Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence APPLICANT 8/4/2010 . . LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4TH STREET, SUITE 204 EUGENE, OR 97401 TEL (541) 343-8596 FAX (541) 343-8702 E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM August 4,2010 Springfield Dev't Services Dept. 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: Emmitt Properties MDS Application; 14th and Main Street DRC201O-00024 Dear City of Springfield: Please accept this letter and the enclosures in support of the MDS application above. These materials are submitted on behalf of the applicant. This matter has been on hold at the request of the applicant; with this submittal the applicant requests further processing. 1. Request for Type II process. The applicant requests a Type II process for this decision, and will pay the additional small charge for public notice. Under the SDC 5.15-115.A., the Director has discretion to provide a , Type II process. The applicant wants a Type II process and, given the nature of the decision, is entitled to a Type II process. Based on the application materials, and the discussion below, the Director will be making a discretionary decision here. He will be making factual and legal judgments. This is the kind of decision that requires an opportunity for appeal and hearing. Furthermore, depending on what decision the Director makes initially, the applicant may need a local appeal forum for determining what the MDS ground rules are and then submitting relevant facts. 2. For purposes of compliance with the SDC, the applicant gets the benefit of the MDS Decision and Development Agreement made in 2008. The MDS approval for this site was on August 28, 2008. That approval was reduced to a Devclopment Agreement in September 2008. Copies of both city documents are enclosed. The 2008 decision and contract applied the MDS standards to this property in connection with a change in use, from retail to a church. These documents are as binding on the city as they are on the applicant. The current proposal is to change the use of the space from a church back to retail. It is applicant's position that the MDS review has already been conducted for this site. When the use changed in 2008, the property was brought into compliance with the MDS of the code. Since that time there has been no change in what the Minimum Development Standards require. ~/\D Date Recelved:~/ (l.o;t. ~ -Planner: JD I o-f (3p~ . . Springfield Dev't Services Dept. August 4, 20 I 0 Page 2 3. If the MDS standards can be applied to this change of use for a second time, the applicant believes the proposal complies with the MDS. The discussion that follows is premised on the assumption that the Director gets a second bite at the apple - that is, that the Director can revisit the issues that were decided in favor of the applicant in the change of use approved in 2008. As a further introduction, we note that there is a mote of cruel irony at work here. The Director approved the change of use from retail to a church in 2008 without requiring appreciable changes under the MDS. Now, based on discussions with staff, the Director is proposing major changes under MDS to restore the retail use. The MDS standards have not changed - only the position of the Director. MDS standards appear at SDC 5.15-120. We understand from discussions with staff that parking along the Main Street frontage is the issue. The relevant standard is SDC 5.15-120.D., which states: "Parking and circulation areas shall be paved and striped and wheel stops installed as specified in Sections 4.6-100 and 4.6-120. Required paving and other impervious surfaces on the site shall comply with on-site storm water management standards as specified in Section 4.3-1 lO for required parking, circulation area and storage area impervious surfaces only." The reference to SDC 4.6-100 and -200 includes the following, at SDC 4.6-120: "A. All parking areas shall have a durable, dust free surfacing of Asphaltic concrete, Portland cement concrete or other materials as specified in the Building Safety Codes and approved by the Building Official. Parking lot surfacing shall not encroach upon the public right-of-way. * * * * D. Backing into the public right-of-way, other than alleys is prohibited." We understand that staff believes that use of the existing parking along the Main Street frontage involves backing into the public right-of-way, contrary to subsection D. above. That assumption is not apparent to the applicant. The definition of "right-of-way" under SDC 6.1-100 is: "Right-of-way. Land acquired by purchase, reservation, dedication, forced dedication, prescription or condemnation intended to be occupied by a street, crosswalk, railroad, electric transmission lines, oil or gas pipeline, water line, sanitary/storm sewer and other similar facilities." I Based on this definition, it would seem that the public right of way would include the street, but not the sidewalk or other publicly owned land beyond the sidewalk. Thus, backing into public land north of the sidewalk, or even backing into the sidewalk area, would