The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 4/11/2008 ~:Uvc~ d .~, If Date Received: Planner: MEM '1~~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE . STATE OF OREGON } }ss. County of Lane } I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows 1 I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2 I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Notice of Decision for SUB2008-00016 Brandt-Drury (See attachment "A") on Apri/10, 2008 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed In aU S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. --h~_' a ~ / / /j!~ Brenda Jones "---1/ - Plan~ing Secretary [/ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane () jJ)..,~ I /0 ,2008 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones, ~~a~,~ho acknowledged the foregoing Instrument to be their voluntary act Before me ~ --",--,., ... ~"...: . , _ oFFicIAL SEAL - --.. 1 ' SANDRA MARX _ ~ , ,NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO, 385725 ~ .. _' .MY C?~M~~O~:~RJ.S~~2V 12, ~~o~ ~ 'or vtuIJ My Commission Expires: . /1// {z.j 0 '5 . , ~ ,. . City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 LAND DIVISION TENTATIVE PLAN Staff Report & Decision Project Name: Brandt-Drury PartItIon Project Proposal: Partition one lot (4 acres) to create three parcels Case Number: SUB2008-00016 Project Location: 6595 Main Street 17 -02-34-44, TL 1200 Zoning: Medium Density ReSidential (MDR) , Overlay District(s): Hillside Development (HD) Applicable Refinement Plan: NIA Refinement Plan Designation: N/A Metro Plan Designation: Medium Density ReSidential (MDR) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: February 26, 2008 Application Submittal Date: March 6, 2008 DRC Meeting Date: Apnl 1, 2008 Decision Issued Date: Apnl 11, 2008 Recommendation: Approval wIth Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: April 26, 2008 Associated Applications: PRE2008-00013 (PRE), ZON2007-00051 (DIM), DRC2005-00007 (SPR) I DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE I POSITION REVIEW OF I Planner II Land Use Planning I Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Public Works CIVil Engineer Utilities, Sanitary & Storm Sewer Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Englneenng Technician SUB Electnc Utilities CIVil Engineer SUB Water Utilities I Service Planning Manager L TO Facilities NAME Molly Markanan Gary McKenney Enc Walter I Gilbert Gordon I Guenter Matyszak I Rebecca Templin I Will Mueller APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner/Applicant Michael Brandt-Drury 7906 Thurston Road Springfield, OR 97478 Applicant's Representative Stacy Salladay Branch Englneenng, Inc 310 Fifth Street Spnngfleld, OR 97477 Case No SUB2008-00016 PHONE 726-4611 726-4585 736-1034 726-2293 I 736-3296 I 726-2396 I 682-6194 1 of 11 , ,-- DECISION This staff report and decIsion grants approval with conditions to the subject application, as of the date of this deCISion The standards of the Spnngfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each cntenon of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes (see Appendix A) unless specifically noted in this decIsion With findings and conditions necessary for compliance The plat, as well as the installation of public and pnvate Improvements, must conform to the approved tentative plan or as conditioned herein This IS a limited land use decision made according to city code and state statutes Unless appealed, the deciSion IS final Please read this document In ItS entirety REVIEW PROCESS This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed In SDC 5 1-130, Type II Applications, and SDC 512-100, Land DIvIsions - Partitions and SubdivIsions This application was accepted as complete on March 6, 2008, and this deCISion IS Issued on the 36th day of the 120 days permitted per ORS 227.178 COMMENTS RECEIVED Applications for Type II limited land use decIsions require notification of property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property and any applicable neighborhood association, allowing for a 14- day comment penod on the application per SDC 5 1-130 The property owner, applicant, If different, and parties submitting wntten comments dunng the comment penod have appeal nghts and are mailed a copy of this deciSion for consideration In accordance With SDC 5 1-130, notice was mailed to the property owners and occupants Within 300 feet of the subject property on March 10, 2008 No wntten comments were