HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, DRC PLANNER 7/21/2021AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
Conference Room 616/ MS Teams
Staff Review., Tuesday, August 3, 2021 g.00 —10.,00 am.
1. Partition Tentative 811-21-000184-TYP2 811-20-000250-PROJ Cindy Koza
Assessor's Map: 18-02-0311 TL: 8000
Address: S. 67t' Street
Existing Use: vacant
Applicant submitted plans for a 2 -lot residential partition
Planner: Andy Limbird
Meeting: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 9:00 — 10:00 virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams
The Complete DRC Packet for this meeting is available online for you to review or print out
from the laserfiche website: htto://www.sr)rinafield-or.gov/weblink8/browse.aspx
\ I '.
0
City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Land Division Tentative Plan
Partition, Subdivision
SPRINGPI�
##/
Application Type
(Applicant; check one)
Partition Tentative Pre -Submittal: Subdivision Tentative Pre -Submittal: ❑
Partition Tentative Submittal: Subdivision Tentative Submittal: ❑
Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this section)
A IicantName: Cindy Koza, Judy Hardin Phone:
Com an
Fax:
Address: 8:1;iii�&rcola Rd. Marcola, OR 97454
Applicant's Rep.: Jed Truett
Phone: 541-302-9830
Company: Metro Planning, Inc.
Fax:
Address: 846 A Street. Springfield, OR 97477
Property Owner: Same as applicant
Phone:
Com an :
Fax:
Address:
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 18 02 03 11
TAX LOT NOS :
08000
Property Address: 778 S 67th. Springfield, OR 97478
Size of Property: 0.93 Acres 0 Square Feet ❑
Proposed Name of Subdivision:
Description of if you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application.
Pro osal• Atwo-lot partition.
Existing Use: Vacant
# Of Lots/Parcels: T�'o
Total acreage of parcels/
allowable densi : Four
proposed O
ower units Two
Si natures: Please si n and print Mour name and date in the aDDroDnate
Project Information (City Intake Staff.,
Associated Applications:
box on the neM a e.
completeRequired
aa f
Si ns: vS
Pre -Sub Case No.:
Date:
Reviewed by:
r, '1
Case No.: o -I �ID - PL_
'l
Date: p -I
Reviewed b : L.,V
Application Fee:
Technical Fee: ��-
Posta a Fee: -f
`
TOTAL FEES:$ C
PROJECT NUMBE11:1:4�-%r(�ODOu'�-P/
Revised 1/7/14 kl 1 of 10
WORK
8" A STREET
SPR NG@IEW' OREGON 99492
15411302-4830
P1 'WDIETROPIANNINGMM
TENTATIVE PARTITION FOR
CYNTHIA KOZA & JUDY HARDIN
Submission No.
1
Document Date:
07/1912021
Applicant's Request:
Requre ttcrapproval for Tentative Partition Application
to create a 2 Lot Partition
Property Owner/ Appliwntlgq
Cynthia Hardin
J
R54y
Marcola,OR974Mamola
Surveyor:
Donn Rowe LLC Land Surveying
90946 Sundennan Road
Springfield, OR 97478
Project Planner:
Location:
Subject Property
Property Size:
Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Number of Parcels Proposed:
Size Proposed Parcel 1:
Size Proposed Parcel 2:
MEFRO PLANNING, INC.
Metro Planning, Inc.
c/o Jed Truetg. AICP
846 A Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Tel(541)302-9830
778 S 671M1 St
Springfield, OR 97478
Assessor's Map 18-02-03-11
Tax Lot 08000
.93 acres (40,646 sq R)
R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Low Density Residential (per Metro Plan)
2
10,150 sf
30,496 5f
Tentative Partition -Cindy Koza a Judy Hardin
Written Statement
Background
—Tentative Partition
The applicant is proposing a tentative two -lot partition on property zoned low density residential. The property is
under the Hillside Development Overlay District. The property is 40,712 sq ft and the minimum lot size is 10,000 sq ft
for the overlay district. Currently the site is vacant. In order to split the parcel as a two -lot partition, the applicant
must comply with the Table in 3.3-520 below.
