Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Building 2004-2-2 Attorneys and Counselors at Law Established 1970 Experienced Ad.'ic(' ill a COIII/'/e.,\: "(/rid.'" 200 FORUM BUILDING 777 High Street Eugene, Oregon 974()1-2782 PHONE 541686-9160 , FAX') 54~ .lames K. Coons ..Iohn G. Cox Douglas M. DuP.-iest Frank C. Gibson Stephen A. Hutchinson Thomas M. Orr William H. Shedoek E. Bradley Litchfield Patrick L. Stevens Brian M. Thompson February 2, 2004 Mr. Dave Puent City of Springfield- DevelopmentServices , Building Department 225 51h St. Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Building Permits: C0l\1~003-01178 and COM20003-01210 Our File No.: 6584/9245 Dear Mr. Puent" 6tu- firm represents Shawn Bargouti regarding the redevelopment of the vacant structure on 2251 Main Street in Springfield. I understand you spoke with Nabil Bargouti, Shawn's cousin, on January 9, 2004, regarding the mired down and increasingly expensive situation. . . Shawn Bargouti has dutifully tried to comply with the demai1ds made by the public works department over the last four months. This effort follows his application nightmare with respect to the land use approval for the site. Once he obtained MDS approval your department required him to pay approximately thirteen thousand dollars in systems development charges. Since he paid this significant expense the buildillg department continues to make demands that he comply with new building code standards, 100~g after such requirements should have been spelled out to him. The pu'i'pose of this letter is to try and finalize once and for all what the City requires from Mr. Bargouti so he can begin his business. To that end, 1 have summal'ized for you what work and analysis Mr. Bargouti will ' undertake to try and satisfy your demands: f lJ' .... :?+-~ M r. Da ve Puent February 2, 2004 Page 2 of 3 "! (1) Electrical:E-le will hire a licensed electrical contractor to certify which parts of the electl~ical system of this facility meet Electrical Code, and upgrade any items that do not; , (2) Mechanical: l-Ie will ensure veli.tilation standards are met by hiring a licensed mechanical contractor to add ventilation to the facility if necessary; (3) Structural: His engineer will examine the facility for structural soundness for the intended use. He will comply with his recommendations if any aspect of the building is substandard; (4) Fire Safety: Mr. Bargouti had previously been told by the City that fire walls are required on the West (2-Hour) and the South (I-Hour) due to insufficient setbacks from the lot lines. However, his engii1eer has found that the South Wall of the facility has a 10 foot setback from the property line, and, in addition has a 16 foot alley right-of-way that negates the requil:ement for a one-hour fire wall on the South wall. I trust that you aware of this. Thus, if structurally feasible, only the firewall on the South side will be added. (5) Plumbing: Mr. Bargouti will install restroom and water closet facilities to the extent allowed by the significant physical constraints that limit drain line accessibility. However, with respect to the proposed ADA upgrades that have been the topic of some discussion, I have reviewed the code requirements and strongly disagree that the ADA restrooms are required for this facility. The recent addition to Section 3405 -"CHANGE IN USE "states: "Unless additions or alterations are made to the facility, change in use occupancy alone shall not require compliance with the provisions of Chapter 11, Accessibility." No significant additions or alterations are proposed that would justify the great expense required re-configure and re-plumb the building for 011e or ,more ADA unisex restrooms. If you disagree with my coriclusions on the ADA issue, please direct me to any specific regulations or rulings you rely on in support of your position. In sum, Mr. Bargouti understands his responsibilities and intends to comply with electrical, mechcll1icaJ, structural, plumbing and fire safety requirements. He is moving forward on these matters and therefore respectfully requests that you remove the I-Iold that has been placed on his paving work, a project that does not affect the interior of this facility. 2 ':! Mr. Dave Puent February 2, 2004 Page 3 of 3 .". Since time remains of.the essence, I ask that you notify me no later than the close of business on February 6, 2004 regarding the removal of the stop work order, as well as your position on the ADA requirements. We also wish to schedule a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to establish a final list of work items that all parties agree to in order to ensure completion arid predictability. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, FluTCHlNSON, Cox, COONS, DUPRIEST, ORR & SHERLOCK, P.e. WHS/ cc: Client Joseph Leahy (City Attorney) , 3 .1 . I' I \ ~ .. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Notice of Decision Minimum Development Standards Date of Letter: October 9, 2003 Journal Number: DRC 2003-00044 Owner/Aoolicant: Yaser Asayed and Shawn Bargouti 12932 Winterlake Dr. Tigard, Oregon 9722,3 ProDosal: The applicant proposes to redevelop an existing unoccupied building located at 2251 Main Street (Assessor Map number17-03-36-42, Tax Lot 3100), to a restaurant! entertainment venue. The building was formerly occupied as a tack/ saddle store. The applicant states in their submittal that their intent is "to improve the interior design cosmetically and open to the publi,c as an 18 and older juice/ soda entertainment venue (sit down)", The City previously denied the applicant's proposal, MDS C;:ase No, DRC2003-00014, because the plans submitted did not satisfy the requirements of SDC 18,070, for required off-street parking within a CC Zoning District and staff could not reasonably condition the plans in order to comply with the off-street parking requirements, In order to satisfy the off-street parking requirement, the applicant is proposing to develop an unused auto repair shop and parking area at 2009 Main Street into a joint parking lot for customers, Site Information: The, propqsed site is located at the southwest corner of 23rd and Main Streets in Springfield, The site is developed with a 2,843 square foot building formerly used as a tack shop/ saddle supply store. The lot is 6,534 square feet. The site is currently accessed through 2 driveways, one on . Main Street and one on South 23rd Street. The site is currently unimproved with regard to sidewalks, street trees, and the existing paving is substandard, The p'arking spaces are not striped, The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC). ;The proposed' use is similar to those listed under SDC'18020(4), under Eating and Drinking Establishmehts, as the owner has indicated that limited food will be served, but non-alcoholic drinks and coffee, The use is allowable in ~he Cc. Zoning Disfrict. The proposed parking area at 2009 Main Street is locat~d at the southeast corner of 20th and Main Streets (Assessor's Map 17-03-36-42 Tax Lot 4300), The site is developed with an auto repair shop and paved parking lot which is vacant. The site is accessed through one driveway'on 20th,Street. The site is ' paved and improved with sidewalks and street trees and is fenced, ' . The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC). The proposed use is allowable in the CC Zoning District (SDC 18.020(2) (h)). Decision: The ",pplication request is approved with conditions. Other Uses That Mav be Authorized bv the Decision: None, Uses allowed by the SDC, but not listed on the application, are not approved and require additional site and building review proc~dures, . I lo. No. DRC 2003-00044 'I J ~ .. " . PurDose: As stated in SDG.31 :019. Minimum Development Standards (MDS) "are intended to support economic, development by minimizing' City review for minor additions, expansions or changes in use, MDS, shall ensure compliance with specific appearance; transportation safety and efficiency; and stormwater management standards specified in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) and otherwise protect public health, safety and welfare." , Written Comments , The original MDS land use application was raised to a Type II in order to provide a public comment period for surrounding proper:ty owners. Staff re~noticed all property own'ers surrounding 2251 Main Street and 2009 Main Street, St~ff received one written comment within the 14 day comment period ending October 1,2003 <:It 5:00 p,m. Thorp Purdy Jewett Urn'ess and Wilkinson Attorneys at Law 1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300 Springfield, OR 97477 Following are excerpts from the written comments (in italics) submitted by Heather Young, Attorney with Thorp Purdy Jewett Urness and Wilkinson: ' "PARKING AND SAFETY This firm .represents R6sboro Lumber Company which owns' several properties in the vicinity 2251 Main Street (the Candy Shack)~..Although the Application has'addressed many of the technical requirements set forth in the' Springfield. Development Code (SDC), Rosboro's concerns related to parking, public safety, potential vandalism, and-late night noise have not been addressed, " The parking situation is still of great concern to Rosboro. The lot which the Candy Shack has leased for parking is 2 Y2 block away to the west, People typically want to park as close to where they are going as possible... .For example, patrons may try to park on 23,d, Street which is an unimproved dirt road, or on the vacant lot directly behin'd Candy Shaek, The may also try and park next door at Main Street Muffler and Brake, None of these locations is appropriate, ,', Th,e Candy Shack's Applicatid'n is noticeably lacking in details as to how it will prevent its patrons from parking on Rosboro property., .Presumably, it is expected that Rosboro and the Muffler shop will hire someone to enforce the parking situation and tow the vehicles of Candy Shack patrons who disregard the request to park 3 blocks away... 1(1 the Candy Shack's first application, virtually no parking was provided,' In this application, parking is envisioned but is 2 Y2 blocks away. The concerns raised August 1'1, 2003 Notice of Decisions