ESD # 122 UNION RIDGE MODULAR CLASSROOM

Similar documents
CITY of RIDGEFIELD TYPE I DECISION SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR 99-10) PDM MOLDING INC. PHASE II EXPANSION

ARTICLE 17 SITE PLAN REVIEW

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Kalama has many areas of timberland and open areas inside its City limits adjacent to residential areas;

GENERAL INFORMATIONaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

Only those portions of Title 18J that are proposed to be amended are shown. Remainder of text, maps, tables and/or figures is unchanged.

ORDINANCE NO. City of Bellingham City Attorney 210 Lottie Street Bellingham, Washington INFILL HOUSING ORDINANCE Page 1

PART 1: PROJECT SUMMARY. The application is Attachment A. The site plan is Attachment B.

Project Name: MELWOOD HOTEL. Date Accepted: 1/12/04. Waived. Planning Board Action Limit: Plan Acreage: 1.7 Zone: Dwelling Units:

COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL 2010 Legislative Session. Council Members Dernoga and Olson

CITY OF ST. AUGUSTA STEARNS COUNTY MINNESOTA ORDIANCE NO AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

3.4 REL: Religious Use District

SECTION 1 CLEARING /GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION:

Kitsap County Department of Community Development. Administrative Staff Report

CHAPTER 3 REGULATED LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS

ARTICLE IX SPECIAL PERMIT USES

DCA , Stormwater Quality and Facilities Ordinance June 23, 2009

Site Plan Review Residential Accessory Building

RRW Stonebrook, LLC Tentative Map Findings

ARTICLE V PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT

Mill Conversion Overlay District Zoning Bylaw Amendment

THE CITY OF VAUGHAN BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER

Bayview Ridge PUD and Development Standards Makers Draft April 16, 2013

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO: 11 STAFF: JIM GAGLIARDI FILE NO: CPC CU QUASI-JUDICIAL

The Town Board of the Town of Vienna, County of Dane, State of Wisconsin, does ordain and adopt as follows.

EXHIBIT B PROJECT NARRATIVE POULSBO MEADOWS

Design Review Application

Checklists. Project Name: Location: File Number: Date of Submittal: Reviewer: Date: Applicant: Contact Name: Phone Number:

WHEREAS, after consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing on January 27, 2011, the Prince George's County Planning Board finds:

City of Fort Lupton Administrative Site Plan Process

Proposed Walkability Ordinance for City of Knoxville (6/16/17)

Town of Excelsior, Sauk County, Wisconsin DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE

Mayor Leon Skip Beeler and Members of the City Commission. Anthony Caravella, AICP, Director of Development Services

D1 September 11, 2013 Public Hearing APPLICANT:

CITY OF ZEELAND PLANNING COMMISSION

UAA School of Engineering Parking Garage Master Plan Amendment. 1. Purpose

City of Concord, NH Site Plan Regulations

Design Review Commission Report

CHESAPEAKE LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE

Glenborough at Easton Land Use Master Plan

R E S O L U T I O N. 2. Development Data Summary:

SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: FINAL PLAN REVIEW- PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP)

KEIZER STATION PLAN INTRODUCTION

SPECIFIC PLAN Requirements

ARTICLE IV: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 404 MASTER PLANNING

PLANNING APPROVAL & PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Date: November 2, 2017

Title 11 Streets and Sidewalks

PRELIMINARY CONDITIONAL USE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST REQUIREMENTS

CITY OF KEIZER MASTER PLAN APPLICATION & INFORMATION SHEET

REQUEST Current Zoning: O-15(CD) (office) Proposed Zoning: TOD-M(CD) (transit oriented development mixed-use, conditional)

Urban Planning and Land Use

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (MASTER PLAN & UNIT PLAN)

LU Encourage schools, institutions, and other community facilities that serve rural residents to locate in neighboring cities and towns.

C-I-10. The effect of establishing a comprehensive site review as follows will: B. Reduce the cluttered aspects of current development by:

ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL State of Washington 60th Legislature 2007 Regular Session

Department of Planning & Development Planning Unit

CHAPTER 38. The City Council makes the following findings regarding storm water runoff and the City s storm drain and flood control systems:

ARTICLE VI: SITE PLAN REVIEW

CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDINANCE NO

ALL SECURE SELF STORAGE SEPA APPEAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER

Tree Removal Review Process for Larger Diameter Trees in Ashborough East

Note: Staff reports can be accessed at Zone: I-3. Tier:

Article 7.05 Manufactured Home Park Districts

ORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the Council has received the following record of recent actions taken by the HSW Board which:

F. The following uses in the HR District: attached single-family dwellings, condominiums, and institutional uses; and

Drexel, Barrell & Co.