receIved dunng the comment penod SITE INFORMATION The subject property IS a 4 acre (174,012 square feet), reversed L-shaped lot on the south side of Main Street between 65th Place and 6ih Street and IS located inSide tne City limits The northern half of the property IS relatively flat while the southern half of the property is steeply sloped to the southwest, and SOils are mapped as Dixonville-Philomath-Hazelalr Complex-43C, pengra Silt Loam-105A, and Coburg- Urban Land Complex-32 Currently, the northern half of the property has a delineated wetland, as well as a development on It, Including a Single-family detached house, a four-plex, and two duplexes, all of which take access from a dnveway off Main Street These eXisting structures and associated site development, including required recreation areas, were approved via Site Plan Review Case No DRC2005-00007 There are also two nght-of-ways that have been reserved for future nght-of-way dedication, Aster Street on the northern half of the property, and Dogwood Street on the southern half of the property The property IS encumbered by a deed restnctlon prohibIting future development beyond the eXisting development until such a time as one or both of those nght-of-ways are constructed and prOVide local street access to the southern half of the property. While property In the VICInity of the subject property IS zoned both Low Density Residential and Medium Density ResIdential, the property IS zoned and designated Medium Density Residential Land Immediately surrounding the property to the north, west, south, and northeast IS zoned Low Density Residential while adjacent property to the southeast IS zoned Medium Density Residential LAND DIVISIONS - PARTITIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS - TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA SDC 5 12-125 states that an application shall be approved or approved with conditions upon determination that the critena listed In SDC 512-125 A through J have been satisfied and that if conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval cntena, the application shall be denied Criterion 1 (SDC 5.12-125 A. \ The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions Case No SUB2008-00016 2 of 11 "' "" -,' . Finding: SDC 32-215 states that on standard parcels on east-west streets In all resldentlal'zonIng districts, the minimum area shall be 4,500 square feet, and the minimum street frontage shall be 45 feet In addItion, SDC 3.2-215 states that on panhandle parcels In all residential zOning dlstncts, the minimum area In the pan portion shall be 4,500 square feet, and the minimum street frontage shall be 26 feet for multiple panhandles with Individual frontage based on the number of panhandles Finding: SDC 3 2-215 stipulates minimum parcel sizes and dimensions for parcels within the Hillside Development Overlay Dlstnct (HD) that are larger than those outside the district The HD standards apply to the subject property since as stated in SDC 33-510, the HD standards apply in resIdential zOning dlstncts to development areas below 670 feet In elevation where any portion of the development area exceeds 15% slope However, given the Intent of the HD as outlined In SDC 3 3-505, the fact that the northern half of the property, which IS essentially flat, IS already fully developed, and the fact that the southern half of the property, which triggers the HD, cannot be developed until local street access IS proVided for the southern half of the property, the HD standards will not be applied to the subject land diVIsion However, any future land diVIsions or development south of the Aster Street future rlght-of- way dedication shall be subject to the HD standards Finding: The applicant proposes to create three parcels as follows I Parcel Parcel Type Area Street Frontage I 1 Standard 17,837 sq ft 84 ft I 2 Panhandle 143,890 sq ft 13 ft I 3 Panhandle 6,052 sq ft 13 ft Finding: ThiS application meets the requirements of SDC 3 2-215 Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 1 (SDC 512-125 A.) Street Name Main Street Main Street Main Street Street Type East-West East-West East-West Criterion 2 (SDC 5.12-125 B. \ The zonmg IS consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or appltcable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding: The subject property IS zoned Medium DenSity ReSidential and IS deSignated I Medium DenSity ReSidential by the Metro Plan diagram ,and there IS no applicable refinement