are exactly the same.. ,AS the Candy Shack's peek hours of operation will be between '8 and 11 p,m. (according to a statement submitted by Gary McKenney, PE on August' 19, 2003 with the Candy Shack's Application materials), the majority of Candy Shack's patrons will be 'walking this area at night.. If DSD considered the conditions for vehicles and pedestrians around the Candy Shack itself to' be dangerous there must be even more concern when patrons are now walking 3 blocks in the. dark,.," Staff response The applicant has sufficiently addressed the parking and safety issues according to the criteria of approval of SDC 31,010(4), The applicant has met the off-street parking requirements for i'eating and , drinkingestabli$hments" in Commercial Zoned Districts by providing 27 off street parking spaces and 4 on-street parking spaces at 2009 Main Street through the use of a joint use parking agreement and 2 handicap spaces at 2251 Main Street. The SDC does not specify a distance for joint use parking; in addition joint use parking is the only practical solution to meet the off-street parking requirements of SDC Article 18, due to the existing constraints of the site. For instance ODOT is requiring access to'2251 Main Street be closed and the City requires curb, gutter sidewalks and planting strip to be installed along Main Street frontage which limits off~street parking to 2 spaces. Given the square footage of the existing building and the resulting square footage for parking, no commercial use permitted by Article 18 would Jo, No, DRC 2003"00044. ' 2 .. meet the off-~treet parking requirements., In the original land use decision staff suggested the use bf joint use parking but thought it impractic.al since Rosboro owned most of the surrounding property, The City'S Traffic Engin~erhas reviewed the proposal for safety andconcluded'that the sidewalk along. the ,south side of Main Street provides for safe' and efficient pedestrian travel between the development site flnd the off-site parking lot since there. is a continuous lighted sidewalk along Main Street to the site, and will include newly installed sidewalks fronting the development. ' Since parking ,is a concern to the City, applicant and surrounding property owners staff have conditioned the proposal that reuqires the applicant post signs at 2251 Main Street and 2009 Main Street to assist patrons in locating the joint use parking lot and to prevent patrons from parking on nearby property, To . address safety concerns, the applicant is also required to post signs on the building along 23rd Street to prevent patrons from parking on the paved area of the site along 23rd Street. Although signage is not a criteria for MDS approval;,the applicant has expressed a desire to address the concerns of surrounding property owners and staff have determined signage, is necessary, Since the peak hours of operation are from 8-11 :00 p,m, in the evening staff is requiring that all signs posted be illuminated. See pages 6-7 for parking requirements: . Staff considered requiring the appiicant.to post ",No Parking Tow Away Zone" signs along 23rd Street right- of-way, but this approach wbuld impact all surrounding property owners and it is normally the practice of the Public Works Department to post No Parking signs in right-of-way only at the request of a majority of property owners. Written Comment "POTENTIAL VANDALISM- Rosboro owns most of the properties in the Vicinity ofthe Candy Shack, This includes the property adjacent to the lot which the Candy Shack proposes to use for its parking' (the Adjacent Lot) , ,.Rosboro is Ve'Fy concerned about potential van,dalism by Candy Shack patrons out late at night, walking from the parking lot to the Candy Shack,.. ' ,There is an alley that runs between Main Street and South A Street in the vicinity of the Candy Shack, It , is likely that,the Candy Shack patrons will utilize this alley to travel to and from the parking lot. Rosboro is concerned about the 'vacant lot behind Candy Shack, whIch lies along the alley. The lot is undeveloped and has grass growing on it. When the grass is dry, it could easily catch fire if exposed 'to cigarette butts thrown on the ground by Candy Shack patrons on their way to and from the parking lot" .Rosboro stores. valuable logs on the manufacturing site and is very concerned about fire danger and vandalism there as well,'" " Staff Response , ' Staff is 'only able to approve or deny a land use decision based on the criteria of approval stated in the Springfield Development, Code. The use proposed by the applicant is permitted and staff have conditioned the development proposal to comply with the MDS criteria of approval SDC 31,010(4) (e) through (h), Staff cannot deny an application based on the assumption that patrons will cause vandalism t6 surrounding. property, The alley running between the proposed parking area and business is unimproved with no paving or lighting, It is more likely patrons will use the sidewalk along Main Street which is provided with street lighting, " Written'Cominent "LA TE NIGHT NOISE As submitted in Rosboro's previous testimony, Rosboro Qwns a single~familyresidence to the West of the Candy Shack, There is ~urrently no type of sound barrier between the two properties' and nd sound barrier has been proposed in the latest Application" ,he is very concerned about the potential for late , night noise and vandalism: " .' , lo. No. DRC 2003-00044 3 .; ,;.'-, Staff Response Rosboro's property to the west of the proposed development is zoned Community Commercial. Although the property is zoned commercial, the use on the property is less intensive than the proposed use at 2251 Main Street. Therefore staff, have conditioned the, application has been conditioned to provide landscaping in the planting area abutting the property to the west of the site, in order to buffer noise and provide screening, ' , . .'... ' IIi addition, Rosboro may install a fence on their property according to the fence standards of SDC 18.100 " to address the concerns of their tenant. ' Criteria of ADDroval:SDC 31.010(4) (a) through (h) In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall , determine compliance with all applicable standards specified below: a) A five-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or . approved drought resistant plants as specified in SDC Sections 31.130, 31.140 and 32.050 shall be installed between the s,idewalk and parking areas or buUdings. The site is.accessed from Main street through a 40-foot wide driveway, The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is requiring the applicant to close this driveway. Following the driveway closure, there wilL be space' for the applicant to provide a 7 -foot curbside sidewalk and adjacent 5 foot landscape ,strip with street trees, as stipulated in the Criteria 1 of the MDS standards. The plans submitted indicate the 40-foot driveway along Main Street will be closed and replaced with new curb, gutter, sidewalks and a 5:'foot wide planter strip, along the street frontage and parking area, planted with one street tree. The plans however do not indicate the type or amount of landscaping that will be installed in the planter strip, SDC 31,130, landscape screening standards apply to development to ens,ure that proposed uses are adequately screened' from less intensive development.' The property to the west of the site is zoned Community Commercial, and is developed with a single family residence. In order to screen the single family residence from the' proposed development, staff is requiring the applicant provide screening along , the western property line the 9istance of the planting area. Staff recommends the applicant either plant the proposed planter strip along the western property line with evergreen shrubs which will grow to form a continuous hedge or install a 6-foot high fence. The fence shall me non-metallic and subtle in color to blend with surrounding vegetation, per SDC31.160(2)(c). Since immediate screening is necessary, landscaping shall meet the 6-foot height requirement for screening per SDC31 ,160(2), The screening shall be setback 10-feet from the front property line. South 23rd Street is a'dirt-surfaced roadway lacking site amenities such as sidewalks or street trees, The , site's' access onto South 23rd Street encompasses almost the entire length of the easterly side of the property, Because of the, dimensions of the lot and the building location, it is not practical for the applicant to improve the frontage along South 23rd Street with curb, gutter," sidewalk, planter strip, or 'street trees, SDC 31.110(4) exceptions states that wh~re there is insufficient space fo'r landscaped strip landscaping equivalent to the amount required in Subsection 4(a) of this section may be placed at the property corners or other are~s visible from the street. Since 23rd Street is not being improved with a planter strip, the applicant shall provide equivalent landscaping in the proposed planting areas to comply with MDS criteria 4(a), . The site at 2009 street is accessed from a 20 foot driveway fro~ 20th Stre,et. The site fronting Main Street has sidewalks and is planted with 2 street trees, The site is fenced the entire 'length of Main Street with a decorative wrought iron fence, The existing planter on the corner of Main and 20th Street is not planted and therefore will be conditioned to comply with MDS planting requirements. Findings: , " . 1. The northerly propefty line of the site has 64 feet fronting on Main Street, and there are street trees and sidewalks on adjacent properties directly west of the subject site. ., ' la, No. DRC 2003-0rJoiJ 4 .. .. 2. The applicant is being required as part of this application, to close the driveway fronting Main Street. 3. The applicant has' proposed to close .the driveway along Main Street and install curb, gutter, sidewalks and a 5-fobt wideplanter strip along the street frontage and parking area, planted with one street tree. ' . 