Table 3.3-1
Av-age Slope
Minimum Lot/Parcel Size Per
Dwelling Unit
Minimum Per Lot/Pared
I Finn e•
Less than 15 % and below 670
feet
See the applicable lobparcel size and frontage requirements in
section 3.2-215.
Less than 15% on wooded lots"
1o,000 sq. ft
60 ft.
15%-25-k
10,0011 sq, ft.
g0 ft.
25%-35%
20,000 sq. ft.
150 ft.
Over 35%
40,000 sq. ft.
200 ft.
Parcel 1
The average slope of the development area is 15%-25%. Therefore, the parcel needs 90 ft of frontage as well as a
minimum size of 10,000 sq ft. Both criteria are met.
Parcel 2
The average slope of the development area is 25%-35%. Therefore, the parcel needs 150 ft of frontage as well as
the minimum size of 20,000 sq ft. While the minimum parcel size is met, Parcel 2 needs a minor adjustment to
qualify for the parcel frontage. 150 ft. of frontage - 25% adjustment = 112 ft. of frontage.
In this written statement SDC 5.12.115 Tentative Plan - General, SDC 5.12-120 Tentative Plan Submittal
Requirements and SDC 5.12-125 Tentative Plan Criteria are addressed to demonstrate that this application clearly
meets all of the SDC requirements and criteria.
SDC 5.12-115 Tentative Plan—General
Anyresidential/and diva'ion shall cvnlorm to the following standards:
A. The /ot/parrid dlmensrons shall ronform to the minimum standards of this Code. When lots/parcels are more than
double the minimum area permitted by the zoning dslr/cs the Director shall require that these lotslpsrcel be
arranged:
1. To allowre-dwsidn; and
2, To allow ft the eArm s on of streets to serve future lots/parcel.
3. Placement ofstnrctures on tie larger tots/parcels sha//be subject to approva/by Me Director upon a
determination Mat the potential matmum density of the larger ldtlparcel s nothhoaired In order to make
Ms determination, the Dkzctormayrequire a Future Development Plan as specified in Section 5.12120E
Response: The subject property in an area zoned LDR (Low Density Residential) and falls within the Hillside
Development Overlay District. The applicant is applying for a minor variance in order to be compliant with the Hillside
Development standards.
B. Double frontage lots/parcel sha/l be avoided, unless necessaryto prevent access to residental demlopment hon
colkLtor and ante elsbeets or to overcnme specifx topogmphicsftuatrons.
Response: The proposed tentative partition will not result in the Creation of double frontage parcels; this standard
does not apply.
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 12
Tentative Partition -Cindy Koza &Judy Hardin
8. 777e dimensions (in feet) and size (enther/n square feet aaves) ofeach.bt/parcel and the approximate
dimensions of each building site, where applkab/e, and the top and toe of cut and fi//slopes to scale.
Response: The proposed parcel saes and dimensions are clearly labeled on the tentative partition plan drawing.
9. 777e locabcm, outline to scale andpre-sentme ofall eizitutg sbuchues to remain cn the property alterp/attingand
Mer required setbaclis firm the proposed new property lines.
Response: No existing structures are present on the property; thus, this requirement is not applicable.
10 The lc ton andswe ofextsting and proposed ublitdes andner'essaryeasements and dedlatrons on and adjacent
to the site, including but notlimfted to sanitary sewermafns, stamwatermanagement systems, water mans, power,
gas, tekphom and cable 7V. Indkate the proposed connection points;
Response: The existing utilities are noted on the tentative plan, including water, wastewater, stormwater and
underground utilities.
IS. The locations widths and papase ofall extstrrg orproposed easements on and abutting the proposed land
division,• the location ofany existing orproposed reserve strips.
Response: A proposed slope and tree conservation area is dearly shown on the tentative plan.
12. 77w locations ofa/lareas to be dedicated orreserved fixptiok use with the puyose, condilron a/imilatons of
Me reservations clearly indicated
Response: There are no areas being dedicated or reserved for public use; thus, this requirement is cwt applicable.
B. A Vito Asivsmentofthe Endre DirmlopmentAree. The Site Assessmentshall be prrpared by an Oregon
Licensed Landscape Architect aEngincrrand &awn to scale with existing cantons at11bot intervals and percentof
slope that preciselymaps and delineates Me areas described below Proposed moditcatione tophyska/featuresshail
beclearly indicated The Directormay, waive pabons offfi s requirement ifinere S a finding that the proposed
development will not have an adverse enpact on physical features a water quality, eiee on the site o, adjacent to
Me site. Infomiat/on required for adjacentpropertes maybe generalized to straw the mnnedrons to physical
features. A Site Assessment shall "tan the following intomhatian.