plan There are no applicable Plan Dlstnct maps or Conceptual Development Plans for thiS property, and no change to the zOning designation or boundaries IS proposed Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cnterion 2 (SDC 5 12-125 8.) Criterion 3 (SDC 5.12-125 C. \ _ Capacity reqUirements of publtc and pnvate facllttles, mcludmg but not Itmlted to water and electricity, sanitary sewer and storm water management facilttles, and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the publtc improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise proVided for by this Code and other appltcable regulations. The Publtc Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity Issues Finding: The Development ReView Committee (DRC), including representatives from the City's Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire and Life Safety Department, as well as the Spnngfleld Utility Board (SUB) reviewed the application, and their comments have been Incorporated Into the findings and condItIons below Finding: Critenon 3 contains two categones of development standards With sub-sections The application as submitted complies with any applicable sub-sections of the development standards unless otherwise noted With speCifiC findings and conditions The development standards relating to Case No SUB2008-00016 3 of 11 ,/ , !- Cntenon 3 Include but are not limited to the Infrastructure standards discussed In SDC 4.1-100, 4.2- 100, and 4 3-100 4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards- Transportation 4.2-105 Public Streets 42-110 Pnvate Streets 4 2-115 Block Length 4 2-120 Site Access and Dnveways 4 2-125 Intersections 4.2-130 VIsion Clearance 4 2-135 Sidewalks 42-140 Street Trees 42-145 Street Lighting 4 2-150 Bikeways 4 2-155 Pedestnan Trails 4 2-160 Accessways 43-100 Infrastructure Standards- Utilities 4 3-1 05 Samtary Sewers 4 3-110 Stormwater Management 4 3-115 Water Quality Protection 4 3-120 Utility Provider Coordination 4 3-125 Underground Placement of Utilities 4 3-130 Water Service and Fire Protection 4 3-135 Major Electncal Power Transmission Lines 4 3-140 Public Easements 43-145 Wireless Telecommunications Systems FacIlities Street Trees Finding: 42-140 B 1 states that eXisting trees may meet the requirement for street trees (i e trees on the City Street Tree List specified in the EDSPM) If excavation or filling for proposed development IS mInimIzed within the dnpllne of the tree Finding: The application indicates that four scattered trees eXist approximately 15 - 20 feet behind the sidewalk fronting proposed Parcel 1 Since these trees do not meet the EDSPM reqUirements for location or type of tree, they may not be considered street trees However, photos from a City staff site VISit In October 2007 In preparation for the Development Issues Meeting associated wIth thiS application indicated that the trees Identified on the plans do not eXist on the property However, there are three actual street trees located In the front yard setback of proposed Parcel 1. The actual eXisting street trees on the site are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.2-140. Condition 1: Excavation or filling In the vlclmty of the eXisting street trees, as well as any future removal of these trees, must conform to the standards of the SDC and EDSPM Since these street trees are located on pnvate property, maintenance of the trees shall be performed by the property owner as per SDC 4.2-140 C 2 Finding: As conditioned above, thiS application meeets the requirements fo SDC 4 2-140 Sanitarv Sewers. Stormwater Manaaement. Utilitv Provider Coordination. & Water Service and Fire Protection Finding: SDC 4 3-105, 110, 120, and 130 outline the utility Infrastructure standards of the City As stated prevIously, the subject property has an approved Site Plan, Case No DRC2005-00007 As such, eXisting faCIlities and easements are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4 3-105, 110, 120, and 130, as long as all easements proposed on the Tentative Plan are also recorded Condition 2: Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall record and document on the plat all utility and drainage easements proposed on the Tentative Plan Finding: As conditioned above, thiS application meets the requirements of SDC 43-105, 110, 120, and 130 Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 3 (SDC 5 12-125 C ) as conditioned herein Case No SUB2008-00016 4 of 11 Criterion 4 (SDC 5.12-125 D.