4. According to SDC 32.050(2), the applicant is required to provide one street tree, because of the site's proximity to the 2;td Street intersection. ' , 5. SDC 32,050(2) requires' street trees spaced at 30-foot intervals, and MDS, Criteria of Approval 1 requires that a 5-(00t landscaped strip, with approved irrigation be installed between the sidewalk and pavement areas or buildings, 6, SDC31, 140 (2) requires ten shrubs, five gallons or larger per every 1000 square feet of required planting area. , . .' . 7. Given the condition of the 23rd Street frontage, it is not possible for the applicant to provide a planter strip and street trees along the east side of the subject site. , ' 8, The applicant can provide equivalent landscaping that would have been required along 23,d Street within the existing planting areas shown on their site plan. 9. SDC 31,130 required development to install screening to protect less intensive development. Screening installed shall comply with screening standards per SDC 31, 160. 10, The existing planter strip at the corner of 20th and Main Street shall be planted with drought tolerant shrubs per SDC 32,110(4) (a) that comply with planting standards of SDC 31.140 and vision clearance standards, . 11,SDC 32.070 states, all corner lots must maintain a 25 foot vision clearance triangle at street intersections and 10-feet for all driveways, Except for items associated with utilities and existing street -trees, no screen or physical obstructions shall be permitted between 2' Y2 and 8 feet above the height of the curb. Condition: , 1. The applicant shall install one street tree chosen from the City's approved street tree list contained in SDC 32,050. ' 'The tree must be planted at least 35 feet west of the South 23rd Street intersection. 2. The applicant shall install at least 8 shrubs, 5 gallons in size, in the proposed planting area at 2251 Main Street, The plants must be drought tolerant since an irrigation system is not proposed, 3, The applicant shall install at least 2 shrubs in the existing planter at 20th and Main Street to comply with 31. 110(4)(a), , . 4. The applicant shall install structural or vegetative screening along the western property line, the distance of the proposed planter strip, which complies with screening standards per SDC 31,160and 10-foot setback standards of Article 18, ' 5, The apglicant shall maintain a 25-foot vision clearance triangle at the corner of 23rd and Main Street and 20h and Main Street and a 10-foot vision clearance at all driveway entrances., b) Trash receptaCles and outdoor storage areas shall, be screened by a structure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as specified in SDC Section 31.160. ' On the submitted, site plan, the applicant has illustrated a trash enclosure to the south of the existing building connected to the sanitary system, Public Works standards provide that trash receptacle areas must ~e covered and have separate drainage basins connected to the sanitary sewer. Findings: 12. SDC 3.1.160 requires that trash receptacles be screened by a structure or e(lclosure permanently affixed to the ground. 13, On the submitted site plan, the applicant has shown a trash receptacle and has indicated that it will be screened with a slatted fence. 14, The City's Civil Engineer has determined that a floor drain heeds to be placed in the trash enclosure and connected to the sanitary sewer. Conditions: 6. In accordance with SDC 31.160, the applicant shall screen the trash receptacle by a slatted fence, so that it is screened (rom all public rights of way and view from adjacent properties, 10, No, DRC 2003-00044 5 " ..' , , 7. The applicarit shall provide a connection, to the sanitary sewer to keep organics and other pollutants out of stormwater discharges. The trash receptacle area must be covered and be provided with a drainage basin isolat~d from adjacent areas, ' c) Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use or upgraded to meet the standards set in SDC Sections 31.210 and 31.220. SDC 31.220 contains the minimum required bicycle parking spaces per type of development proposed, The applicant's proposed use is considered an "Eating and Drinking Establishment", which requires 1 space per .each 600 square feet of floor area, Twenty-five percent of these spaces can be short term, and ;75% are required to be long term. Long term spaces are required to be sheltered from precipitation, The existing structure is 2,843 square feet. One space per 600 square feet of floor area is equal to 4.7 spaces, and the SDC provides that this must be rounded up to the nearest highest number: In accordance with the requirements of SDC 31.210 and 31,220, the applicant is required to provide a total of 5 bicycle parking spaces, 4 of these may be short term and 1 may be long term, 'The' applicant has shown five bicycle parking on the east side of the building along 23rdStreet. The bicycle parking will be covered by the eaves of the existing building which complies with long term bicycle parking standards. Staff recommends that the applican.t provide lighting according to SDC 31,to illuminate the bicycle parking area and improve visibility since no street lighting exists along 23rd Street. . ' . Findings: , ,,' . , . 8, In accordance with the requirements of SDC 31.210 and sac 31.220, the applicant is required to provide a total of 4 short term and one long term bicycle parking space, ' 9, The applicant has shown five bicycle parking spaces on the east side of the existing building along 23rci Street therefore the plans comply with 31,010(4)(c), . , . d) Parking and circulation areas.shall be paved and striped and wheel stops installed as specified in SDC Sections 31.170 and 31.190. Required paving arid other impervious surfaces on the site shall comply with on-site stormwater management standards as specified in SDC Section 32.110. PARKING ISSUES The existing building at 2255 Main street is 2,843 squa're feet. The proposed use is considered an "Eating and Drinkfng Establishment", as listed in SDC 18,070, SDC 18070(5) provides that "Eating and Drinking Establishments"require 1 parking space per 1 00 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the square footage of the existing structure, the parking requirements for the proposed use are 28.4 parking spaces, The SDC stipulates that where a fraction results, the required parking is rounded up to the next whole number, or 29 parking spaces. The original MQS application submitted was denied because "the applicant can not satisfy the requirements of SDC 18,070, for required off-street parking within a CC Zoning District. SDC 18070(5) stipulates that "Eating and Drinking Establishments" require 1 parking space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the square footage of the existing structure, the SDC requires 29 parking spaces. Because of the size of the existing structure and its location abutting an unin;1proved dirt roadway, it is not possible for the applicant to develop the property as a restaurant without compromising public safety and welfare." On the original application the Transportation Planning Engineer determined that none of the spaces shown facing Main Street were operational, given that ODOr is requiring the applicant's Main Street driveway be closed, and backup and maneuvering room is limited or nonexistent. Additionally, none of the proposed spaces along the east side of the building would have the adequate backup room to maneuver on-site and exit the site without backing onto South 23rd Street which is an unimproved street. Jo, No. DRC 2003-00044 6 . The size of thE! development site, combined with the. size and parking limitations on 23rd Street ,and position ofthe existing buildinc? severely limit opportunities to 'create viable on-site parking spaces that would be accessible from 23r, Street. As the site exists today,. any permitted commercial use listed 'in SDC 18.020 would not be able to ,satisfy the off-street parking requirements of SDC 18,070 unless the building square footage w~s reduced, Due to the constraints of the site a reasonable alternative is to provide joint parking as proposed by the applicant. The applicant has submitted a lease agreement for 2009 Main Street for parking purposes, The current site is vacant therefore there will be no conflicts in hours of operation. The sidewalk along the south side of Main Street provides for safe and efficient pedestrian travel between the development site and the off-site parking lot. Since the proposed joint use parking is not directly abutting the site staff and the applicant have discussed strategies to prevent possible spill over parking at 2251 Main Street. The applicant has proposed posting "No Parking" signs on the building fayade facing 23rd Street. Staff is suggesting that the applicant also post signs at 2251 Main Street that give patrons directions to the joint parking lot at 2009 Main Street and post patron parking signs at 2009 Main Street. , , The applicant has proposed to provide two (2) 9' x 18' required accessible parking spaces with aisle at 2251 Main Street and will provide ,the remaining required 29 parking spaces at 2009 Main Street, approximately 3 blocks west of the site, The applicant is proposing to provide 20 standard parking spaces and 6 compact parking space~and 4 on-street parking spaces, which fulfills 2 of the required parking spaces,' for a total of 29 parking spaces. In order to p~ovide the 27 parking spaces at 2009 Main Street, the applicant will have to remove the existing canopy and island on the site as proposed, SDC 31.170(6) states that "parking spaces in a public right-of-way directly abutting the development area may be counted as fulfilling a part of the parking requirements for a development. For every 18 feet of available on~street parking, there will be ~ space crediUoward the required amount of off-street parking spaces. The developer will be responsible for marking any on street parking spaces." The plans submitted dO,not show wheel stops for parking spaces abutting the, existing building at 2009 and for the 2 accessible parking spaces at 2251 Main Street as required by SDC 31.190(3), Findings: 10, In accordance with the parking requirements of SDC 18, the applicant is required to provide' a total of 29 parking spaces, " 11. Due to space limitations and requirements such as a sidewalk and planter strip along the Main Street , access