Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Miscellaneous 1989-8-4 (2) ~ ~ '4!J.iI:1, 225 FIFTH STREf T SPRiNGF,ELD, OR 9/.;.// (503) 726-:':753 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMiNiSTRATiON PLJ.,NNING / BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS A METROPD1..LTAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ugus t 4, 191:S'i Mr. and Mrs. Earl McElhaney 2797 Burlington Springfield, OR 97478 Dear Mr. McElhaney, Re: Partition of property located between North 28th Street and North 31st Street in Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary (Jo. No. 89-06-109). DECISION The partition request for 'the above mentioned property has been granted PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL as of the date of this letter. The applicant will have up to one year from the date of this letter to meet any attached conditions or Development Code standards to obtain Final Map Approval. The Final Map needs to be be submitted to the Development Services Department along with legal descriptions of the new parcels and any other required legal documents. The Director must certify that all conditions or Development Code standards listed under Preliminary Plan Approval have been met prior to Final Hap Approval and Development Approval, i.e., before a building permit may be issued or property transferred. Please refer to the atiached "Findings of Fact" (See Attachment A). FINAL HAP AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL In order to obtain Final Map and Development Approval the following conditions or standards need to be completed prior to August 4, 1990: Primary Conditions 1. Two copies of: (a)" The Final Map showing a 50 foot-wide double panhandle (this panhandle must be part of Parce12 [25 feet] and Parcel 3 [25 feet]i the drainagewaYi and the tree masses along the drainageway and other portions of the property) and incorporating any conditions of the Preliminary Plan Approval. (b) Two copies of the Future Development Plan showing the drainageway. 2. The legal descriptions of the new parcels. 3. A signed Statement of Vater Rights form (City). 4, A signed Dedication of right-of-way form for both N.' 28th and N. 31st Streets (Lane County). 5.' A signed Improvement Agreement for both N. 28th and N. 31st Streets (City). 6. A signed joint use/access agreement for the 50 foot-wid~ double panhandle. This document needs to be reviewed b~ the City Attorney. - " Page 2 McElhaney Partition Letter 7. Signed Annexation Agreement forms (City). 8. A letter signed by the Lane County Sanitarian stating that the property is capable of supporting a septic tank. 9. A Signed deed restriction for the existing drainageway stating that no alteration, excavation or fill shall be allowed within the drainageway itself which would impede the carrying capacity of the drainageway; no development shall occur within 10 feet of ~he ,drainageway; and that the existing trees along the drainageway shall not be ,cut'without permission from the City. This document needs to be reviewed by the City Attorney. 10. A Facilities Permit from Lane County for access to North 31st Street. Secondary Conditions (do not have to be met until development occurs) 1. At the time of development of any parcel, the 50 foot-wide double panhandle dri veway shall be paved a minimum width of 18 feet for a distance of at. least 60 feet from North 31st Street, the remainder of the driveway can be gravel. 2. The property address must be seen from the street. 3. Coordinate water connections with Rainbow Vater District. Note: Item,4 needs to be on,s Lane County form. A copy of this form needs to be given to the City" prior to approval by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Items 5, 6 and 9 require recordation at Lane County. The applicant is responsible for paying the recording fees. APPEAL If you wish to appeal the decision of Partition Preliminary Plan Approval, you must do so within 10 days of the date of this letter. Your appeal must be in accordance Springfield Development Code, Article 15, APPEALS. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Planner cc: Larry Olson, Olson & Thompson Mike Evans, Land Planning Consultants John E'. Barkle Carl and Jo Anderson Oscar and Delila Smi th Donna Carlile Pat Dixon Dorothy Scales -II Background ATTACHHENT A FINDINGS OF FACT This proposal ~ould partition Tax Lot 800, Assessor's Map 17-02-19-30, into three parcels. Parcel 1, ~ould be approximately 1.4 acres; Parcel 2, would be approximately 1.6 acres; Parcel 3, ~ould be approximately 9.4 acres. Access for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 ~ould be through a 50 foot-~ide double panhandle ~ith a joint/use access and maintenanc~agreement. The panhandle ~ould later be converted to public right-of-~ay' upon subdivision9f the remainder of the property after annexation to the Ci ty of Springfield., The property is vacant. The property is zoned LDR Lo~ Density Residential; the,M~tro Plan designation is Lo~ Density Residential. The property is not in any refinement plan. The proposal was submitted on June 23, 1989. The proposal was accepted by staff on June 30, 1989. On June 30, 1989, adjacent owner/occupants ~ere sent notice of this Type II application. On July 11, 1989, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed this request. On July 13, 1989, the DRC held a public meeting to discuss this proposal ~ith the applicants and adjacent noticed property owner/occupants. Staff: Public: Issues: On August information Lands; Staff : Public: Gary Karp and 'Shari Higgins. Carl and Jo Anderson, Oscar and Delila Smith, John B~rkle Earl McElhaney, Donna Carlile Pat Dixon and Mike Evans. Protection of the drainageway, dedication of right-of-way for North '31st Street (concerns about street ~idening), the Future Development Plan (~hether it should be sent ~ith the public notice*) and annexation to the City (when), and the status of the 50 foot-wide double panhandle driveway (whether it should.be dedicated as public right-of-way to Lane County). The issues raised"needed further study. A second public meeting "'as suggested. *Staff -~ill discuss this issue during the next review of Departmental policies. 