\ The proposed land divIsion shall comply with all applicable public and pnvate design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations Finding: Cntenon 4 contains four categones of development standards and requirements As such, the application must comply with the development standards of SDC Chapter 4 not addressed by Cntenon 3, as well as the development standards for the applicable zOning dlstnct not addressed by Cnterlon 1 In addition, the application must comply with the requirements of any applicable overlay dlstnct and/or refinement plan The application as submitted complies with the applicable development standards and reqUirements unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions The development standards and requirements relating to Criterion 4 Include but are not limited to the following Chapter 4 - Development Standards 44-100 Landscaping, Screening, & Fence Standards 45-100 On-Site Lighting Standards 46-100 Vehicle Parking, Loading, & Bicycle Parking Standards 4 7-100 Specific Development Standards for Certain Uses 4 8-100 Temporary Uses Applicable Overlay District 3 3-500 Hillside Development 3.2-200 ReSidential Zoning Districts 3 2-215 Base Zone Development Standards 3 2-220 Additional Panhandle LoUParcel Development Standards 3 2-225 Base Solar Development Standards 3 2-230 Cluster SubdiVIsions 3 2-235 ReSidential Manufactured Dwellings 3 2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards Applicable Refmement Plan No refinement plans apply to the subject propert~ Base Zone Deve/ooment Standards Finding: SDC 3 2-205 states that In Medium Density ReSidential (MDR) diStriCtS, development must fall Within the density range of eleven to twenty dwelling Units per acre (du/acre) and that fractIons wIll be rounded down to the next whole number Finding: The density for proposed Parcels 1, 2, and 3 are 12 dulacre, 59(0) dulacre, and 9 du/acre, respectively While Parcels 2 and 3 do not meet minimum density standards, development beyond that which already eXists on the property IS not possible until local street access IS proVided on or abutting the property Therefore, as long as a conceptual future development plan ensures that the overall minimum density can be met for those parcels, this application can meet the requirements of SDC 3 2- 205 Finding: The conceptual future development plan submitted With thiS application only showed the POSSibility for an additional 32 dwelling Units to be constructed on the southern portion of Parcel 3, which would stili result In Parcels 2 and 3 not meeting the minimum density standards for MDR dlstncts However, on Apnl 7,2008, the applicant submitted a reVised conceptual future development plan shOWing the potential for a minimum of 36 additional dwelling units to be constructed on the southern portion of Parcel 3 The eXisting dwelling Units on Parcels 2 and 3, as well as the conceptual future development 'plan, result In the potential for the total acreage of Parcels 2 and 3 to meet the density standards of the SDC In MDR dlstncts Finding: ThiS application meets the reqUirements of SDC 3 2-205 Multi-Unit Desion Standards Finding: As part of Site Plan Review Case No DRC2005-00007, the applicant was reqUired to proVide active and passive recreation areas, trash receptacles, and vehicular and bicycle parking spaces In conformance With the MultI-Unit Design Standards outlined In SDC 3 2-240 0 EXisting faCIlities are Case No SUB2008-00016 5 of 11 adequate to meet the requirements of the SDC as long as the easements proposed on the Tentative Plan are recorded and Include joint maintenance agreements Condition 3: Pnor to plat approval, the applicant shall record and document on the plat all jOint use and access easements proposed on the Tentative Plan. In addition, the applicant shall include in such easement documents jOint malntenenace agreements Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 3 2-240 0 Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 4 (SDC 512-1250) as conditioned herein Criterion 5 (SDC 5.12-125 E.