which is. to qe Closed, joint use parking is a reasonable alternative to, meet the parking requirements, 12, Per SDC 31.170(5) The Director may authorize the joint use of parking .facilities provided the applicant can demonstrate there is no conflict in the principal operating hours and the parties concerned shall provide evidence of agreement for such joint parking bya legal instrument, ' 13, The applicant is proposing to provide 29 required parking spaces by a joint use parking agreement and has submitted the required materials, ' 14. The applicantis propping to provide 8 compact parking spaces which compiies with SDC 31.190(7): 15. The applicant is proposing to provide 2 accessii:>le parking spaces at 2251 Main Street with sign age and striping that complies with SDC 31.190(8), 16, The applicant's plans do not show wheel stops for parking spaces abutting the building at 2009 Main or for the 2 accessible parking spaces abutting the planting area at 2251 Main Street as required by $DC 31,190(3), 17. Per SDC,31, 190 (5) All spaces shall be permanently and. clearly marked, 18, The Suppleme,ntal parking study submitted by Access Engineering states that the peak hours of operation are expected to be from 8-11 p,m, 19, As conditioned below, the plans comply with parking requirement of SDC Article 18 and SDC Article 31, . Conditions: 8, . In accordancewith SDC31, 190 (5), the applicant shall stripe all parking spaces at each site. lo, No. DRC 2003-0004.4 7 9, In accordance with SDC 31.190 '(3), the applicant shall install wheel stops for parking spaces fronting the existing structure at 2009 Main Street and for the 2 accessible parking spaces .at 2251 Main Street. 10, The applicant shall post No Parking signs on the far;ade of the building facing 23m Street. . 11. The applicant shall post patron parking signs at 2009 Main Street and post directional signs at 2251 Main Street for joint parking location, ' 12. The applicant shall illuminate the "No Parking" and directional sign to th,e joint parking area at 2251 Main Street and the "Patron Parking Signs" at 2009 Main Street since the peak hours of operation are expected to be from 8-11:00 p,m, in the evening. STORM DRAINAGE The plans submitted indicate the applicant will replace the existing area drain now within the proposed plating strip, with a new area drain installed in the parking lot at 2251 Main Street. The area drain will be hooked up to the City's storm drain system. The plans submitted for 2009 Main Street do not show a stormwater management plan as required by SDC 32.110(5), The Engineering Design Manual requires the installation of double-chamber~d catch basins to treat runoff from the parking lot. Findings: 13, " SDC 32, 110(5) requires a development 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, which minimize the amount and.rate of surface water run iJff into receiving streams including the prevention of water flowing from the roadway in an uncontrolled fashion. Public Works Staff finds the site plq.n allows storm water to flow onto the roadway in an uncontrolled fashion. 14, In addition, SDC 32.110(5) requires a development to' employ drainage management practices to alleviate future costs oftreating the piped discharge, and to promote water quality. 15, Pollutants of concern are: heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, aluminum,. manganese, iron andzinc,), toxic organics, nutrients (primarily nitrates and phosphorus), pesticides, and other organics such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), salts, total suspended solids (turbidity), microorganisms (bacteria and viruses) and temperature. 16, The applicant has proposed to remove the existing area drain and replace with a new area drain in the parking area, . 17, Public Works requires the installation of a double-chamber catch basin instead of an area drain as shown on the plans per SDC pet SDC 32.110, , ' 18, The applicant does not show stormwater management plan for parking area at 2009 Main Street as requir~d by SDC 32.110(5), Condition: 13. In accordance with the requirements of SDC '32,110, the applicant shall install a double- chambered catch basin to treat runoff from the parking lot that complies with the requirements of , the Public Works Engineering Design Standards. " 14. The applicant shall show stormwater management plan for 20Q9 Main Street t~at complies with " Public Works.Engineering Design manual per SDC 32.110(5). e) Access onto the publicright~of-way shall comply with SDC Se,ction 32.080. The easterly pro'perty line of the site abuts 23rd Street, which isan unimproved dirt~surfaced roadway and . ,lacks curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees, The frontage' on 23rd Street does not have a formal , driveway: . , Concerning access to Main Street, SDC 32,080(1) (c) states, "Access to designated State Highways shall be subject to the provisions of this Article in addition to the requirements of the Highway Division, Oregon Department of Transportation," ODOT denies access from Main Street to th.e site, Jo. No. DRC 2003-00044 8 . ~ Further, SDC. 32.080(2) (a) prescribes, "Driveway access to arterial and collector streets may be permitted if no reasonable alternative street access exists, .." However, Main Street is designated a major arterial, and the site has access to and from South 23rd Street.. ' According to SDC 32.080, Access and Driveway Standards, the access onto 23rd Street is required to be a minimum of 24 feet and a maximum of 35 feet. Because of the site restrictions, there is no alternative to providing a driveway which meets the standards of the SDC, In addition, if the access to 23rd Street was improved, the applicant would not be able to providl7 any parking on site. Findings: ' , ..' " , 15, The applicant proposes to provide site access at via a '24-foot driveway onto South 2Jti Street along the east side of the property. . . 16. SDC 32,080(3) requires that driveways serving two-way traffic in commerCial districts be a minimum of 24 feet and a maximum of 35 feet wide. f) Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the site abuts a'curb and gutter street as specified in SDC Section 32.040. ; As discussed previously, ODOT is requiring the applicant to close the Main Street access, in which the applicant is required to, provide a new curb, gutter, and sidewalk, The site is currently developed with a substandard sidewalk and planter strip. South 23rd Street is an unimproved dirt-surfaced roadway, with no curbs, gutters,' sidewalks, or street lighting, and as such, rio street trees are required along the east side of the property, ' Findings: 17. ODOT is requiring the closure of the applicant's Main Street driveway, '.1(hich will provide space for a , sidewalk constructed'to the standards in the SDC, .. ' 18. South 23,d Street is not improved with curb and gutter, and as such, the applicant is not required to provide sidewalks along th,eir frontage. ' 19. The applicant has proposed a 7 foot sidewalk along the north. property line of the property fronting Main Street. 20, The applicant's proposal complies with SDC 31.110 (t). g) Streetlights shall be installed as specified in SDC Section 32.060. Findings: 21, Main Street in the vicinity of the subject site has street lights in accordance with SDC 32,060. 22, The Transportation Division has not requested street lights on South 23rd Street at this time, or an Improvement Agreement for the improvement of South'23rd Street, 23, An Improvement Agreement may be requested at a future date fora separate development proposal, ' . ' . h) The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 32.100 through 32.120 of this Code and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 32.120(5) of this Code. The applicant did not turn in information regarding the state of the existing building; however the City Building Official has suggested that the applicant retain a licensed, bonded engineer or contractor to investigate the integrity of the structure for the proposed use, Because the occupancy rating will change, 'there will likely be other requirements of the applicant for bringing the building up to State and Springfield Building Safety Codes, which will be ascertained at the time of building plan submittal. The current building is connected to public utilities, Findings: 24, The existing building is conneqted to public utilities, Jo, No, DRC 2003-00044 9 :..; . .. 25, The City Building Official has suggested to the applicant that they retain a licensed, bonded contractor or engineer to ascertain the possible requirements for building occupancy. Timelines and Conditions of Approval: The property owner and/or applicant has 30 days from the date of this decision to submit a Final Plot Plan demonstrating compliance with the following Conditions of Approval: Conditions of Aooroval: 1., The applicant shall install one street tree'chosen from the City's approved street tree list contained in SDC 32.050. The tree must be planted at least 35 feet west of the South 23rd Street intersection. 2. The applicantshall install at least 8 shrubs, 5 gallons in size, in the proposed planting area at 2251 Main Street. The plants must be drought tolerant since an irrigation system is not proposed, 3, The applicant shall install. at least 2 shrubs in'the existing planter at 2dh and Main Street to comply with 31. 110(4)(a). 4, The applicant shall install structural or vegetative screening along the western property line, the distance of the proposed planter strip, which complies with screening standards per SDC 31. 160and 1 O-foot setback standards of Article 18. 5,' The applicant shall maintain a 25-foot vision clearance triangle at the corner of 23rd and Main Street and 2(jh and Main Street and a 10-foot vision clearance at all driveway entrances, 6, In accordance with-SDC 31.160, the applicant shall screen the trash receptacle by a slatted fence, so that it is screened from all public rights of way and view from adjacent properties, 7,' The applicant shall provide a connection to the sanitary sewer to keep organics and other pollutants out of stormwater discharges. The trash receptacle area must be covered and be provided with a . drainage basin isolated from adjacent areas, , 8, In accordance with SDC31.190 (5), the applicant shall stripe all parking spaces at each site, 9. In accordance with SDC 31,190 (3), the applicant shall install wheel stops for parking spaces fronting the existing structure at 2009 Main Street and for the 2 accessible parking spaces at 2251 Main Sifeet. . 