3, 1989, the DRC held a,second public meeting to review additional submitted by the applicant, Lane County and the Oregon Division of State Gary Karp and Shari Higgins. Mike Evans, Dorothy Scales, Christine,McElhaney, Nicole McElhaney, Earl L. McElhaney and John Barkle; a letter sent by Mr. and Mrs. Carl Anderson was read into the record. ~:' ,,, McElhaney Partition Findings Page 2 Issues: 1. Dedication of right-of-~ay on North 31st Street. Lane County received a copy of this application and has requested the City to ask for an additional 10 feet of public right-of-~ay so that this property can line up ~ith properties to the north ~hich have already dedicated the proper amount of right-of-~ay. The only property, that ~ill be dedicating right-of-~ay ~ill be the McElhaney property., No other properties are required to dedicate right-of-~ay at this time. This portion of North 31st Street does not appear on the TransPlan (a document ~hich lists street improvement projects for the metropolitan area). There is no street improvement project planned for the immediate future. 2. The drainage~ay. Staff ~as concerned that the drainage~ay ~as a potential ~etland. John Marshall of the Division of State Lands ~as asked to do an on-site evaluation of the drainage~ay. He stated that the drainage~ay ~as not a ~etland. Ho~ever, staff agrees ~ith the neighbors that the drainage~ay must be protected. Therefore, a deed restriction ~ill be made a condition of approval of this application stating that no alteration, excavation or fill shall be allo~ed ~ithin the drainageway itself ~hich ~ould impede the carrying capacity of the drainagewaYi no development shall occur within 10 feet of the drainagewaYi and that the existing trees along the drainage~ay shall not be"cut ~ithout permission from the City. This document needs to be revie~ed by the City Attorney. ' 3. The panhandle drive~ay. City staff originally asked that the panhandle driveway be dedicated to Lane County as public right-of-~ay. The County did not ~ant to accept responsibility for this right-of-way. Therefore, a joint use/access agreement with language stating upon further development of this property (after annexation) all parties will agree to dedicate the panhandle to the City as public right-of-way. 4. Annexation and septic approval. A number of years ago there ~as a moratorium on septic approvals in north Spryngfield and the River Road area. The north Springfield area ~as found to be able to support septic tanks based upon the limited amount of development that is permitted in the Urban Growth Area. Septic app~oval for this property is required as a condition of approval for this application. Island annexations are typically utilized ~hen a health hazard exists. Currently, there are no plans by the City to annex this area. If and ~hen se~ers are extended to serve properties ~hich are island annexations, properties ~hich are still in the County ~ill not be permitted to hook up to the se~er until they are annexed. The properties ~ould be assessed prior to hooking up to se~er. .. McElhaney Partition Findings Page 3 Criteria of Approval Section approve, cri teria: 34.050 of approve the vith Springfield Development Code states: conditions or deny the request based The Director shall upon the folloving (l) THE REQUEST AS CONDITIONED FULLY CONFORMS VITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE AND THE ~!~O PLAN, ESPECIALLY REGARDING 1~ EFFICIENT USE OF URBAN AND URBANIZABLE LAND, THE EFFICIENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, AND CONSIDERATION OF NATURAL FEATURES IDENTIFIED IN HETRO PLAN INVENTORIES. The zoning of the property and ~he Metro Plan designation are both Low Density Residential; thus the zoning is consistent vith the Metro Plan designation. There are no identified Metro Plan inventoried natural features on this property. Hovever, the National ~etlands Inventory Map shovs the drainageway on the property. John Marshall of the Oregon Division of State Lands was contacted concerning this issue. Mr. Marshall made a site visit and tested the east end of the drainageway. Mr. Matshall's lette~ st~tes: 11 there are no wetlands in the area I visited on the McElhaney sitel1. The existing drainageway will be protected by a deed restriction stating that no alteration, excavation or fill shall be allowed within the drainageway itself, whi ch would 'impede the carrying capaci ty of the drainageway; no development shall occur within 10 feet of the drainageway; and that the existing trees along the drainageway shall not be cut without permission from the City. This document needs to be revieved by the City Attorney. This request will conform with the requirements of the Springfield Development Code when all conditions necessary for Final Approval have been met. (2) THE FUTURE USE FOR URBAN PURPOSES OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE SAKE OVNERSHIP SHALL NOT BE IMPEDED. Parcels 1, 2 or 3 cannot be further divided until they are annexed to the City. The 50 foot-vide double panhandle viII allov for future division. This panhandle viII be required to have a joint use/access agreement and vording to provide for the future dedication of right-of-way to the City. A Future Development Plan will be utilized in conjunction vith any current development of Parcels 1, 2 or 3 (one house is permitted on each parcel until annexation and subdivision). This Plan will prevent the blocking-of proposed str~ets and vill protect future lots. The future use for urban purposes of the remaining parcel under the same ownership vill not be impeded. .