\ Physical features, mcludmg, but not Itmlted to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions, areas with susceptibility of floodmg; slgmflcant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQL W Map and their associated ripanan areas; wetlands, rock outcroppmgs; open spaces, and areas of historic and/or archaeological sigmflcance, as may be specified m Section 33-900 or ORS 97.740- 760, 358 905-955 and 390 235-240, shall be protected as specified m thiS Code or m State or Federal law. Finding: The Metro Plan and any applicable refinement plans, Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Natural Resources Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Maps, Wlllamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and the list of Hlstonc Landmark sites have been consulted, and there are features needing to be protected or preserved on the subject property Finding: A wetland was delineated and Department of State Lands (DSL) permits were obtained for the subject property as part of Site Plan Case No DRC2005-00007 The wetland, Identified as M3 and not locally significant on the City's Local Wetland Inventory, IS located on the northern half of the property, south of the southernmost eXisting dwelling units Since the subject application Involves only land diVISion and no actual structural development, no additional protection of the wetland IS required at thiS time beyond that which was previously required at the time of Site Plan Review Finding: If any hlstonc or archaeological artifacts are discovered dunng construction, ORS 97740- 760, 358 905-955, and ORS 390 235-240 may apply If any human remains are discovered during construction, It IS a Class C felony to proceed under ORS 97 745 Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 5 (SDC 512-125 E) Criterion 6 (SDC 5.12-125 F.\ Parkmg areas and ingress-egress pomts have been designed to' facllttate vehicular traffiC, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion, provide connectivity wlthm the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, mdustnal and publtc areas, mimmlze drtveways on artertal and collector streets as speCified m this Code or other applicable regulatIOns and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding: The DRC, including representatives from the City's Public Works Department and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), reviewed the application, and their comments have been Incorporated into the findings and conditions below Finding: Installation of driveways on a street Increases the number of traffic conflict points The greater number of conflict pOints Increases the probability of traffic crashes Therefore, SDC 42-120 A.1 states that all developed parcels shall have an approved access to a public street or alley along the frontage of the property, a pnvate street that connects to the public street system, or a public street by an Irrevocable jOint use/access easement serving the subject property Case No SUB2008-00016 6 of 11 Finding: The application indicates that eXisting access to the subject property IS via a 20-foot wIde concrete dnveway onto Main Street near the east property line, and the applicant has proposed keeping thiS access for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 The applicant has proposed access easements along the dnveway, parking, and walkway areas of the subject property to continue to provide access for all three parcels onto Main Street Finding: SDC 3 2-220 A 4 states that no more than four lotslparcels or eight dwelling Units shall take pnmary access from one multiple panhandle dnveway The proposed land diVIsion would result In the nine eXisting dwelling units taking pnmary access from a multiple panhandle driveway However, given that the dnveway was approved to serve nine dwelling Units as part of Site Plan Review Case No DRC2005-00007 and the panhandle standards are only being tnggered due to the diVISion of the eXisting developed land, SDC 3 2-220 A 4 will not be applied to the subject land diVISion Finding: EXisting faCIlities, as well as Condition 4 above, are suffiCient to meet the requirements of SDC 4 2-120 A 1 and SDC 3 2-220 A 4 Finding: SDC 4 2-130 states that all parcels shall maintain a clear area at each access to a public street In order to provide adequate Sight distance for approaching traffic Finding: SDC 4 2-130 B states that no screen or other phYSical obstruction IS permitted between two and a half feet and eight feet above the established height of the curb In the tnangular area SDC 4 2- 130 C states that the tnangular area for driveways IS ten feet along each property line Condition 4: VISion clearance areas shall be maintained at each access to a public street as per SDC 42-130 Finding: As conditioned above, thiS application meets the requirements of SDC 4 2-130 Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 6 (SDC 5 12-125 F ) as conditioned herein Criterion 7 (SDC 5.12-125 G.