10, The applicant shall post No Parking signs on the fac;ade of the building facing 23rd Street, 11. The applicant shall post patron parking signs at 2009 Main Street and post directional signs at 2251 Main Street for joint parking location, ' 12. The applicant shall illuminate the "No, Parking" and directional sign to the joint parking area at 2251 Main Street and the "Patron Parking Signs" at 2009 Main Street since the peak hours of operation are expected to be from 8-11:00 p.rn. in the evening, 13. In accordance with SDC 31.190 (3), the applicant shall install wheel stops for parking spaces fronting , the existing structure at 2009.Main Street and for the 2 accessible parking spaces at 2251 Main Street. , , . 14, The applicant shall post No Parking signs on the fac;ade of the building facing 23rd Street. In order to complete the review process, a Development Agreement is required within 45 days from the date of this deCision to ensure the terms and conditions of this application are binding upon both the applicant and the City, This agreement will be prepared by Staff and upon approval of the Final Plot Plan, must be signed by the property owner prior'to issuance of a building permit. THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING PLANS TO OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SDC 31,080 AT THEIR OWN RISK, ALL CONCURRENT SUBMITTALS ARE SUBJECT TO REVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINAL PLOT PLAN. A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SDC 31~090WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN REVISED, CONFLICTING PLANS CAUSE DELAYS. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 90 days of the date of this decision, If the established time line cannot be met, the applicant may' submit a written request for a time line extension as specified in SDC Section 31.010(5) (b). Jo, No, DRC 2003-00044 10 .' '~ ~ * The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction time line due to situations ,including but not limited to, required permits from .the City or other agencies, weather conditions and the unavailability of asphalt or the unavailability of street trees, Ifthe time extension is allowed, security shall be provided as specified in SDC Section 31,110 of this Article, The time line extension shall not exceed 90 days, If the established time line is not met and the applicant has not requested an extension, the Director shall declare the application null ,and void if the property is occupied and the property owner shall be considered in violation of this Code. If the established time line is not met and the applicant has requested an extension and that time line has not been met, the Director may require the improvements be installed as specified inSDC Section 31,110(4), 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 Developr:nent Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, ' Aooeals: Aooeals: Normally, this Type I decision is exempt from the provisions of ORS 197,195, 197.763 and 227.173 and therefore cannot be subject to the appeal provisions of SDC, However, because the City elevated this application to a Type II application, the applicant may Appeal in accordance with SDC Article 15, Appeals, The application is $250 and is due by 5:00 p,m. October 21 st. Questions: Please call Kay Bork in the Planning Division of the Development Services [)epartment at . (541) 726-3784 if you have any questions regarding this process, \. . lo, No, DRC 2003~00044 11 , t j.~ .; ..~ ..... ~ .. , Notice of Decision-Minimum Development Standards , ' Date of letter: April I, 2003 lournal Number: DRC 2003-00014 Owner: Yaser Asayed 12932 Winterlake Dr. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Aoolicant: Kiana Keiser 609 E. 16th Street, Apt. 3 Eugene, OR 9740 I Prooosal: The applicant 'proposes to redevelop an exi~ting unoccupied building located at 2251 Main Street (Assessor Map number 17-03-36-42, Tax Lot 3100), to a restaurant! entertainment venue. The building was formerly occupied as a tack! saddle store. The applicant states in their submittal that their intent is "to improve the interior design cosmetically and open to the public as an 18 and older juice/ soda enterta.inmentvenue (sit down)". Process: The applicants applied for development approval after neighboring property owners reported that work was going on at the property and within the existing structure. Because the' application involves a change of use! thea:pplicant was instructed, to apply for necessary building and planning permits in ofder to legally operate ~heir proposed use. This Minimum Development Standards (MDS) review is a necessary requirement for the planning process, but does not cover any possible requirements of future building permits. Springfield Development Code (SDC) 31.0 I 0(2)(3.)(1:).) states, . "MDS. shall apply within commercial, industrial, and public land zoning districts only, where there is a change in use of a building or property." . The Director, under SDC 31.0 10(3)(a) has the authority to elevate the MDS application to a Type II application, whereby the neighboring property owners are notified of the development proposal. Because this proposal came to the Department's attention due to complaints from the neighbors, this application has been elevated to a Type II proposal. The neighboring property owners and residents were notified and allowed an opportunity for written comment on the application by a specified date and tinie, The City, received 2 written comments by the 5:00 p.m. April 2, 2003, deadline. Because the letters are lengthy, comments relevant; to SDC criteria of approval for MDS are included where , applicable. Written testimony in its entirety is attached to this report. Site Information: ,The site is located at the southwest corner of 23rd and Main Streets in Springfield. The site is developed with a 2,843 square foot building formerly used as a tack shop! saddle supply store. The lot is 6,534 square feet. The site is currently accessed through 2 dr:iveways, o,ne on Main Street and one on South 23rd Street. The site is currently unimproved with regard to sidewalks, street trees, and the existing paving is substandard. The parking spaces are not striped. There is some question as to whether the parking spaces adjacent to South 23rd Street are actually on the subject property, qr, within the City right of way; however this cannot be determined without a comprehensive survey of the property. . , Jo, No. DRC 2003"00014, CandyShack 1 '..; " -- The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC). The proposed use is similar to those listed under SDC 18020(4), under Eating and Drinking Establishments, as the owner has indicated that limited food will be served, but non-alcoholic drinks and coffee. The use is allowable in the CC Zoning District. ' Decision: The application request is denied. The applicant can not satisfy the requirements of SDC 18.070, for required off-street parking within a CC Zoning District. SDC 18070(5) stipulates that "Eating and Drinking: Establishments" require I parking space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the square footage of the existing structure, the SDC requires 29 parking spaces. Because of the size of the existing structure and its location abut,ting an unimproved dirt roadway, it is not possible for the applicant to develop the property as a restaurant without compromising' public safety and welfare. Although the application is being denied as it cannot be conditioned to facilitate traffic safety, the City has reviewed the application and provided comments and conditions for applicable MDScriteria, to give the owner/applicant an idea of possible requirements for. a future development application on the site. This report may be useful in future redevelopment of the subject property. . Other Uses That May 'be Authorized by the Decision: None. Uses allowed by the SDC, but not . listed on the application! are not ;:ipproved and require additional site and building review procedures. Puroose; As stated in SDC 31.010, Minimum Development Standards (MDS), "are intended to support economic development by minimizing City review for minor additions, expansions or changes in use. MDS shall ensure compliance with specific appearance; transportation safety and efficiency; and stormwater management standards specified in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) and otherwise protect public health, safety and welfare." Criteria of Aooroval: In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall determine c()mpliance with all applicable standards specified below: !' I) A five-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or approved drought resistant plants as specified in SDC Sections 31.130, 31.140 and 32.050 shall be installed between the sidewalk and parking areas or buildings. , ,\ Directly west of the site, the adjacent property which fronts on Main Street has curbside sidewalks and street trees, and is developed with a single family residence.' The site is accessed from Main Street through a 40~foot wide driveway. The Oregon Departm~ntof Transportation (ODOT), is requiring the applicant to close this driveway. Following the driveway c1osure;there will be space for the applicant to provi'de a 7-foot curbside sidewalk and adjacent 5 foot landscape strip with street trees, as stipulated in the Criteria I of the MDS sta,ridards. ' , The applicant states in the application that they would like an exception. to the street tree requirement of 32.050. SDC32.050(2) provides, "Except where there are physical. restrictions; street trees shall be spaced at 30~foot intervals. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 35 feet from the perpendicular curb line of intersections of streets, nor within 5 feet of alleys, private driveways or fire hydrants." The SDC also provides that street trees shall not be planted closer than 35 feet from the perpendicular curb line of intersections of streets. Because of the nearby 23rd Street intersection; the applicant is required to only plant o~ly one tree along Main Street. ' lo, No, DRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack 2 ~ .. III South 23rd Street is a dirt-surfaced roadway lacking site amenities such as sidewalks or street trees. The site's access onto South 23rd Street encompasses almost the entire length of the easterly side of the property. Because of the dimensions of the lot and the building location, it is not practical for the applicant to improve the frontage along So~th 23rd Street with curb, gutter, sidewalk, planter strip, or street trees. Findings: , . I. The northerly property line of the site has 64 feet fronting on Main Street, and there are street trees and sidewalks on adjacent properties direaly west of the subjea site. 2.. SDC 32.050(2) requires street trees spaced at 30-foot intervals, and MDS Criteria of Approval I requires that a 5-foot landscaped strip, with approved irrigation be' installed between the sidewalk and pavement areas or buildings. 3., The applicant is being required as part of this application, to close the driveway fronting Main Street 4. According to SDt 32.050(2), the applicant is required to provide one street tree, because of the site's proximity to the 23rd Street interseaion. 5, Given the condition of the 23rd Street frontage, it is not possible for the applicant to provide a planter strip and street trees along the east side of the subjea site. Condition: I. The applicant shall provide I (one) street tree along the property's Main Street frontage, chosen from the City's approved street tree list contained in SDC 32.050. The tree must be planted at least 35 feet west of the South 23rd Street interseaion. 2) Trashrecep.tacles and o.utdoor storage areas shall be screened by a structure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as specified in SDC Section 31.160. On the submitted site plan, the applicant has illustrated a trash enclosure to the south of the existing building, and states in the narrative that it will be screened with a slatted fence. Public Works standards provide that trash receptacle areas must be covered and have separate drainage basins connected to the sanitary sewer. ' Findings: ,6. SDC 31./60 requires that trash receptacles be screened by a struaure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground. 7. On the 'submitted site plan, the applicant has shown a trash recep~acle and has indicated that it will be screened with a slatted fence. ',' 8. The City's Civil Engineer has determined that a ffoor drain needs to be placed in the trash enclosure and conneaed to the sanitary sewer. 9. As designed, the site plan does not provide adequate provisions for the drainage from the trash enclosure to the sanitary sewer. Conditions: '2. In accordance. with SDC 31./60, the applicant shall screen the trash receptacle by a slatted fence, so that it is screened from all public rights of way and view from adja~ent properties. 3. The applicant shall provide a conneaion to the sanitary sewer to keep organics and other pollutants out of stormwater discharges: Jhe trash receptacle area must be covered and be provided with a drainage basin isolated from adjacent areas. . . '3) Bicycle parking spaces shall be added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use or upgraded to meet the standards set in SDC Sections 31.210 and 31.220. Jo, No, DRC 20.0.3-0.0.0.14, Candy Shack 3' .. c: The applicant has not shown any bicycle' parking on their 'submitted site plan, and is requesting an exception' for. the requirements of SDC 31.210 and 31.220 "due to type and location of business". Currently, there is no bicycle parking is not currently provided on the site. The intent of the bicycle parking standards in the SDC is to' encourage the use of bicycles by providing safe and convenient places to park bicycles for, both cu~tomers and for employees. Restaurants/ bars are not exempt from bicycle parking stand~rds, and as part of a 2004/2005 ODOT preservation project for State Highway 126 (Main Street), bicycle lanes will.be striped on both sides of Main Street for the entire length through the City, which will create a safer route to the property. , , Staff received written' testimony from Heather Young, attorney with Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness & ' Wilkinson, PC, 1011 Harlow Road, Suite 300, Springfield, OR 97477, regarding bicycle parking, as . follows: "The SDC provides that the Director may reduce the amount of required bicycle parking spaces, : 'if the Director determines that a reduction in the amount of required spaces will not have an adverse impact ~n public safety. Here, there is already insufficient parking for vehicles. If the alternative 'of bicycle parking is not provided, there will be even more vehicles trying to park in a small, congested area. This will definitely affect public safety. The requirement of bicycle parking should not be reduced or waived." Staff agrees with Ms. Young's comments, and cannot fin~ reason to waive the required bicycle parking, particularly in light of the lack of vehicle parking spaces on the site, and the City's responsibility to ,encourage and facilitate, \:>icycle use. ' SDC 31.220 contains the minimum required bicycle parking spaces per type of development proposed. The applicant's proposed use is considered an "Eating and Drinking Establishment", which requires I space per each 600 square feet of floor area. Twenty-five percent of these spaces can be short term, , and 75% are required ,to be long term. Long term spaces are required to be sheltered from precipitation. The existing structure is 2,843 square feet. One space per 600 square feet of floor area is equal to 4.7 spaces; and the SDC provides that this must be rounded up to the nearest highest number. In accordance with the requirements of SDC 31.210 and 31.220, the applicant' is required to provide a total of 5' bicycle parking spaces, 4 ofthese may be short term and I may be long term. Findings: 10. The applicant has not shown bicycle parking on their submittal and further, is. requesting an exception to the requirements of bicycle parking~ There is no' existing bicycle parking currently on, site. . ' II. The intent of the bicycle parking standards is to encourage and facilitate bicycle use Citywide.. The type and location of the proposed use warrant the inclusion of bicycle parking, . for both patrons and employees, particularly in light of the shortage of vehicle parking spaces on th~siie. ' 12. In accordance with the requirements ofSDC ] 1.210 and SDC ] 1.220, the applicant is required to provide a totdl of 4 short term and one long term bicycle parking space, Condition: . , 4. The applicant shall provide 4 short term and I long term ,bicycle parking space, for a total of 5 spaces, in accordance with the requirements of SDC ] 1.21 0 and SDC ] 1.220. lo, No, DRC2003-00014, ~an.dy-Shack 4 - ... 4) Parking and circulation areas shall be paved and striped and wheel stops installed as specified in SDC Sections 31.170 and 31.190. Required paving and other impervious surfaces on the site shall comply with on-site stormwater management standards as specified in SDC Section 32.110. PARKING ISSUES The applicant is not proposing any improvements to the site such as parking striping, wheel stops, or stormwater management standards. The applicant cannot provide the required parking and circulation upgrades to the site to ensure that safety is facilitated, as specified in SDC 31.170 and 31.190, explained as follows: Lack of ~arking- which can be constructed to the standards in the SDC. The existing building is 2,843 square feet. The proposed use is considered an "Eating and Drinking Establishment", as listed in SDC 18.070. SDC 18070(5) provides that "Eating and Drinking Establishments" require I parking space per 100 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the square footage of the existing structure, the parking requirements for the proposed use are 28.4 parking spaces. The SDC stipulates that where a fraction results, the required parking is rounded up to the next whole number, or 29 parking spaces. The applicant has illustrated 10 parking spaces on the submitted site plan, and the Transportation Division has found that these which are not in compliance with the standards of SDC 31.170 and 31.190. The Transportation Planning Engineer has determined that none of the spaces shown facing Main Street are operational, given that ODOT is requiring the applicant's Main Street driveway be closed, and backup and maneuvering room is limited or nonexistent. Additionally, none of the proposed spaces along the east side of the building would have the adequate backup room to maneuver on-site and exit the site without backing onto South 23rd Street. Further, the applicant has not shown any handicapped- accessible parking on their submittal. Under the requirements of SDC 31.190, the applicant is required to provide 2 ADA accessible parking spaces. SDC Section 31.180(8) states, "Parking spaces for disabled people and accessible passenger loading zones that serve a particular building shall be located on the shortest possible accessible circulation route to an accessible entrance of the building." There is insufficient space on the property to provide any handicapped accessible parking constructed to the standards of the SDC. lo, No, DRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack 5 .. '" ,~ SDC 31.0 I 0(4)(d) provides that, "In cases where the nu~ber of vehicular pa'rking spaces cannot be met due to lot size or physical constraint; the Director, in consultation with the Transportation Planning Engineer, may reduce the standard without a Variance if a finding is made that, the reduction will not have an adverse impact on public safety." South 23rd Street is an unimproved dirt surface roadway, approximately 25 feet wide, with no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or street lighting. South of the development site there is an open drainage ditch immediately adjacent to the