1. Request: The subject application requests the construction of a single-family home in the R-R Zone.

City of San Juan Capistrano Agenda Report

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: C STAFF: ROBERT TEGLER FILE NO: CPC PUD QUASI-JUDICIAL

CITY OF CYPRESS 5275 Orange Avenue Cypress, California (714) DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PERMIT PROCESS

RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan for Villa Esperanza (VE), located at 2116

The Highway Overlay District applies to an area within the City of Papillion's zoning jurisdiction described as:

Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Application Form & Checklist

APPLICATION FOR MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW

TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 23,2009

ARTICLE 5 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE PASADENA PLANNING DEPARTMENT (713) FAX (713)

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST LAND USE PERMITS

Design Review Application *Please call prior to submittal meeting to determine applicable fees*

CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS ORDINANCE NO. 12, 2002

Sanford/Lee County Technical Review Committee (TRC) DEADLINES & MEETING DATES

SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY MIMP Condition Status Matrix: July 1, 2015 June 30, 2016

Phasing and Implementation

STAFF REPORT. April 30, 2018 May 9, 2018

APPLICATION FOR MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW

Directors Rules for Seattle Municipal Code, Chapters Stormwater Code

Appendix I. Checklists

ARTICLE 6: Special and Planned Development Districts

CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH Request for City Commission Agenda

Request Alternative Compliance to the prescribed criteria of the Oceanfront Resort District Form-Based Code. Staff Recommendation Approval

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODES ANALYSIS RICHLAND COUNTY, SC SITE PLANNING ROUNDTABLE

Ephrata Municipal Code, Chapter 19.07, Landscaping Regulations DRAFT January 28, 2013 Page 1

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Procedures IV. V. Rural Road Design Option

VILLAGE OF CLEMMONS PLANNING BOARD DRAFT STAFF REPORT

DECISION CRITICAL AREAS ALTERATION AND DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORWICH

SPRINKLER ORDINANCE Town of Yarmouth, Maine Recodified: 1/15/98 Amended: 4/19/01 Amended: 6/18/15

Transcription:

page 1 CITY of RIDGEFIELD TYPE I DECISION SITE PLAN REVIEW - (SPR 99-08) ESD # 122 UNION RIDGE MODULAR CLASSROOM TO: Mayor, and Members of the Ridgefield City Council and Planning Commission FROM: ERIC EISEMANN, Consulting Planning Director DATE: June 21, 1999 SUBJECT: ESD # 122 Site Plan Review for one modular classroom LOCATION: 330 N. 5th Ave.. Sec. 19, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian, Clark County, Washington. Tax Lots #18, 29 and 53. Assessor s Number: 67888. APPLICANT & Tim Leavitt, Environmental Engineer [Applicant] PROPERTY OWNER: C/O 2724 S. Hillhurst Road Ridgefield, WA 98642 (360) 660-1239 SITE AREA: ZONING DESCRIPTION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: APPLICABLE LAW: STAFF DECISION: Ridgefield School District #122 2724 S. Hillhurst Road Ridgefield, WA 98642 (360) 887-0200 NA Urban Public UP RUACP. Goal 9, Transportation, and Goal 10, Sewer, Water & Storm Drainage. Ridgefield Development Code (RDC) RDC 13.08.020(A)(II)(7), Sewer System Development Charges, RDC 18.260, Urban Public Districts, RDC 18.500, Site Plan Review, and RDC 18.750.030(B)(4), Institutional Parking. Engineering Standards. Approve with conditions. NARRATIVE Application Request: The Ridgefield School District #122 proposes to place one (1) 28 foot by 64 foot modular classroom (1,792 sq. ft) immediately east of Union Ridge School Elementary School. The classroom will be located north of a school parking area. The classroom unit will be plumbed for water and sewer. A sidewalk and ADA approved access ramp are included in this project. The sidewalk is to be constructed north of the modular classroom, away from the adjacent parking lot. The City may approve a five-year temporary permit in this instance, subject to site plan review [RDC 18.260.020(A)(1 through 6), Urban Public Uses Temporary School Buildings.]

