The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit Plumbing 1993-03-02PFrII\.GFIELE) RESIDENTIAL PERMIT APPLICATION lnspections: 726-3769 Ol(ice: 726-3759 JOB NUMBEB I 225 Fifth Street Springfleld, Oregon 97477 LOCATION OF PROPOSED WOFIK: ASSESSORS MAP:TAX LOT:0t0oz SUBDIVISION *-PHONE: STATE ztP OWNEB: ADDRESS: CITY: NEW - BEMODEL ADDITION DEMOLISH OTHER - DESCRIBE WORK: ADDBESS EXPIRES PHONE ELECTRICAL: CONTRACTOR'S NAME MECHANICAL: PLUMBING: GENERAL: CONST, CONTRACTOB # r OF BDRMS: - OFFICE USE - WATER HEATEFI: ZONING CODE: FLOOD PLAIN: A OF UNITS: BANGE: OUAD AREA: I OF BLDGS: SECONDARY HEAT: SOUAHE FOOTAGE: LAND USE: CONSTR. TYPE: HEAT SOURCE: To request an lnspectlon, you must call 726-3769. Thls ls a 24 hour recordlng. All lnspectlons requested belore 7:00 a.m, will bemade the same worklng day, lnspections requested after 7:00 a.m. wlll be made the followlng work day. [--l Temporary Electrlc [--l Slte lnspectlon - To be madetJ after excavation, but prlor to settlng forms. REOU!RED INSPECTIONS Knr: Mechanlcat - Prlor to Xf*'r: Erectricar - Prror to Flnal Plumbing - When altplumblng worl< ls complete. Flnal Electrical - When all electrlcal work is complete. Underslab Plumbing/ Electrical / Mechanlcal - Prlor to cover.Electrlcal Servlce - Must be approved to obtaln permanent electrlcal power. Flnal Mechanical - When alt mechanical work ls complete. Footlng - After trenches are excavated.Flreplace - Prlor to faclng materlals and framlng lnsp. Flnal Building - When alt requlred lnspectlons have been approved and bullding is completed.Masonry - Steel locatlon, bond beams, groutlng,Framlng - Prlor to cover. Foundatlon - After forms are erected but prlor to concrete placement. Other Wall/Celllng lnsulatlon - Prlor to cover. Underground Plumbing - Prior to fllllng trench.[_-l Orywall - Prlor to taping. Underlloor Plumblng/ Mechanlcal - Prlor to lnsulatlon or decking. MOBILE HOME INSPE TIONS Wood Stovo - After lnstallatlon Post and Beam - Prlor to floor lnsulatlon or decklng,lnsert - After flreplace approval and lnstallatlon of unlt. Blocking and Set.Up - When ailblocklng ls complete. Floor lnsulatlon - Prlor to decklng.Curbcul & Approach - After forms are erected but prior toplacoment of concrete. Plumbing Connectlons - When home has been connected to water and sewer. Sanitary Sewer - Prior to filling trench.Electrical Conneclion - Whenblocking, set.up, and plumbing lnspectlons have been approved and the home ls connected to the servlce panel. Slorm Sewer - Prlor to fllling trench, Sidewalk & Drlveway - After excavatlon ls complete, forms and sub.base materlal in place. Water Llne - Prlor to filling trench. Fence - When completed Slreel Trees - When all requlred trees aro planted. Flnal - After all required lnspectlons are approved andporchos, sklrting, decks, andventlng have been lnstalled. ffioret Ptumblng - prior to -\cover. LOT: -- BLOCK: try-4z,l OCCY GBOUP: I OF STORIES: E tlE tl tl tl Lot faces Lot sq. ftg. Lot coverage Topography Total helght Lot Typ - lnterlor -- Corner __ Panhandle -. Cul-de-sac PL.HSE GAR ACC N S E Set IS THE PROPOSED WORK I.N THEHtsToRtcAL DtsTRtcI, oR ONTHE HISTORICAL REGISTER? --lf yes, this appticailon must be slgnedand approved by the Historlcat Coordinator prior to permit issuance. APPFIOVED: BUILDING PERMIT VALUE (A) SO. FT. X $/SQ. FT.ITEM Main Garage Carport Total Value Bullding Permit Fee State Surcharge Total Fee PV.ID_|NG VALUE, PLAN CHECKAND BUILDING PERMIT Thls permit is granted on the express condition that the sardconstruction shall, in all respects, conform to the Ordinanceadopted by the City of Springfleld, includlng theDe.velopment Code, regulating the ctnstructlon and use olbulldlngs, and may be suspended or revoked at any ilmeupon violation of any provisions of sald ordlnances. DatePlans Reviewed By Receipt Numbe Date Paid: Beceived By Plan Check Fee: SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) (B) Systems