west'edge,of South 23rd Street. Large trucks use these roadways for access, to adjacent industrial properties. Under these circumstances, parking spill~over onto the surrounding streets due to a lack of adequate on-site parking capacity would create unsafe conditions for vehicular traffic and pedestrians, particularly at night. Given these existing conditions, the Director cannot authorize a reduction, in the number of parking allowed on site, as the reduction would adversely impact public safety., Possible solutions for. the applicant's parking problem include obtaining joint parking easements from adjacent property owners, relying on on-street parking for some of the parking requirement, or applying for a Variance to the parking standards before the Planning Commission. The probability of these being executed' and approved is unlikely, which is discus'sed as follows: I) Obtain ioint access and ~arking easements with neighboring orooeri:ies. This is unlikely given that directly, south, east, and west'of the subject site, the properties are ow.ned by Rosboro Lumber Company. Main Street Muffler and, Brake, the business to the east which leases from Rosboro, is limited in parking capacity. Additionally, both Rosboro and Main Street Muffler and Brake submitted written testimony opposing the application, partially based on the application's lack of on-site parking, and it is unlikely that they would either grant joint use access and parking, or sell one of their vacant lots to the applicant. The fol,lowing is a portion of the testimony submitted from Main Street Muffler and Brake, Dave Ridenour, 2309 Main Street, Springfield OR 97477, which specifically addresses the parking issue, as follows: "Par.king for this business is ,another concern. We are right next door and we can not allow any type of overflow parking for this establishment as first and foremost isa violation of our lease to do so, whether it is during our business hours or, not.' Our parking is always at a minimum with ourdiemele. We are not here after 6:00 p.m. and cannot control wl1'ere people choose tO,park after we, go home. With this in mind, I have, (considered) putting up blockades crossed our 'entrances. This is not conduCive to the appearance of our pusiness or the services that w,e offer our customers. We have ,customers that drop off their vehicles at night for first a.m: work and this would make it very difficult for us to continue to offer this service to our customers." , , On behalf of Rosqoro, Heather Young, attorney with Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, &:Wilkinson, PC, 1011 Harlow Road, Suite JOO, Springfield, OR 97477, submitted the following comments regarding ~~~' , "Rosboro owns the prpperties directly behind and to the East and West of the Candy Shack. The property to tbe Westl is leased to a muffler shop, which also has limited parking available. The muffler sh9P would be in violation of its lease if it allo.wed customers of the Candy Shack to I The applicant's submittal.had a "north" arrow depicted on it which was found to be in the wrong direction, pointing to the soutl;linstead. Ms.'\-;oung most likely meant that the property to the east is the Muffler Shop, because of the error ih the applicant's submittal. ' Jo, No, DRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack. 6, ~ ~ park on its premises. The property to the East2 is a single-family residence. which Rosboro rents to a medically bedridden man. The tenant is very concerned about the parking situation and also the potential for late-night noise. When asked about the Candy Shack's proposed hours of operation, Sean Barghouty informed legal counsel that the Candy Shack would remain open until 2 a.m., if there were customers who wanted to stay that late. Obviously, the sound of cars leaving the Candy Shack at 2 a.m. could be very disturbing to Rosboro's tenant, especially since there is no sound buffer between the two properties. The property behind the Candy Shack is a vacant lot. Rosboro is very concerned that, because there is a parking deficiency, patrons of the Candy Shack will attempt to park on the lot. The lot has grass growing on it. When the grass is dry, it could easily catch fire if exposed to the hot exhaust systems of cars parking on the lot. Patrons may also be tempted to stand outside and smoke cigarettes, throw the butts onto the lot, and create yet another fire hazard. This is of great concern to Rosboro because its manufacturing facilities are located directly behind the vacant lot. Logs are stored near the manufacturing facilities. These logs are very valuable and, obviously, very susceptible to fire. As previously stated, Rosboro also owns two other buildings in the immediate vicinity of the Candy Shack, which could be damaged or destroyed by fire. Of particular concern is the medically bedridden tenant to the East. who may not be able to escape a burning house in time." Both Mr. Ridenour's and Ms. Young's testimony in whole are attached to this report. Staff finds that properties across Main Street to the north would not provide safe pedestrian access to and from parking areas, as there are no pedestrian crosswalks or signals in this vicinity, and as such, these are not suitable for joint use access for the proposed development. 2. A Variance. Staff considers this option an unlikely solution, as the following finding would need to be made if the Planning Commission were to approve the Variance: (c) Granting of the Variance would have no significant adverse affects on the public welfare or neighboring properties, and there are provisions to mitigate those adverse affects, which will be a condition of use." Because of the concerns the City has regarding provision of adequate parking, and the potential for spillover parking onto the adjacent unimproved South 23rd Street, Staff cannot find any reasonable means to suggest that the applicant pursue a Variance to allow a reduction in the required parking to the lO- II spaces shown on the application. 3. A Modification of Provisions. A Modification of Provisions application would allow the applicant to reduce the total parking required by 20%, or to 24 spaces. However, 24 spaces would raise the same concerns regarding parking, because these spaces cannot be provided on the property, and securing joint use parking is unlikely. Spillover parking would still be an issue on South 23rd Street. Additionally, to support a Modification of Provisions request, findings that the reduction would not create demand for on-street parking; increase noise, odor, or dust, or create a hazardous fire prevention or fire suppression situation, would have to be made. Given the conditions of the adjacent South 23rd Street, Staff could not support a request for a Modification of Provisions, as the applicable criteria could not be satisfied. 2 The applicant's submittal had a "north" arrow depicted on it which was found to be in the wrong direction, pointing to the south instead. Ms. Young most likely meant that the property to the west is a single family residence, because of the error in the applicant's submittal. lo, No, DRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack 7 ;j ... :<". Findings: . 13. South 23rd Street is nota curb and gutter street,' but is .an unimproved dirt-surfaced roadway,approximately 25 feet wide, with no curbs, gutters, sidewdlks, or ,street lighting. Large trucks use these roadways for access to adjacent industrial properties, ,Under these circumstances, parking spill-over onto the surrounding streets due.to a lack of adequate on-site parking capacity would create unsafe conditions for vehicular traffic and pedestrians, particularly at night 14. The applicant is illustrating a total of 10 parking spaces on their submitted plan. . 15. The applicant has not provided any parking for disabled people on the submitted site plan, 'and is required to provide 2 according to SDC 3 1./90, in the closest possible location and route to an accessible entrance of , the building. . , , 16. In accQrdance with the parking requirements of SDC 18, the applicant is required to provide a total of 29 parking spaces, with 2 of these required spaces designated. for handicapped parking. ' I 7. Due to space limitations ,and requirements such as a sidewalk and planter strip along the Main Street access . which is to be Closed, nOhe. of the proposed spaces facing Main Street would be usable. ' 18. None of the other proposed parking spaces along South 23rd Street has adequate backup room to maneuver on-site. and exit the site without backing onto South 23rd Street 19, Under, the requirements of SDC 31,170(1 )(c), the Director may authorize a reduction in the number 'of required parking spaces when the location of the building on the site makes it impractical to provide the required number of spaces without demolishing part . of the building, where the exception will have. no , ' negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood,. and whereby installed parking is completed in accordance with the requirements of the SDC. · 20. Given the proposed eating/drinking establishment use, the Transportation Engineer has found that it is likely that the use Would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood with regard to parking, , . because of the limited area in which to park, and the expected hours of operation. 21. Possible solutions to the parking problem are to attempt to secure joint use access agreements with adjacent property owners; apply for a Variance; apply for a Modification of Provisions. 22. Given the criteria of approval for approving any of these solutions, Staff cannot in good faith recommend the applicant pursue any of these options, as they are likely to b~ denied. 23. Staff cannot reasonably condition the application such that the applicant can meet the requirements of the Code for parking, access, and circulation without compromising public safety, and the application is therefore, denied. ' STORM DRAINAGE Findings: 24. SDC 32.110(5) requires a development to employ drainage management practices approved by thePublic Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and . Procedures Manual, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run off into receiving streams including the prevention of water flowing from the roadway in an uncontrolled fashion. Public Works Staff finds the sitepla~ allows storm water to flow onto the roadway in an uncontrolled fashion. 