Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 12/5/2006 , . fJ 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD OR 97477 (541) 726 3753 FAX (541! 726-3689 WWWCI spnngfleld or us DEVELOPMENTSER~CESDEPARTMENT Vern Benson 949 Hwy 99 N Eugene, OR 9740 I Re SUB2006-00066 Dove Estates SubdivISion SubdivIsion Development Review 1057 Anderson Lane, Springfield, 17-03-33-11 TL 101 December 5, 2006 Mr Benson, The City'S Development Review team reviewed the proposed subdivISion plans thiS morning Staff found several significant deficiencies In the application which must be addressed prior to SubdivISion Tentative Plan approval Staff found that the proposals for stormwater management, street deSign and lot configuration In the plans submitted cannot be approved With conditions and will require re-deslgn- Several lots will require reconfiguratlon These reVISions will require additional staff review to check conformance With Code and Engineering DeSign Standards Q Q The specific deficienCies are as follows The functionality of the proposed stormwater management system cannot be determined from the information submitted No percolation tests have been submitted for the proposed drywells to verify soil capacity The proposed infiltration trenches cannot be approved as proposed, and would not be acceptable In PubliC Utility Easements Please note that drywells also require a I O-foot setback from both property lines and bUilding foundations 2 The proposed private fire and life safety hammerhead turn-around cannot be approved The hammerhead must be dedicated as publiC, and not placed Within an easement ThiS will likely affect Lots 8, 9 and 13 such that the minimum lot size cannot be achieved 3 Lots 4 and 6 utilize the cul-de-sac lot frontage standard but do not meet the minimum lot Size for cul-de-sac lots 4 The Sidewalks proposal cannot be approved No Sidewalk IS prOVided for Lots 8, 9 and 13 57-foot PUEs will be reqUired around the perimeter of the site and along both Sides of the street accessing the subdivIsion, and along the northern edge of the hammerhead ThiS affects bUildable area of Lots 8, 9 and 13 and may be a concern for the reconfiguracron of these lots 6 No proposal to address water quality has been shown on the plan set. Water quality -treatment Will be reqUired conSIStent With the Springfield Development Code and Engineering DeSign Standards and Procedures Manual Thus the proposal as submitted cannot be conditioned because such conditions would defer approval to a later review In thiS case, the next review IS the SubdiVISion Plat The Plat depicts the elements of the land diVISion that have been approved In the Tentative Plan We cannot Date Received Planner AL 1.)./r~b6 . , -' condition approval ofthe Tentative Plan to reqUire revIsions addressing these Items, because submittal of new andlor additional information Id reqUired for review and this new information I may also trigger the Statutory requirement to re-notlce For example, staff cannot determine If I the stormwater management system can be conditioned to comply With all applicable codes and standards until percolation tests are performed for the proposed drywells and are reViewed by I the City Engineering staff Since thiS information has not been prOVided. staff cannot determine I whether the reqUired stormwater management system(s) will function I In order to approve the subdivISion, staff will need to receive and review the reVised design prior to Issuance of the decIsion The City accepted your application as complete upon submittal on November 15, 2006 ThiS IS the date the ORS 120 day review period began The application form Included a Signed statement from you affirming that "the Informauon Identified by the City as necessary for processing the application IS prOVided herein or the information: will not be prOVided If not otherwise contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the appllCauon With the Informauon as submitted " Please note that thiS submittal proc'ess was adopted by the City In consultation With representatives of the development communlty,l and allows the City to keep the appliCatiOns of all applicants moving qUICkly through the system to ensure the qUickest pOSSible processmg for all of our customers _ _ The application as submitted cannot be approved With conditions I notified you and your I representative Dave Collier by telephone 1m mea lately followmg the Development Review Committee meeting on December 5, 2006 to lriform you about the application's defiCienCies and I suggested several options which would allow you to avert a deCISion of denial on the application I and thus aVOid delays In developing your proper The options I proposed were I Withdraw the application 2 Request an extenSion to the 120-day review period to allow for the submittal of new and/or reVised information . I need your response by December 19,2006, In order to allow time to prepare a staff report I and Issue a deCiSion In a timely manner If I do not receive a request to Withdraw the application or a request to extend the 120 daylrevlew period, I will proceed to write my staff report and Notice of DeCISion denYing the application If you request an extenSion, I will require the extenSion to allow a 120 day revle0 period from the date of submittal of reVised I plans to the City ThiS ensures that we have the necessary time to work through the I outstanding Issues With your consultants, to conduct our Development ReView (DRC) of the I reVised plans, to Issue a 300-foot application notice (If the reVISion warrant re-notlce) and to allow a 14-day public comment period (If the r~vlslon warrant re-notlce), and to Issue our deCISion Cordially, Lmda Pauly Planner 11- Urban Plannmg D,VISion 726-4608