Development Charge is due on all undevelopedproperties wlthin the City limits whlch are being improved. ITEM Fixtures Resldential Bath(s) Sanltary Sewer Water Storm Sewer Moblle Home Statesurcharse /rtA 7 t?0 PLUMBTNG PERMIT FEE -2/) A O-ou, N0 Plumblng Permlt Tolal Charge FT. FT. FT. -zo 3z"a'o(c) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Wood Stove/ lnsert/ Flreplace Unit Dryer Vent lssuance r0r€*la* Pdf4z7- X&t q statesurcharse tZf +,4f "t#O Total Permlt (D) MECHANICAL PERMTT lcal -44t? D'o .t)vrmiMec N0 Furnace Exhaust Hood Vent Fan By slgnature, I state and agree, that I have carefully examlnedthe completed application and do hereby cerilfy that alllnformatlon hereon ls true and correct, and I f urther cerUfy that any and ail work performed shail be done in accordance wlth the Ordinances of the Clty of Sprlngfield, and the Lawsof the State of Oregon pertalnlng to the work descrlbed hereln, and that NO OCCUPANCy wlll be made of any structure without permission of the Buirdrrlg safety Divrsron.I further certify that only contractors and employees who are ln compliance with ORS 7O1.OS5 will be used on thlsproject. I further agree to ensure that all requlred inspections are requested at the proper ilme, that each address ls readable from the street, that the permlt card ls located at the front of the property, and the approved set of plans wlll remain D on the site at all times durln g constructlon Slgnatu re Date MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS Moblle Home State lssuance State Surcharge Sidewalk _ (t Curbcut -_ ft Demolitlon State Surcharge Total Miscellaneous Permlts (E) VALIDATION RECEIPT NUMBEFI DATE PAID s 49ao AMOUNT RECEIVED rTOTAL AMOUNT DUE (exctudtng electricat) (A, B, q D, and'E'Comblned)RECEIVED BY ?L I .i;i, ':: \-lsPrrrl\lcFrELp The lollowing project as submi'lt'r"{ h--lt tho {':r: zoning, end approvai. Zoni Authorized nn z- does n,:t r*q;ill, 511' ...1, . ri., ',r.) r:: 225 FTrf,E STREET SPRINGFIEI,D, OREGON 97477 INSPECTION REQUBST: 726- OFFICE: 726-3759 1 TOCATION e9>City Job Nurnber BI,ECIS.ICAL PERHIT APPLICATION SCffiDTIIJ BBLOV Nev Residential-Single or MuIti-FamilY Per dvelling unit' Service Included:Items Cost 1000 sq.ft. or less Each additional 500 sq. ft or Portion thereof Each Manuf'd Home or Modular Dvelling Servlce or Feeder $ 8s.00 $ 1s.00 Services or Feeders Installation, Alterations or Relocation: 200 amps or less 201 amps to 400 amps -401-'amps to 600 amPS - 60L amps to 1000 amPs- Over 1000 amPs/vo1ts - Reconnect 0n1Y 200 , 20L , Over 0ver tffyy a ct A c. Sum JOB cry'Lr l-lb Permits are non-transferable and expire if vork is not started vithin 180 days oi i""u.nee or if vork is suspended for 180 days. 2. CONTRACTOR Electrical Contrac Address Ci ty Phone Supervisor cense Number I Exp iration Date ID\ Ci ty Phone Temporary Services or Feeders fnstatlation, Alteration or Relocation Co nstr Contr. Number Exp iration Date 3 -bq'5 Signature of ing Electrician Ovners Name I *ht*.\>;pn Address ,* t4:4ql ONLY B 351'] s .qEi $ s0.00 $ 60.00 $100.00 $130. 00 s300.00 $ 40.00 amps or less $ 40.00 abr to 600 amps - $ 80.00 OoO "rp" or t bOOffis see nBu ab66 D. Branch Circuits Nev, Alteration or Extension Per Panel one circuit ,/ s 35.00 gf:o Each Additional Circuit or vith Service or Feeder Permi t z- $ 2.oo e E not included) OIJNER INSTALLATION The installation is being made on pioperty I ovn vhich is not intended for sale, lease or rent' Ovners Signature: Miscellaneous (Service/feeder -Each installation Pump or irrigation $ SignZOutIine-LightingT ELiilited Energy/Res - $ Limi ted Energy/Cornm - $ 40.00 40.00 20.00 36.00 DATE:L SUBTOTAL OF ABOVE 5Z State Surcharge 32 Administrative Fee TOTAL OREGO'VCITY OF RECETVED B 5. $ 40.00 OREGONCITY OF SPR 225 FIYTE STREET SPRTNGFTELD, OREGON 97477 ixspgcrroN REQITEST: 726-3 oFPICE: 726-3759 1 OF DESCRTPTION ON are non-transferable and exPire rk is not s tarted vithin 