Response: The enclosed tentative partition plan prepared by Donn Rowe, an Oregon licensed land surveyor,
identifies all physical features of the subject property as required.
1. 77w name, /acatiary dirnetsrons, &rection oftow and top ofbank ofa/i watercourses that are shown on the Water
Qua/ity Limited Watercourses (WLQW) MMp on Me n the OvielopmentServices Department,
Response: There are no watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map that encumber the
subject property; thus, this requirement is not applicable.
2 The 100year toodplan and flooiwaybourdaries on Me site, as spec fed In the latest adopted FE1,14 Flood
Insurance Maps or FEMA approved Letter ofAfapAmwomentor Leta of Map Revzvon,'
Response: The subject property is located outside of the 500 -year Floodplain and noodway boundaries as indicated
on FIRM Map Number 41039C3166F dated September 27, 1985; thus, this requirement is rot applicable.
3. The rime of Travel Zones, asspeciffed in Sec7.bn 3.3-210 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on
file in the DevekapmentSevvice Department;
Response: The subject property falls outside of the wellhead protection area.
4. Physical featums induding, but not limited to sigti Rant clusters oftaes and shrubs, watercourses shown on Me
(INLQW) Map and their riparian areas, wetanc&, and rock outcroppings,
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 14
Tentative Partition - Cindy Koza ® Judy Hardin
Response: The primary physical features on this site are clusters of trees and sloped areas. 10 foot contours per
LIDAR data from Oregon DOGAMI are shown on the plan. The existing slope and tree preservation area is
delineated on the Tentative Partition Plan. There are no watercourses, riparian areas, wetlands, or rock outcroppings
within the boundaries of the subject property. No individual trees are shown given that they exist in large clusters.
Existing trees and a tree -felling permit will be addresses as a condition of approval.
5 Sal types and water table information as mappedandspeafied in the Serfs Survey of[ane Courcy, and
The Natural Resource conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates the soil type covering the subject
property consists of one -hundred percent (75%), with a depth water table of more than 80 inches, Nekia silty clay
loam (75%) with a depth water table of more than 80 inches, and twenty-five percent (25%) Dixonville-Philomath-
Hazelair complex (43C), with a depth to water table of more than 80 inches.
6 Natural resource protection areas asspecyfied in Secbon 93-117
Response: A slope and tree preservation area exists on the subject site as shown on the Tentative Partition Plan.
There are no natural resource protection areas present on the subject property; thus this requirement is not
applicable.
C A SYorm"Aar Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at Ifrmt intervals and percent of slope
thatp edseiy maps and addresses the stfomiabvn described below In areas where the pe cent of slope s 10
percent ormore contours maybe shown at 5 cwt intervals 7h&plan shall show the stormwatermanagement
systeyn for the entire devekpmentarea. Unless exempt by the Public Works Director, the Cityshatirequirethatan
OrEyon Greased Cwil Engliheer prepare the plan. Where p/ants a2 proposed as partofthe stwmwatermanagavhent
system, an Oregon LkenseiLandscapeArchi(ecttray also be required The plan shall include the following
components:
1. Roof drainagepaltamsand dischwye koabuns;
2. Pervious and i npervmus area damage patterns,
3. 777e sae andkratoa ofstamwitermaragementsysterns canponerrts fixluding but notfimited to: dein lines,
catch basins, dry wells and/a-detention ponds,stamwaterquality measures,' and natural drainage -ways to be
retained,
9. Exesbriq ardproposed sire elevatons, grades and coni and
5 A stormwatermarhagementsystem plan with supportng calculators and documeataton as required in Sectbn
43-110 shallbesubmilteisupportng the proposed system The plan, calculators and documentaton shall be
'�
Response: Stornwater drainage from each proposed parcel will be piped to an individual drywell located on each
parcel as required by the City of Springfield Smrmwater Scoping Sheet. No outfall to the public stormwater system is
proposed with this partition. Further stormwater management plan details may be provided as a condition of
approval.