not seem to violate the . Springfield Dev't Services Dept. August 4,2010 Page 3 ~ Enc\. MDS Apraval (Aug. 28, 2008) MDS Development Agreement (Sept. 12,2008) Cc: Client . . . TYPE I TENTATIVE MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Mt. Vernon Church Nature of Application: Change of use from a retail furniture store to a church. Case Number: DRC2008-00045 Project Location: 1408 Main Street, Map and Tax Lot 17-03-36-323400 Current Site Conditions: This site is on the northeast comer of Main Street and 14'" Street in a multi-use commercial strip. Zoning: Community Commercial (CC) Metro Plan Designation: Commercial Zoning of Surrounding Properties: North-HDR, South-CC, East-HDR and West-HDR Application Submitted Date: July 14,2008 Site Visit Conducted Date: July 16,2008 Decision Issued Date: August 28, 2008 Recommendation: Approved, with Conditions CITY OF SPRJNGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Manager Planning Lissa Davis 726-3632 Senior TranSDortation Planner TransDortation Judith Johnduff 736-7134 Public Works EIT SanitarY & Stornl Sewer Matt Stouder 736- I 035 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner: Applicant: Emmitt Property LLC Bill White! Mt Vernon Church PO Box 2829 285 South 420" Street Clackamas OR 97015 Soringfield OR 97478 . . Purpose: 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 Approval: In order to grant MDS approval, the Director shall determine compliance with all applicable standards specified below: .~ ~~-~~(.. ~,,"p ..~! ",,' . it. A (Existing storefront, west elevation) Applicable Special Use Standards: 1) A five-foot wide landscaped planter strip, including street trees, with approved irrigation or approved drought resistant plants as specified in SDC Sections 4.4-100-105 and 4.2-140 shall be installed between the sidewalk and parking areas or buildings. D Complies as Shown on Plot Plan X Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/ are met: Condition 1: The property is fully developed and does not allow for the placement of a 5-foot planter strip between the sidewalk and parking areas. There is however, an asphalt bump out, 8 feet in length an'd 18 inches in width is located on the northern edge of the 14th Street driveway that, if planted, would meet the requirements for planting based on SDC 5.15-150(A)(2)(b). Tbe planting shall be shown n the final plot plan. I . . 2) Trash receptacles and outdoor storage areas shaH be screened by a structure or enclosure permanently affixed to the ground as specified in SDC Section 4.4-110. D Complies as Shown on Plot Plan x: Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/are met: Condition 2: The trash receptacle shall be shown on the final plot plan with uniform sight-obscuring screening, 3) Bicycle parking spaces shaH be added to meet the numerical standards for the appropriate use or upgraded to meet the standards set in SDC Sections 4.6-140, 4.6-145, and 4.6-155. D Complies as Shown on Plot Plan X Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/ are met: Condition 3: Provide a total of 3 bicycle parking adjacent to the site on the Final Plot Plan. 4) Parking and circulation areas shaH be paved and striped and wheel stops instaHed as specified in SDC Sections 4.6-100 and 4.6-120. Required paving and other impervious surfaces on the site shaH comply with on-site stormwater management standards as specified in SDC Section 4.3-110. D Complies as Shown on Plot Plan :X Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/are met: Condition 4: Twenty-eight parking spaces are available on the site. As the other businesses are closed on Sunday and evenings, the amount of parking is adequate. Provide striping to a minimum of four parking spaces and bring the existing Handica ed arkin s ace into com liance with SDC 4.6-1. 5) Access onto the public right-of-way shaH comply with SDC Section 4.2-120. X Complies as Shown on Plot Plan Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/are met: 6) Concrete sidewalks shaH be instaHed where the site abuts a curb and gutter street as specified in SDC Section 32.040. X. Complies as Shown on Plot Plan D Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/are met: 7) Streetlights shaH be instaHed as specified in SDC Section 32.060. ~J Complies as Shown on Plot Plan . . o Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/ are met: 8) The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 32.100 through 32.120 of the SDC and comply with the Springfield Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 32.120(5) of this Code. ~: Complies as Shown on Plot Plan o Proposal Complies when the following Condition(s) is/ are met: Timelines and Conditions of Approval: The property owner and/or applicant has 30 days from the date oUhis decision to submit a Final Plot Plan demonstrating compliance with the following Conditions of Approval: ,Condition 1: The property is fully developed and does not allow for the placement of a 5-foot planter strip between the sidewalk and parking areas, There is however, an asphalt bump out, 8 feet in length and 18 inches in width is located on the northern edge of the 14th Street driveway that, if planted, would meet the requirements for planting based on SDC 5,15- 150(A)(2)(b). The planting shall be shown n the final plot plan. Condition 2: The trash receptacle shall be shown on the final plot plan with uniform sight- obscuring screening. Condition 3: Provide a total of 3 bicycle parking adjacent to the site on the Final Plot Plan. Condition 4: Twenty-eight parking spaces are available on the site. As the other businesses are closed on Sunday and evenings, the amount of parking is adequate. Provide striping to a minimum of four parking spaces and bring the existing Handicapped parking space into compliance with SDC 4.6-1. 