25, In addition, SDC 32, 110(5) requires a development to employ drainage management practices to alleviate future costs oftreatihg the piped discharge, and to promote water quality. 26. Pollutants of concern are: heavy metals (cadmium, chromiur;n, copper, lead, nickel, aluminum, manganese, iron and zinc,), toxic organics; nutrients (primarily nitrates and, phosphorus); pesticides, and other organics such as polycyclic aromatic hyd~ocarbons (PAH), salts, total suspended solids (turbidity), ,microorganisms (bacteria and viruses) and temperature. . 27. The applicant has not' proposed any drainage management practices on, their submitted plans. Condition: . Jo, No. pRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack, 8 \J ... 0# 5. In accordance with the requirements of SDC 32.110(5), the applicant shall provide a storm drainage management system on their site which prevents water runoff in an uncontrolled fashion, and complies with the requirements of the Public Works Engineering Design Standards. 5) Access onto the public right-of-way shall comply with SDC Section 32.080. The easterly property line of the site abuts 23rd Street, which is an unimproved dirt-surfaced roadway and lacks curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street trees. The frontage on 23rd Street does not have a formal driveway. Concerning access to Main Street, SDC 32.080( I )(c) states, "Access to designated State Highways shall be subject to the provisions of this Article in addition to the requirements of the Highway Division, Oregon Department of Transportation." Jeff Lange, ODOT Access Management Specialist, provided the following comments on the application via email: "ODOT received an application for the Main Street approach to tax lot 3100. The application has been returned to the applicant as incomplete. This approach application will fall into the category of (major deviation) from Division 51 standards and will have to be processed through the Region Engineer. It is very unlikely that ODOT would be able to approve the approach on Main Street." Further, SDC 32.080(2)(a) prescribes, "Driveway access to arterial and collector streets may be permitted if no reasonable alternative street access exists..." However, Main Street is designated a major arterial, and the site has access to and from South 23rd Street. Concerning access to 23rd Street, the site does not have a formally-improved driveway. According to SDC 32.080, Access and Driveway Standards, the access onto 23rd Street is required to be a minimum of 24 feet and a maximum of 35 feet. Because of the site restrictions, there is no safe alternative to providing a driveway which meets the standards of the SDC. In addition, if the access to 23rd Street was improved, the applicant would not be able to provide any parking on site. There is some question as to whether the parking spaces adjacent to the east side of the building are within the City's right of way for South 23rd Street. Findings: 28. The applicant proposes to provide site access at two locations: . A 40-foot wide driveway onto Main Street (McKenzie Highway No. 15) under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and . Via a continuous access onto South 23rd Street along the east side of the property. 29. The applicant had submitted a formal request to ODOT for access to Main Street on March 7, 2003. The application is considered incomplete by ODOT. 30. ODOT has stated in comments regarding the application that it is highly unlikely the requested access along Main Street will be granted, as it would require a major deviation from their standards. Jo. No, DRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack 9 t"il. ..i. 'II,; 3 I. The City finds that there is no reason (or the applicant to pursue an ODOT permit to grant access to Main Street, as ODOT hds indica,ted that it would be highly unlikely the applicant will be granted approval for such 'a permit,. ' 32. SDC 32.080(3) requires that drivew~Jys serving two-way traffic in commercial districts bea minimum o( 24 (eet and a maximum of 35 (eet wide. f Condition: 6.. The applicant shall close the, access along Main Street, and provide a sidewalk~ planter strip, and street tree where the access ,is closed. The applicant should consult with the Springfield Public Works Department and . ODOT in order to ascertain the requirements (or such a project 6) Concrete sidewalks shall be installed where the site abuts a curb and gutter street as specified in SDC Section 32.040. As discussed previously, ODOT is requiring the applicant to close the Main Street access, in which the applicant:is required to provide a new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The site is currently developed with a substandard 'sidewalk and planter strip. South 23rd Street is an unimproved dirt-surfaced roadway, with no curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or street lighting, and as such, no street trees are required along the east side of the property. ' Findings: , 33. Main Streetis a curb and gutter,street, and is classified as a mdjor arterial in the SDC. 34. SDC 32.040(3)(c) requires that sidewalks along Main Street east of 10th Street be 7 feet wide. 35. ODOT is requiring the closure o( the applicant's Main Street. driveway, which will provide space (or a sidewalk constructed to the standards in the SDC. . 36. South 23rdStreet is not improved with curb and gutter, and as such, the applicant is not required to provide sidewalks along their frontage. . Condition: ' . 7. In accordance with SDC 32.040(3)(c), the applicant shall construct a 7-(oot sidewalk along the northerly property line o( the property which abuts Main Street ' 7) Streetlights shall be installed as specified in SDC Section 32.060. Findings: , 37. Main Street in the vicinity o( the subject site has street lights in accordance with SDC 32.060. 38. The Transportation Division has not requested street lights on South 23rd Street at this time, or an , ' Improvemeni Agreement for the improvement of South 23rd Street 39. An t'mprovement Agreement may be requested at a (uture date for a separate development proposal. 8) The development shall connect to public utilities as specified'in Sections 32.100 through 32.120 of this Code and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 32.120(5) of this Code. The applicant did not turn in information regarding the stJ.te of the existing building, however the City Building Official has suggested that the applicant retain a licensed, bonded engineer or contractor to investigate the integrity of the structure for the proposed use. Because the occupancy rating will change, there will most likely be other requirements of the applicant for bringing the building up to State and Springfield Building Safety Codes, which will be ascertainedatthetime6f building plan submittal. Jo, No. DRC 2003-00014, Candy Shack 10 '. '.. t~ The current building is 'connected to public utilities. Findings: 40. The existing building .is connected to public utilities. 41. The City Building Official has suggested to the applicant that they retain a licensed, bonded contractor or engineer to ascertain the possible requirements for building occupancy. Conditions of Aooroval: , Because the aoolication is bein'2 denied. these conditions are bein'2 listed for future develooment aoolications on the same orooertv. Conditions and reauirements may - - - - - -- chan'2e deoendin'2 on the time of a future submittal. but this will '2ive the aoolicant an idea - - - ~ . of what to exoect~ I. The applicant shall provide I (one) street tree along the property's Main Street frontage, chosen from the City's approved street tree list contained in SDC 32.050. The tree must be planted at least 35 feet west of the South 23rd Street intersection. 2. In accordance with SDC 31./60, the applicant shall screen the trash receptacle by a slatted fence, so that it is, screened from all public rights of way and view from adjacent properties. 3. The applicant shall provide a connection to the sanitary sewer to keep organics and other pollutants out of , storm water discharges. The trash receptacle area must be covered and be provided with a drainage basin isolated from adjacent areas. ,,4. The applicant shall proyide 4 short term and I long term bicycle parking space, for a total of 5 spaces, in accordance with the requirements of SDC 31.210 and SDC 31.220. 5. In accordance with the requirements of SDC 32,110(5), the applicant ,shall provide a storm drainage management system on their site which prevents water runoff in an uncontrolled fashion, and complies with the requirements of the Public Works Engineering Design Standards. 6. The applicant shall, close the access along Main Street, and provide a sidewalk,' planter strip, and street tree where the access is closed. . The applicant should consult with the Springfield Public Works Department an.d ODOT in order to ascertain the requirements for such a project, " 7. In accordance with SDC 32.040(3)(c), the applicant shall construct a 7-foot sidewalk along the northerly property line of the property which abuts Main Street Timelines: Normally, the applicant is informed of timelines for the Development Agreement and improvements required. However, since this application is denied, the applicant ,cannot move forward with their present development plans. ;. , 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. A~~eals: Normally, this Type I decision is exempt from the provisions of ORS 197.195, 197.763 and 227.173 and therefore cannot be subject to the appeal provisions of SDC. However, because the City elevated this application' to a Type 1/ application, the applicant may Appeal in accordance with SDC Article 15, Appeals. The application is $250 and is due ~y 3:00 p.m. April 24, 2003. Questions: Please call Susanna Julber in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3652 if you have any questio'ns regarding this process. Jo, No. DRC~003-00014, Candy Shack 11