180 daYs suance or i f vork is susPended for 180 days. 2. COI{ITRACTOR Electrical Contrac Address Ci Phone Supervisor cense Number Expiration Date I Constr Contr. Number Expiration Date 3 -b .qs\ Signature of sing Electrician aa--- Ovners Name Address Ci not roquire speciiic laliu 1-000 sq.ft. or less Each additional 500 sq. ft or Portion thereof Each Manuf'd Home or Modular Dvelling Service or Feeder B C D. COHPI,BTE TEE SCEEDUI,E BELOS Nev Residential-Single or l,tulti-FamilY Per dvelling unit' Service Included: SiPBIilcFIELP EI,BCTRICAL PERI{IT APPIJCATION City Job Nunber I tems Cost $ 8s.00 7&ts Adhorized 3 A J- !_$ 1s.00 Sum c5 QPermi if vo of is $ 40.00 Services or Feeders fnstallation, Alterations or Relocation: 200 amps or less ( 201 amps to 400 amPs - 401 amps to 600 amPs - 601 amps to 1000 amPs- Over 1000 amPs/volts - Reconnect OnIY SUBTOTAL OF ABOVE 5Z State Surcharge 3Z Administrative Fee TOTAL $ s0.00 $ 60.00 $10o. oo s130.00 $300.00 $ 40.00 TemporarY Services or Feeders installaiion, Alteration or Relocation 2oo amps or less --L t 19 '99 4o zOi .,rb" to 400 amPs - t ::'99o".r +br to 600 amps - $ 80'00 0ver 600 "rp" o.-ibOO uorf" see nBrt a666 Branch Circuits Nev, Alteration or Extension Per Panel The instaltation is being made on piop"tty I ovn vhich is not intended tor sale, lease or rent' Ovners Signature: DATE: One Circuit $ 35'00 i""n aaaitional Circuit or vith Service or Peeder Permit - $ 2'00 E. Hiscellaneous (Service/feeder not included) -Each installation Pump or irrigation - Sign/Outline Lighting',- Limited EnergY/Res - $ 40.00 $ 40.00 $ 20.00 $ 36.00 RECETVED 5 +5D &,50 n to c 351qs.q5 ) u4a SPRINGFTELD RESIDENTIAL PERM!T APPLICATION lnspections: 726-3769 Off ice: 726'3759 h, JOB NUMBER q=///6 225 Fifth Street Springf ield, Oregon 97 477 .5rt ,{8 +nfnrcf LOCATION OF PROPOSED WORK: t? 02 ob oo o lcoASSESSOBS MAP LOT:BLOCK: .--SUBDIVISION OWNER: , ADDRESS: _ E: CITY:STATE:ZIP:2z >? To request an inspection, you must call 726-3769. This is a 24 hour recording. All inspections requested before 7:o0 a.m. will be made the same working day, inspections requested after 7:00 a.m. will be'nade the following work day. REQUIRED INSPECTIONS TAX LOT: PHON--zw€ l-El remPorarY Electric Sile lnspection - To be made after excavation, but Prior to setting forms. Underslab Plumbing/ Electrical / Mechanical - Prior to cover. Underlloor Plumbing/ Mechanical - Prior to insulation or decking. l7kFooting - After trenches are Ld dxcavated. Masonry - Steel location, bond beams, grouting. w Foundation - After forms are erected but Prior to concrete placement. Underground Plumbing - Prior to filling trench. Rough Mechanical - Prior to cover. Rough Electrical - Pr,or to cover Electrical Service - Musl be approved to obtain Pormanent elr:,ctrical power. Fireplace - Prior lo {acing materials and framing lnsP. Framing - Prior to cover. Wall/Ceiling lnsulation - Prior to cover Drywall - Prior to taping Wood Stove - After installation lnsert - After f irePlace ;.PProval and installation of unit. Curbcut & Approach - Alter forns are erected but Pririr to placemertt of concreie. SiCewalk & DrivewaY - Af ter excavation is comPlete. fornrs and sub-trp-se material in Place. Fence - Wlten complttteo Street Trees - Wlren all required trees are planted. w Final Plumbing - When all plumbing work is complete. I-71 Final Electrical - \lJhen all|lJ electrical work is cornplete. w Final Mechanical - When all mechanical work is complete. w Final Building -- When all required inspections have been approved and building is completed. Other MOBILE HOnrtE INSPECIIONS Blocking and Set-Up - When all blocking is cornplete. Plumbing Connecliotrs - When home ha:i been connected to water and sewer. Electrical Connbction - When hrlocking, set-up, and plumbing inspections have been approved and the home is connected to the service panel. Final - l.fter all required inspections are approved and