\ Development of any remamder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as specified in this Code - Finding: No property under the same ownership remains Therefore, Cntenon 7 IS not applicable. Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 7 (SDC 512-125 G ) Criterion 8 (SDC 5.12-125 H. \ Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this Code Finding: Adjacent land IS currently developed With residential dwellings and has access to public streets by way of direct frontage Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Cntenon 8 (SDC 5 12-125 H ) Criterion 9 (SDC 5.12-1251.\ Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city Itmlts but within the City'S urbanizable area and no concurrent annexation appltcation IS submitted, the standards specified in SDC 5 12-1251 1 and 2 shall also apply. Finding: The subject property IS located inside the city limits Therefore, Crltenon 9 IS not applicable Conclusion: ThiS application satisfies Crltenon 9 (SDC 5 12-125 I ) Case No SUB2008-00016 7 of 11 ,~ Criterion 10 (SDC ,5.12-125 J.\ Where the SubdivIsion of a manufactured dwellmg park or mobile home park IS proposed, the approval critena in SDC 5.12-125 J 1. through 7 apply: Finding: The application does not propose the subdivIsion of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park Therefore, Cnterion 10 is not applicable Conclusion: This application satisfies Cnterion 10 (SDC 512-125 J) SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: This summary of the conditions of approval is provided as a courtesy to the applicant. The applicant should, however, carefully read the decision in ItS entirety to understand the basis for each condition. In addition, as stated ear Iter, the appltcant must comply with the entire decision, and the plat, as well as the mstallatlon of public and private Improvements, must conform to the approved tentative plan or as conditioned herein. 1 Excavation or filling In the VICinity of the eXisting street trees, as well as any future removal of these trees, must conform to the standards of the SDC and EDSPM Since these street trees are located on pnvate property, maintenance of the trees shall be performed by the property owner as per SDC 4 2-140 C 2 2 Pnor to plat approval, the applicant shall record and document on the plat all utility and drainage easements proposed on the Tentative Plan 3 Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall record and document on the plat all jOint use and access easements proposed on the Tentative Plan In addition, the applicant shall Include In such easement documents jOint malntenenace agreements 4 VIsion clearance areas shall be maintained at each access to a public street as per SDC 4 2- 130. CONCLUSION The application, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies With the ten cntena listed In SDC 5 12- 125 A through J The tentative plan approved as submitted and conditioned herein may not be substantively changed dunng the platting process Without an approved modification application In accordance with SDC 5 12-145 WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? SDC 5 12-140 A states that for partitions, a plat pre-submittal meeting shall be held within one year of the tentative plan approval Therefore, the applicant has up to one year from the date of thiS deCISion to meet SDC standards and the conditions of approval contained herein and to submit a plat application for pre-submittal SDC 512-140 A also states that the applicant shall submit the mylars and application fee Within 180 days of the pre-submittal meeting If, however, the applicant has not submitted the plat application Within these tlmeframes, the tentative plan approval shall become null and VOid and re-submlttal IS required Please refer to the plat application packet available at the Development Services Department, as well as 512-135 through 512-150, for more detailed information on the platting process I Please note that the plat, as well as the installation of public and pnvate improvements, must conform to the approved tentative plan or as conditioned herein In addition, please note that no mdlvldual parcels may be transferred and no bUlldmg permits Will be issued until the plat has been recorded at Lane County and the appltcant has submitted five (5) recorded, rolled paper caples of the plat and three (3) copies of reqUired documents to the Development Services Department. Case No SUB2008-00016 8 of 11 