page 2 Procedural Facts: The City staff and consultants held a pre-application conference with Mr. Tim Leavitt, planning consultant to the school district, on April 9, 1999. The planning director circulated the pre-application conference staff report on May 10, 1999. The school district submitted an application for conditional use for one modular classroom on May 27, 1999. On June 4, 1999 the planning director reviewed the application materials submitted and found the application for Type I site plan review to be technically complete [RDC 18.310.050.] SEPA. School buildings, located outside of sensitive lands, which occupy less than 12,000 sq. ft. and which create fewer than 20 parking spaces, are exempt from SEPA. RDC 18.810.090(A)(3). APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS: RDC 18.500, Site Plan Review, and RDC 18.2650 Urban Public Districts. Urban Public District. Educational uses, such as public schools and attendant modular classrooms, are permitted uses in the Urban Public District (UP). [RDC 18.260.020(A).] The existing school use pre-dates the adoption of the Urban Public District in 1995. Site plan review is required for modifications to existing uses within the UP district. Uses within a UP district are subject to lot requirements found in RDC 18.260.070 as summarized below. Table 1: Summary of Applicable Standards and Planning Director s Findings RDC Section Issue RDC Standard ESD #122 Proposal Planning Director s Findings 18.260.050 Maximum height 35 feet Approx. 14 feet This standard has been 18.260.070 Setbacks 20 feet from streets Approx. 165 feet from street This standard has been 18.260.070 Landscaping Minimum 25% of site must be landscaped See discussion on page 3 This standard has been 18.720.030 Off-street parking One space per 400 sq. ft. See discussion below under Off-Street Parking See discussion on page 4. Procedure Minor site plan review can be accomplished through a Type I, Administrative Review, when (1) the proposed use does not involve more than 1,000 square feet of excavation or the creation of more than 1,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces; and (2) the site does not contain any Sensitive Lands. [RDC 18.500.030(B).] Type I administrative review does not require public notice [RDC 18.310.060.] The school district proposes to remove sod and excavate for water and sewer, however, no grading plan is required. There are no Sensitive Lands in the project area. Therefore, the planning director finds that a Type I review is appropriate for reviewing the site plan for a modular classroom. ANALYSIS Site Plan Review Criteria (RDC 18.500.050) A single modular classroom unit will cover approximately 1,792 square feet. The applicant has submitted site plans in compliance with RDC 18.500.040 and the planning director has reviewed the plans for compliance

page 3 with RDC 18.500.050, Review Standards. In summary, in addition to other applicable code standards (Table 1), site plan review requires compliance with the following: Fees As mentioned above, Paul Snoey, Superintendent of Public Works, indicated concern about the impact the addition of a modular classroom will make on the City of Ridgefield sewer system due to the increase in use as a result of expanded student enrollment. More specifically, Union Elementary School currently has an enrollment of 432 students for the 1998 /1999 school year. The school demographer estimates there will be an additional 63 students enrolled by 2003. This increase constitutes a substantial demand due to the additional student enrollment. Therefore, sewer system development charges shall be incurred by the applicant to handle the increase in demand on the City's sewage system. This fee is calculated according to the language set forth in the RDC. [RDC 13.08.020(A)(II)(7).] More specifically, the fee is calculated using a rate based on equivelent dwelling units where the charge per unit equals $4,000. One unit equals 12.5 students. The estimated increase in student population is 63 students, which translates to 5.04 units. In effect, unit cost multiplied by number of units yields the total fee to be charged. These sewer system development charges of $20,000 shall be payable at the time of submittal of a counter complete construction permit application [RDC18.060.005.] This is consistent with the Ridgefield Municipal Code. RDC 18.500.050(C). Implementation of required Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) projects; There are no roads, parks, trails, sewer or water lines, or other improvements identified in the Ridgefield Capital Facilities Plan (RCFP) which will be impacted by the proposed classroom. Therefore, the planning director finds that the proposed classroom is consistent with the RCFP. RDC 18.500.050(D) Compliance with City engineering standards; The City Engineer and the Superintendent of Public Works have had an opportunity to review the proposed site plan. Neither person has objected to the proposal. Therefore, the planning director finds that the proposed classroom is consistent with the City Engineering standards. Any improvements associated with this site plan approval shall be conducted in accordance with adopted City engineering standards. RDC 18.500.050(E) Screening and buffering; The planning director finds that due to the temporary nature of the proposal, surrounding buildings within the existing campus adequately screens the proposed classroom unit. See additional discussion under Landscaping Plans, below. RDC 18.500.050(F) Pedestrians, vehicular circulation and parking; The proposed temporary building will have a 5-foot sidewalk to the north, which will connect to the existing campus sidewalk system. No sidewalk connection is proposed to the existing parking lot to the south during the five-year temporary permit period. The proposed 5 foot wide sidewalk from the existing school sidewalk system to the modular classroom shall be installed prior to occupancy. RDC 18.500.050(G) Landscaping plans; Twenty-five percent (25%) of all sites within a UP district shall be landscaped. [RDC 18.260.070(B).] The Union Ridge Elementary School campus as a whole satisfies the 25% landscaping requirement. However, no landscaping between the modular unit and the existing school building is proposed other than existing plantings as shown on the site plan. The planning director finds that, because of the temporary nature of the proposal, requiring landscaping would not meet the intent of the development code.