D. A Response to Trancpavtadon [sues mmpiyrng with the provhPicns of tris Code.
1. The kratwns, condition, e.g., fullytmpmved with cud, gutter andsidewall{ ACmaG or grave{ widths and names
of all existing streets, alieys or other rights -of-way within or adjacent to the proposed land diwslon,
Response: The subject site has frontage on 67th street with improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the east
side of the street.
2. The locabors, widths and name ofail pmposedstreets and oMertights-ofway to irxktde the approximate radius
ofcxz a andgraaliw The reiatronshpt ofaflprvposedstmets to anyptojectedsbeeis as sham on the Metro Pial
indudkig the TransPlan, anyappovedCorxephW Develcppn t Man and the latest setsbr ofthe Coiueptual Local
Street hlap,'
Response: There are no proposed streets or other rights-of-way adjacent to the subject site; thus this requirement is
not applicable.
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 15
Tentative Partltlon — Cindy Koza & Judy Hardin
3 7lre location and widtirs of all eristirg and proposed stdewaiks, pecisbyan trails and accessways, Including the
/location, sae and type ofplantirgs ands&eet trees in any requiredpianterstrip;
Response: There are not any existing and proposed sidewalks, pedestrian trails and aaessways.
4. The ib at ii ofeiarti7g and proposed traffx conbol devices, fire hydrants, power poles, bansfwmers,
neighbadoodmailbox units andsbnilarpub/.r facilities, where applicable,.
Response: As noted on the Tentative Partition Plan, the nearest fire hydrant is approximately 208 feet South of the
Southeast corner of the Subject property on the East right of way of 5 67th Street, and the South of right of way of
Glacier Drive. There is an electric box on the Eastern border of the property.
5. The location and dimensions of existing andproposcd &iveways, where applicable,•
Response: There are not any existing driveways on the site but will be proposed at the time of development. The
driveway location has not yet been determined by the application.
6. 777e &ration of ex8'bng and proposedsbeet fghtiigincluding the type, height and area ofilluminadon,
Response: All existing streetlights are show on the tentative plan on the east side of 67th. No additional streetlights
are proposed.
7 77/e lxatron oferist&g lord pmpased transit favi/ides,
Response: There are no existing or proposed transit facilities adjacent, or within, the subject property. The nearest
transit facility is located on the North side of Main Street west of W Street and is served by lane Transit District
Route 11.
8. A cnpyofa Right-ofwayApproach Pemrit application where the propenyhas fiontage on an Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) facility, and
Response: B Street is a city street and not ODOT facility; thus this requirement 5 not applicable.
9. A TrallicImpact Studypreparcdbya T2ft fgiiee, where necessary, as spedfredin Secbwr 4.2-105A. 4.
Response: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, single-
family detached houses have an average trip generation rate of 9.57 vehicles daily. A single-family dwelling on each
of the two parcels proposed generating 9.57 trips per parcel per day results in fewer peak hour or average daily trips
necessary for a traffic impact study to be required.
E. A Future OevelopmentPlan. Where phasing and/or lots/pwrreis that are more than twice the minimum lot/paicel
size are pirlmsed, the Tentative Pian shall include a Future Devek Anent Plan that
Response: No phasing plan is being proposed.
F AddWamrf information and/orapp/&atlars required at Me time of TenIabYe Plan appf%cabon suLmimaishall
tndude the fi110Hung items, where appl&abie:
1. Abrief narrative explaining the purpose of Me proposed kwd div&iii and the exating use of the property,,
Response: This written statement serves as a narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed partition and the
existing use of the subject property.
2, ffMe applicant is not the property owner, written perzoiissron fimn ire popedy owner6 Muued:
Response: The attached application form has been signed by the property owner.
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 16
Tentative Partition — Cindy Kota ® Judy Hardin
3 A rkinity Map drawn m scaleshowing bus stops, streets, ddveways, pedestrian mnncrtiorxi fire hydrants and
oths-6ansportatian/fire aarss blues within 200 feet of the proposed land diva= and all existing Part"?bons or
SubdNaions immediately adpoent to the pmpased land divalon;
Response: A vicinity map is shown on the Tentative Partition Plan sheet.