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The application, all documents, and supporting eVidence are available for free inspection (copies are available for a fee) at the Development Services Department APPEAL This decision IS considered a Director's Type II decIsion and as such, may be appealed to the Planning Commission SDC 53-115 states that only the property owner, applicant, If different, and those persons who submitted wntten comments within the 14-day comment penod have standing to appeal this decIsion SDC 53-115 also states that an appeal application in accordance with 53-100 shall be filed with the Development Services Department within 15 calendar days of the Director's decIsion (the date of thiS decIsion) In accordance with thiS policy and the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c), the appeal period for thiS decIsion expires at 5 OOpm on April 26, 2008 QUESTIONS Please call Molly Markarian In the Development Services Department Planning DIVISion at 726-4611 or emall her at mmarkanan@cl spnngfield or us If you have any questions PREPARED BY Molly Markanan Planner II Urban Planning Section Case No SUB2008-00016 9 of 11 . "'"- ,/'~ ~, i I I: / / / 1/ /~ : I II I, I . I · I , : I ,'? ,0 ,0> " ,# ,o>~ / 9> SOO",rocrw ".'-'7 - , ~~ :=~~r "'J..,"i=. 1 '\ j -1. / - -\ >. '- r _ i :';::'" 1 _ i - '-='-""'~~-(- r S~! Ii! .~~,/_: ~ . , ~i! "'" I j - i !&~ a l--AllW",~~--I <t.~ 1';;:- j , '" -i - .______~ \ i , ./,d' ....0' Ii "'"- ,P ,0 ,0> ,iI' ,o>~ ,.p ,o>~ soa.s rrn .. IJD1IJl rrn ,- ".- I'f1IM~GtDIGrNITJC' r.Dt07H " lJC' f'PS Mf'AoUM ACCDI' IIO.ID ruwr.ROlfC) ", IXTIJUO 10'" a.OIiI1T .ur aI'Il8Ir FIlE CDCII' ItRLUlDC ~ ~ ,,1fftftIB.T IHJ ,. TENTATIVE PARTITION MAP FOR MICHAEL BRANDT-DRURY S.E. 1/4, SEC. 34, T.17S., R.2".., lP'.M. SPRINGFIEW. LANE COUNTY. OREGON MARCH 3. 2008 SCALE: 1. = 20' --'. ~ 1. E:::3 " n e =- ... J.!!!!!!!!!. Ie. --' ~ClIUI"'" --.... --.... --~ --~ -- - -fj - - ........,... ~ ~ -~ I,an- - rcu:=r DIll _ _,\,,11,._ _ __~.ID _ ~..__ ~~I'CIIM --", ---m~ _____~IIJDI' _ _ _.....nPDI'.... __ __ __ _ ~fQI(#1UN -U.IIII~ :.~ ----..- ~YC ~ . """t'tt. ",. ~ ,,;P "'".....0 ... " . e.. ~;, "-~ .. . 1M LOT fICO . ~ ~~.....) ~. ...0" ,0> I u. : ~I"(' ~I\\ ,\ . =, \ ~I - ;j ,/ ......., / I 1/- Date Received: MAR - 6 2008 . y. . --- --'"' ==r,/PJ::_ --- __Ilr"~_ --- <( >< c z ~ .!!!!' 11-02......... TAX LOT~200 1_ a.. <( '" ---cr....... ....- El . . $IN -.... .... --- -- ........... ....~J4... ft ~w JllDG~lMK C; o o cb o o N lD :J en ~...... 1 ZCllB ~ Branch EnlpIleenn~. lnc . ~':Il.I'Ifth:ll~ SJr:riadh'14. one- 07477 ($4U'7~ 'U (14..)74O-OSD ~.,,_. .,,,,,-- . ~u...1Iaft7tDI """. I PAGi" Cf" PAOZCT NO. 0,.,0 0 Z Ql <Il 11l C) 1Dfo\l~\OJ-IOM ~-iIl'wDr~ J'EM'A1M' I',MrmtW CUl4O&OIIU . ...... ...... '0 o f' I ~ I "( I ~. r II ~"Il \ i/~ \ I '- \. : ;, ,j I '::- \ _, / // ////;/ /// /",J)}/~/~~' ~//;,/// ift':~~:,~ , I .... 1\' I'" (/ / / " / ~/ / / / /; / / ::.-----: ?fJ8,"";- : lI<I'l ~~ '\ _, " I ,\ \ / /// / //, /'./ .'It / / / " / - /~. , ;j"" ~ , I \ ' I ,/1// / / / ;/ / I / / /.//,//, / ~/ // /,' /,~ lit! r-__ "../, \ \ \' , I I / /' /' / / ,,"'/,/./ //// / / ' ", r-- ~ / I / ~ ", (/ ' I, / / / ~ I " ;" /Il// /'" ,../ / .. /./ / / / /1/ / _ - - ! I: i '''''llllj\\\\\\,-,\ \\1 II / II II!' (///'/'/"<"//~/~/0/ /"//~':;/l,' /;1)1~//~' .le/,j 'j, I I i \ '/' r / / / / I / / / / I I / ') / / /; I '/ ',' / III i I I il? ':l\' 11/; ~@/jj //~/~//fl;1~///;:;~~ ! I I ' . I I I! I ! II'~' I / / ! '/ /f / I / / I ,I: I ,h. I \i~ . " "I t 1,1/ ill ;j/ / II ~f.;j:~/(, //~, i /,1 ,J<" .~-~"-.'~ \,~,t\ ~ ~J n tiff/ / J / J / ) J J JiliI:J4" / I I __/'~ i ~ ~ ,; " 0' !!!!!' I'-""o".f ~~ ~. '~ I r ~ ~ - o -...... ,# ,0 ,,> If!l!I!!!!.. 7ENT.ATIVE PARTITION MAP FOR MICHAEL BRANDT-DRURY S.E. 1/4. SEC. 34. T.17S.. R.2If.. If.M. SPRINGFIELD. LANE COUNTY. OREGON MARCH 3. Z008 SCALE: 1- = ZOo ---+ Date Received: 1==-)1' ~ l~J Dl'IIOo~lIL~ .......-n..... . : _ _="=,,... '. ~"'1UYoUD =.~.:..:~-= =::&tIIC:' !:- ..._ _ ......_ '4"",- Mna MAR - 6 2008 ~ Branch Enemeenoe. Inc . ~':UOI'U1ll..~ I 3pdqa.u. On.- r74,T1 ~ PAl (M~,~=-- I CI9U.~.1 ,....~ . J,..M;&ofO/l, lIRO~e'1tclCHotA. Jt:TAX MAP 11-OZ.~ TAX LOT 1200 I ~ O'~ Original Submittal Q) rJl ctl (,) 'MENT SERVICES 'G DEPARTMENT I STREET 'ELO, OR 97477 MENT SERVICES G DEPARTMENT , STREET ELO, OR 97477 Michael Brandt-Drury 7906 Thurston Road Springfield, Oregon 97478 Stacy Salladay Branch Engineering Inc. 310 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon 97477