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 5.17-135 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 5.17-140 WILL 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 5. I 5-125(A)(4)(b). . 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. If the time extension is allowed, security shall be provided as specified in SDC Section 5.17-150 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. Ifthe 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 in SDC Section 5.17-150. PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED: . Building permits will be required for selected construction. . Sign Permit-NOTE: Signs are regulated by the Springfield Municipal Code Article 9, Chapter 7. The number and placement of signs must be coordinated with the Community Services Division. The location of signs on a Site Plan does not constitute approval from the Community Services Division. 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. Appeals: This Type I decision is exempt from the provisions ofORS 197.195, 197.763 and 227.173 and therefore call1lot be subject to the appeal provisions of SDC Section 5.3-100, Appeals. In the event the applicant disagrees with the application of the development standards in this decision, the applicant may request a Type III Formal Interpretation or a Type 1\ Site Plan Review application. Questions: Please call Lissa Davis in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541)726-3632 if you have any questions regarding this process. r:.~ I . . -"-.'; . DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MINIMUM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS' # DRC2008-00045 This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, hereafter "Agreement", entered into this 3rd day of September, 200S (the "Effective Date") by and between the CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, hereinafter "CITY", and Emmitt Properties LLC; Bill White; and the Mount Vernon Church, hereInafter "Applicant", memorializes . compliance with the Decision and Conditions of Tentative Approval for City Planning File DRC200S-00045 and constitutes Final Site Plan and Development Approval in accordance with Sections 5.17-135, 5.17-140, and Sections S.1-125, 5.1-130, 5.1-135, 5.1-140 of the Springfieid Development Code. The purpose of this agreement Is to ensure that the terms and conditions of Site Plan Review are understood and binding upon both the applicant and the City. Upon completion of site development as determined by a Final Site Inspection, the Approval shall be considered Finaled. RECITALS WHEREAS, on the 2Sth day of August, 200S, the City approved the. MInimum Development Standards application submitted by the Applicant for the purpose of the following: CITY JOURNAL NUMBER DRC2008-00045. Type 1 Minimum Development Standards Application requesting approval for a change of use from retail to church in a 3,200 ft2 portion of an existing commercial strip on property zoned Community Commercial (CC) in the City of Springfield. The development site is located at 140S Main Street. Development approval Is . subject to compliance with the conditions of Site Plan Approval contained herein and limited to the use and improvements reviewed. . .WHEREAS, in consideration for Type I Minimum Design Standards Application approval/Applicants agree to remain in compliance with the aforementioned Decision, all of the standards in the Springfield Development Code and the Springfield Municipal Code which may be applicable to this development project unless modified or excepted by the Site Plan Review Development Agreement, Development Services Director, Planning Commi!;>sion, Building Official or their agents, or the Fire Marshall, which modifications or exceptions shall be reduced to writing in accordance with Section 4 of this Agreement. WHEREAS, in consideration for Minimum Standards Approval, the Applicant has submitted final site plan complying with the following conditions imposed by the City as part of the Minimum Development Standards approval: DRC2008-00045 Page I of 4 . . "' Condition 1: The property is fully developed and does not allow for the placement of a 5-foot planter strip between the sidewalk and parking areas. There is however, an asphalt bump out, 8 feet in length and 18 inches in width, Is located on the nor:t,hern edge of the 14th Street driveway that, iF planted, would meet the requirements