4. How the TentaMoe Plan addresses the standards ofanyapplicable owaylay dii
Response: See how the development address the standards of the Hillside Overlay Development District below.
5 How the Tenfatire Plan addresses Denary Ilse o'itesa, where appfnable,.
Response: The existing use that will remain on proposed Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are single-family residential. Single-
family residential is a permitted use in the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone; thus no Discretionary Use Permit is
required.
6. A Tree Felling Permltas, soedfwd in Section 5.19-100,'
Response: No individual trees are shown given that they exist in large clusters. Since more than five trees are
proposed to be removed, a tree felling permit is required per SDC 5.19-110 which may be provided as a condition of
approval.
7 A 6Loterhnka/Report for slopes of 15pencent crgreater and as sperifiedio Section 33-500, ani if the
required Site Assessment in Section 51-21208, indicants the pni nsedOLWky nentarea has unstabie soils andlw
high water table as specified in the soik Survey ofLana Co unty;
Response: No development is proposed at this time. Drainage plans will be submitted at building permit for
individual lots if development is proposed to be on slopes greater than 15 percent.
8. AnAnneratun application as specified in Section 5.7100 where a deveiopment a proposed outside of the city
Ari but within City's urban growth boundary and can be serviced by sanitary sewer,
Response: The subject property is located within the city limits; thus no annexation application is necessary.
9. A wetland delineation approved by the Deparbnent of State Lands shall be submitted concurrently where trere is a
wetland on the property,'
There are no existing wetlands on the. subject site; thus this requirement is not applicable.
10 Evidence thatany required federal or State permit has been applied Por or approvedshall be submitted
concumenty,
Response: No federal or state permits are required with this partition application; thus this requirement is not
applicable.
11, All public impmt2ntents proposed to be installed and to rndude the approximate time offrstallatlan and method
offinancing,.
Response: There are no proposed public improvements with this proposed partition application.
12 Proposed deed r b—x'twhs and a draft ofa Homeowne/sAssociatron Agreemen4 where appropriate
Response: No deed restrictions or Homeowner's Association are proposed; thus this requirement is not applicable.
13 Cluster 5ubdivaronsshall a& address the design standards specified in Section 31230,'
Response: This application is for a tentative partition and not a cluster subdivision.
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 17
Tentative Partition — Cindy Koza ® Judy Hardin
14 Where the Subdivision ofa manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the Di atormay waive
certain submittalrequimments specified m Subse bcvisA. through M. However, the Tentative Plan shall address Me
applicable standards listed under the park Subdivision approval criteria specified in Section 512-125.
Response: This application is for a tentative partition and not a subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park.
SDC 5.13-130
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Tentative Plan application upon determining that all
applicable criteria have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the Director
shall deny the application. In the case of Partitions that involve the donation of land to a public agency, the Director
may waive any approval criteria upon determining the particular criterion can be addressed as part of a future
development application.
A. The requestconf rm m the provi'bo ofthis Code pe tamtng to lot/parrel size and dim nns.
Response: The lot Is on an East-West street and falls under those requirements.
The property is under the Hillside Development Overlay District. The property is 40,712 sq ft and the minimum lot
size is 10,000 sq R for the overlay district. Currently the site is vacant. In order to split the parcel as a two -lot
partition, the applicant must comply with the Table in 3.3-520 below.
Table 3.3-1
Average Slope
Minimum Lwparcel Size Per
OWL4609 Unit
Minimum per lnt(pa ni
I Fmn
Less than 15 q; and teloov 670
feet
See the aoticahte bliparcel she and frontage requirement; in
Section 3.2-215.
Less than 35% on wooded lots-'
10,000 sq. ft.
60 ft.
IWh-25%
10,0+00 sq. fL
90 ft.
25%-35%
20.000 sq. ft,
ISO ft.
Over 35%
40,060 sq. ft.
200 ft.
Parcel 1
The average slope of the development area is 15%-25%. Therefore, the parcel needs 90 ft of frontage as well as a
minimum size of 10,000 sq ft. Both criteria are met.
Parcel 2
The average slope of the development area is 25%35%. Therefore, the parcel needs 150 ft of frontage as well as
the minimum size of 20,000 sq ft. While the minimum parcel size is met, Parcel 2 needs a minor adjustment to
qualify for the parcel frontage. 150 ft. of frontage - 25% adjustment = 112 ft. of frontage.