page 4 RDC 18.720 Off-Street Parking; Elementary and junior high school buildings are required to provide one parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. [RDC 18.720.030(B)(4)] The existing area of the school is 38,165 square feet; adding a modular classroom brings the gross floor area to 39,975 square feet. Based on the RDC parking requirement the school should have 100 parking spaces. The school currently has 33 marked parking spaces. According to school district staff, the current number of spaces is providing adequate service for the 40 staff that work at this school. The school is and will continue to be below code standards for the number of parking spaces. See Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Required Parking for Union Ridge Elementary School Union Ridge Elementary Parking Required Parking Provision (No. School (Sq. Ft.) (1 space/400 sq. ft.) of spaces) Existing 38,165 95 33 One Modular 1,792 5 0 Total 39,975 100 33 Because the proposed modular unit may only be approved for a five-year period, the planning director does not require compliance with the RDC 18.720, at this time. At the end of the five-year approval period the school district shall either remove the modular unit or apply to make it a permanent structure. Any land use request for permanent use of the modular unit shall be accompanied by a demonstration of compliance with the parking standards and landscaping standards in place at the time of the application. Fire District Review. The Clark County Fire Protection District 12 has not stated any objections to the one modular classroom as proposed. Public Works Review. Mr. Paul Snoey, Superintendent of Public Works, indicated concern about the impact the addition of a modular classroom will make on the City of Ridgefield sewer system due to the increase in use as a result of expanded student enrollment. See discussion under Fees. City Engineer s Review. The City Engineer, Dean Hergesheimer, has not stated any objections to the one modular classroom as proposed. Findings and Conditions of Approval The planning director finds that the Ridgefield School District #122 has satisfied the applicable approval standards of the Ridgefield Development Code and City Engineering Standards. The director finds that the placement of this modular classroom is not expected to impact pedestrians, vehicular circulation and parking. Additionally, there will be no significant impact to existing property and landscaping, with the exception of an access walk and ADA ramp. Except for conditions listed below, the proposal complies with the applicable criteria for site plan approval. Therefore, the modular classroom may be placed on the Union Ridge Elementary School site pursuant to the site plan dated May 19, 1999, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall construct a sidewalk 5 feet wide connecting the existing building to the modular unit along the north side of the building away from the parking lot as indicated in the site plan approved on May 11, 1999.

page 5 2. Due to the increase in new impervious surface generated by the installation of a modular classroom (1,792 sq. ft.), the applicant shall provide splash blocks to be used to channel newly created storm water runoff as it runs off site. In addition, the applicant shall place riprap at the outfall of the 12" ADS storm culvert located north of the proposed modular classroom identified on the site plan in order to displace newly created storm water flow. Please consult with Mr. Paul Snoey prior to making this improvement. 3. The applicant shall pay $20,000 in sewer system development charges at the time of construction permit application. The charges shall be calculated at $4,000 per equivelant dwelling unit [RDC 13.08.020(A)(II)(7).] 4. Appropriate exterior lighting shall be placed next to the modular class room as well as lighting the sidewalk that connects the modular classroom to the existing walkway network, as shown on the approved site plan. 5. The approval of the modular classroom shall be temporary in nature and shall expire five (5) years after the date of issuance of this final decision. Temporary approval may be extended only once for a period of twelve (12) months immediately following expiration of the original approval, providing the applicant is able to demonstrate that: A. The review standards and approval conditions of the original decision are still met; B. The temporary units will either be replaced by a permanent facility or removed from the site at the close of the 12-month permit extension period. 6. Any land use request for use of the modular beyond the approval period provided for in condition #5 above shall be accompanied by a demonstration of compliance with the parking standards and landscaping standards in place at the time of the future application. 7. All development activities shall comply with applicable City development standards, engineering standards, building codes, and life safety codes unless otherwise exempted herein. Appeal Rights If the applicant, or any person living within three hundred feet of the residence feels aggrieved by the decision to grant or deny the occupation permit, then the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the planning commission. A written appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 working days after written notice of the decision is mailed (RDC 18.310.100). Eric L. Eisemann, Consulting Planning Director Date