for planting based on SDC 5.15-150(A)(2)(b). The planting shall be shown n the final plot plan. Condition 2: The trash receptacle shall be shown on the final plot plan with uniform sight-obscuring screening. Condition 3: Provide a total of 3 bicycle parking adjacent to the site on the Final Plot Plan. Condition4: Twenty-eight parking spaces are available on the site. As the other businesses are closed on Sunday and evenings, the amount of parking Is adequate. Provide striping to a minimum of four parking spaces and bring the existing Handicapped parking space into compliance with SDC 4.6-1. ? All Improvements shown on the Final Site Plan shall be constructed, installed or guaranteed in accordance with security and/or bonding procedures of SDC Section 5.15-100, Minimum Development Standards. NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREGOING RECITALS WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY MADE A PART OF THIS AGREEMENT, CITY AND APPLICANT AGREE AS FOLLOWS; 1. FINAL SITE PLAN. The Applicant has submitted a Final Site Plan in accordanCe with Section 5.17-135 ofthe Springfield Development Code. 2. STANDARDS.. The applicant shall comply with all standards 1isted in the RECITALS prior to the Occupancy or use of the site unless certain conditions have been deferred to a later date In accordance with Section 5.17-150 of the Springfield Development Code. Upon satisfactory completion of all improvements shown on the approved Final Site Plan, the 'application will be deemed completed. . 3. CONDmONS. The applicant shall comply with all specific conditions of approval required by the City listed in the RECITALS, unless certain conditions have been deferred to a later date in accordance with Section 5.7-150 of the Springfield Development Code. DRC2008-00045 ..).~r " ~\ . : , ," o:,! .;.~ Page 2 of 4 . . 4. MODIFICATIONS. The Applicant shall not modify the approved Final Site Plan without approval from the City. Changes to the Final Site Plan proposed by the applicant shall be reviewed in accordance with" Modification procedl!r.es of Springfield Development COde Section S.IS-IOO'ln effect at the timeofthe proposal. . , 5. MAINTAINING THE USE. The Applicant agrees to the following: a. In order to continue the use, the building and site shall be maintained In accordance with Improvements required by Planning DecIsion DRC2008-00045, and all improvements shown on the approved Final Site Plan. b. The plantlngs required on the approved final site plan shall be maintained In an attractive manner free of weeds and other invasive vegetation. In addition, plantJngs in the vision clearance area shall be trimmed to meet the 2 Y2 - foot height prohlbltloriln accordance with Section 4.2-130 of the Springfield Development Code. c. . Parking lots shall be maintained In a condition free of litter or dust, and deteriorated pavement conditions shall be Improved to maintain conformance with these standards. d. Undeveloped land within the development area shall be maintained free of trash and stored materials In a mowed and attractive manner. Undeveloped land shall not be used for parking. e. In addition to all other remedies which may be provided by law or equity (Including but not limited to penalties provided by applicable State Law or City Ordinances), Applicant agrees the City may enforce Applicant's responsibilities. 6. Any Final Site Plan approval becomes null and void if construction does not commence within two years of the date of the agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Applicant and City have executed this Agreement as of the date first herein above written. (Signature Sheets Attached) DRC2008-00045 ",I " Page 3 of 4 .;;, :',' . '., . . APPLICANT BY: Drew Baldwin! Emmit Properties llC " .'. ., September 12,2008 Date Owner ~~h\~\)~ TITLE: S i\T OF re on, County of lane / ,2008. Personally appeared the above named , who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: I) OFFICIAL SEAL , . SANDRA MARX . : NOT ARY PUBLIC - OREGON ",,% COMMISSION NO. 385725 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 12. 2008 No'" Po";' 10< ~ ~ My Commission expires:'~ Z -= CITY ,. "'." September 12. 2008 Date BY: Lissa Davis ~1M~\~ TITLE: Planner 2 , County of lane . ,2008. Personally appeared the above named . who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be I) OFFICIAL SEAL . 'SANDRA MARX \ i NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON .,.. COMMISSION NO. 385725 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 12, 2008 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires: 1 , ~~'ifrJ II /2 7-0~~ Before me: DRC2008-00045 ,.;" " .;' page,4 of 4 ;...-- / II' . .Ylf I " ~iS~ Y(L0~l'~ .. >. .1 . AI\.e . o :r:: \' TO . ~ l- " , I ;iO_ ~+2 -~" if I_t 3~ '1 e,' YY\A-Il\ ! Please note that BiJiWhlte's-measurements 01 I e I ;b'~'~rlr/iJg lot';;; Inco~ A~~i dlstante I . from south curbo/bui/dlng to Main Street = 32'.(J" ~ and2Z'-o" to the sidewalk. ActuoJdJstanceto 14111 St. = 40'-0" and 31'-0" to the sidewalk. More ~-\-'( than en~uf1h room for caTS to safely negotiate this parle/ng fot arnmgement. . .