~ <to McElhaney Partition Findings Page 4 (3) THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR ACCESS TO THOSE PROPERTIES SHALL NOT BE IMPEDED. The partition has no affect on the development of or access to neighboring properties. Preliminary Plan Approval and Required Conditions The Director has determined that the preliminary plan satisfies the requirements of the Springfield Development Code and that conditions are necessary to satisfy the requirements of this Code or the Metro Plan. Section 34.070 of the Springfield Development Code states: All proposed partitions shall meet the public and private improvement standards of Article 32, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS. [X] ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF YAY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. WENEVER AN EXISTING STREET OF INADEQUATE VIDTB IS ABUTTING OR \lITBIN A SITE REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF YAY SHALL BE REQUIRED. Dedication of right of way for North 31st Street: 30 feet to centerHne. In addition; dedication of right of way for North 28th Street: 25 feet to centerline. [X] SENATE BILL 142- REYROTE SECTIONS OF ORS 92.044 AND 92.120 TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION OF A STATEMENT OF YATER RIGHTS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY PLAN, PUT OR REPLAT OF A SUBDIVISION, NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OFORS 92'.110; AS YELL AS ANY PARTITION. THIS BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 1988. A statement of water rights form needs to be completed. A form is available from the City. [X] AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL IN ALL CASES \1HERE UNIHPROVED STREET FRONTAGE EXISTS. A City Improvement Agreement will be required for both North 28th and N. 31st Streets. THE ABOVE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME U::1J:; FINAL HAP IS SUBMITTED, PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. Note: The additional (delayed) conditions belov do not have to be met at the time of Final Approval. However, they have to be met prior to occupancy of any new dwelling unit on Parcel 1, 2 or 3: [X] The panhandle driveway must be paved (minimum length 60 feet, minimum width, 18 feet). [X] The property address must be seen from the street. For Partitions within the City'S Urban Growth Boundary, the following standards of SDC 29.070(1) and (5) apply: . McElhaney Partition Findings Page 5 1. The minimum area for the partitioning of land must be, 10 acres. The sub1ect property is approximately 12.4 acres. In this case the folloving shall be met: a. The efficient and full urban use of the property, or neighboring properties shall not be limited by the partition. The partition h~~ ~6 affect on the development of properties. The partition as approved ~ill allo~ of Parcels 1, ~ and 3 upon arinexation to the City. or access to neighboring for the future division b. Proposed land uses and densities must conform vith the Metro Plan and the Springfield Development Code. Only those land uses permitted in the UF-I0 Overlay permitted. Only oned~elling unit ~ill be permitted upon and 3) viII be permitted. Upon annexation Parcels 1, divided as shovn in the Future Development Plan. District ~ill be each parcel (1, 2 ~ and 3 may be The Metro Plan densi ty for the Lo~ Densi ty Residential District is, from 1 through 10 units per acre. The proposed land, uses and densities ~ill conform ~ith the Metro Plan and the Springfield Development Code. c. A Future Development Plan for urban development shall be required vhere the property is redivisible into smaller parcels. A Future Development Plan is required. d. A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property to be partitioned shall be smaller than 5 acres. The follo~ing Ta,x Lots are ~i thin 100 feet of the subject property: Assesso,r's Map# 17'-02-19-31; Tax Lot 00600*, 00701, 00703, 00704 and 00802. Assessor's Map# 17-02-19-32; Tax Lot 00500*, 00501,. and 00601. Assessor's Map# 17-02-19-33 Tax Lot 00101, 00200, 00300, 00301, 00401, 00500 and 00501. Assessor's Map# 17-02-19-41; Tax Lots 00126, 03001, 00318, 03026, and 03027. There are 18 lots under and 2 lots over 5 acres; the majority of the lots are under 5 acres. Note: * These lots are over 5 acres. 2. Detached single family dvellings shall be sited so as to alloy for the future division and/or more intensive use of the property. Any dvelling uni t proposed for Parcel 3 shall be si ted so as not to prevent the future division of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. The DRC recommended that the Director of the Planning and Development Department grant Preliminary Plan Approval.