""P.C .,..0Ib0_ ~Olmcl T<l:J.lUC...., Case No. DRC2009-00029 " /,/,//./-/,/,/ .' , - !. ,. , , ____f-- ,.' I~ I id~ I "il~ , . , i 911 I "'I !' ~~ 5~ H (1 l~ ,! , ,j' ;'l~Vll)i ~ dEI" " ",!,..g 0 . ~ I" ;; ~ o~~~:: .foo :<.;~ s:: 8 g , T , I I i i'-, i'j! ltlti !l: "a' ~R~ ..---~ I " !i!i ,~ '!I! I' NT"> 000 2,n, m;::;:: me "2 0- j;:;! r ..-.... ""--" -.n.oo< _...- ~~~"'-"'-I _..--........".-...""""..-. 'H;lI;.......__..._ -~":...~~..':""':-"~. -.......--......,-- -_-.,.,-- MtHrttIUII>_....-. _"",<><Xl,,, -=~~~~~ ~~_..-.......... . 05~""i!;~ ,.~ I' "'! 1 T I I I ~ g ~ . . g 10' i, -!I I' 'II i , ! ! ,~ I ' I ' n. I ~~ I U' l I , ! I I j,'j 1! I ~! L l'~\ '~~P-:'(( ~ ~~ l~N~ . 'u~;y I ~ AFIYA APARTMENTS SITE PLAN '052 MAIN STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 NOT TO SCALE 9/16/09 SHEL. TERCARE, INC, 190119 .' . ~_._~.- CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Springfield Church of the Brethern 1072 Main Street . Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Afiya Apartments, Inc. c/o ShelterCare P.O. Box 2338 Eugene, OR 97402 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIElD,OR97477 . Ann Delaney Bergsund Delaney Architecture 1369 01ive Street Eugene, OR 97401 & Planning .". '.'., .- '! CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ., 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Virginia J. Lassen 1095 A Street Springfield,OOR 97477 ".' . " " ,.,..... ........~:.~ :,~ './'c'"