SDC 3.2-215 states that setbacks for primary structures for parcels located in a LDR (Low Density Residential) are as
follows: 1) Front/Rear Yard - SO feet, 2) Side Yard - 5 Feet. Future development on the parcels of this proposed
partition will meet the setback standards of SCD 3.2-215.
B. The zoning is mnsediaut wiM the Nebo Plan diagram ard/orappOrable Refinement Plan diagram, Alan DA5t-"n ,
and Conceptual Development Plan.
Response: The zoning of the subject property is Low -Density Residential. In the Metro Plan, this area Is designated
as Low -Density Residential.
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 18
Tentative Parddon - Cindy Koza &Judy Hardin
C Capacity requirements ofpublic and private fact/hies, incltidmg but not britted to, water and eleebrcity,, sanitary
sewer and slnrmwater management facilitres, and streets and trafficsa/W controis shall not be eaceaded, and the
public impmvernenlsshall be available to serve the site at the time ofdemlopmenit unless otherwse provided for by
this Code and otherapplicable regulations The Public Works Dlrector ora utilitypmvidershall detemrirre capacity
issues.
Response: The capacity of the public and private facilities is able to handle the Increase of two future dwellings; thus
this approval criterion will be satisfied.
D. The proposed land dtwsfon shall comply with all opolneable pubic and private design and consinxil n standards
contained in this Code and other appinrable regulations.
Response: All the existing public and private facilities meet the design and construction standards of the SDC. There
are no public improvements proposed with this partition application. In addition, the future private utilities will be
constructed according to all applicable SDC and other regulations. This approval Criterion will be satisfied.
E Physical feahaes, including, but notlmited to: steep slopes with unstable soil orgeologic condilions, areas with
susceptibiltyofflooding; sgnifrcantdusters of bess, and shrubs,watercourses shown on the WgLWMap and their
assooated riparian areas,' otherripartan areas and wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117,• tock outcroppings, open
spaces,, and auras ofhistonc andWarchaeological stgnirrann* as maybe specified in Section 33-900 or DRS
97740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected asspectfied in this Code or in State or federal law.
Response: This development site is located outside of the 500 -year Floodplain and there are no watercourses,
riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings, open spaces, or historically significant features. The only physical
features present are large clusters of trees and steep slopes. Future development of the subject site will occur on
land with slopes less than 25%. A proposed tree preservation and slope easement will ensure that no development
happens over the steepest parts of the property. No individual trees are shown given that they exist in large clusters.
A tree felling permit is required per SDC 5.19-110 which may be provided as a condition of approval. Based on these
facts, this approval criterion will be satisfied.
F. Parking areas and ingress -egress points have been designed to. facilitate vehicular bathe, blyde "pedlastdan
safety to amid congestion, provide connectivity, within the devetopmentarea and to adjacent residenblalareas
transttstops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, indushialandpubtic ansa;, • minnime driveways on
arterial and cot/eciorstreets as spceified in this Code or otlrerapplrable regulations and comply with the ODOT
access management standards for State highways.
Response: The proposed parking as well as ingress -egress locations will allow safe vehicular travel that avolds
congestion. This approval criterion will be satisfied.
G. Development ofany remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomolshed asspeiified in this
Code.
Response: The applicant acknowledges and accepts the terms under this condition.
H Adjacent land can be developed or Ls provta'ed access that will allow its developmemas specified in this Code.
Response: All adjacent land is that can be developed is developed; therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
I Where the Partition ofproperty that cs oulsba of the city limits but within the City's urbanizable area and ro
concurrmtanneration opplcalron is submitted, Mestandardsspecifiedbelowshallalsoapply
Response: Not applicable. The proposed development is within the city limits; therefore, this criterion does not apply.
3. Where the Subaw sfon of manufactured dwelling park ormobik home park ispmposed, the following approval
criteria apply:
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 19
Tentative Partition - Cindy Kom &Judy Hardin
Response: This tentative partition is not part of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park; therefore, this
criterion does not apply.
Metro Planning, Inc. July 2021 Page 1 10
\
IL
fE§
C
\{
!
\l�j.!
IL