por<:fres. skirtinO, decks, and venting have been installed. q4 w ru w w w w d) w w w w ffi Post and Beam - Prior to floor insulation or decking. Floor lnsulation - Prior to decki ng. Slorm Sewer - Prior to filling trench. Water Line - Prior to filling trench. NEw / - nEMoDEL ADDI'rloN DEMoLISH - -- '-- orHER DESCRIBE WORK EXPIRES PHONEADDRESS PLUMBING CONTRACTOR'S NAME GENERAL: MECHANICAL: ELECTRICAL: CONST. CONTRACTOR # 3q1 b ? WATER HEATER: - - OFFICE USE _ HEAT SOURCE: RANGE. QI-IAD AREA: , OF BDRMS ZONING CODE: FLOOD PLAIN SECONDARY HEA'I: SOUARE FOOTAGE: a {vl coNSrR. rYPE: V M -- a OF BLDGS: - OCCY GROUP: * OF STOFIIES: LAND USE: # OF UNITS Rough Plumbing - Prior to cover. fl Sanitary Sewer - Prior to filling trenclr. fl L] SRSO ,ill I aZZ" €; f] Lot faces Lot sq. ftg. Lot coverage Topography Total height Lot Type - lnterior - Corner ,y' Panhandte - Cul-de-sac Setbacks&z; a& 7at IS THE PFIOPOSED WORK IN THE HISTORICAL DISTRICI. OR ON rHE H|STOR|CAL REGISTER? [ n lf yes, this application must be signed and approved by the Historical Coordinator prior to permit issuance. APPROVED: PL.HSE GAR ACC N S da )2,tLZE BUILDING VALUE, PLAN CHECK AND BUILDING PERMIT This permit is granted on the express condition that the said construction shal!, in all respects, conform to the Ordinance adopted by the City of Springfield, including the Development Code, regulating the construction and use of buildings, and may be suspended or revoked at any time upon violati<-rn of any provisions of said ordinances. ewed By Date By: 2*:* Fleceipt Numbe Plan Check Fee Date Paid Recei u22-2A_/.21'?3 /D-7 +\1 Aft ?//3"'-/' /qaze fr/-,& (A) z /q./2 */ ?6.1a Garage Carport X $/SQ. FT. &z?_ VALUEta,e* l2,t/P!3.2o Total Value Building Permit Fee State Surcharge Total Fee "3*6/a.5e BUILDING PERMIT ITEM SQ. FT. Main 2d 7f Systems Developrnent Charge is due on al I undeveloped properties within the City limits which are being improved. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) ?46 (B) -1L4*'- ADDITIONAL COMMENTSZzzITEM Fixtures Residential Bath(s) Sanitary Sewer Water Storm Sewer Mobile Home FEE +51l ?d2. 17(c) ,_ae FT. FT. FT. PLUMBING PERMIT ^.b ?,e7 Plumbing Permit State Surcharge Total Charge N0 Wood Stove/ lnsert/ Fi replace Unit Dryer Vent + .u1 32,G7 G6 a+ (D) _?-P_ _?,_-_Vent Fan Mechanical Permit lssuance State Surcharge Total Permit -&-Z€=r-a1.18 MECHANICAL PERMII' Fu rnace Exhaust Hood \: 3- By signature, I state and agree, that I have carefully examined the corrpleted application and do hereby certify that all information hereon is true and correct, and I f urther certif y that any and all work perlormed shall be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Springf ield, and the Laws of the State of Oregon pertaining to the work described herein, and that NO OCCUPANCY will be made of any structure without permission of the Building Safety Division. I further certify that only contractors and etnployees who are in compliance with OFiS 701.055 will be used on this proiect. I f urther agree to ensure that all required inspections are requested at the proper time, that each address is readable from the street, that the permit card is located at the front of the property, and the approved set of plans will remain Signature Date on the site at all times duri construction Sidewalk - ft Curbcut -- ft Demolition State Surcharge /fu-e kta Total Miscellaneous Permits (E) W.4-?*?FcF #,n EM ISC EL LAN -'F+odriHltme €{o{c-l'sssanoe State Surcharge A-a-c**'r ADVS t EI AY VALIDA.I'ION: RECEIP'I'NUMB DATE PAID AMOUNT R RECF.IVED TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (excluding electric (A, B, C, D, and E Combined)+a Willamalane Park & Recreation District fob No. Q'11 44 b SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARC E WORKSHEET NAME:P*"^l-?^ro- B& ADDRESS: LOCATION OF PROPOSED Street Address if Known: 1 -1)Q=ztP Qlut--) BUILDINC SITE: t /\/n{5 "*1() ,'j +^'. * n oat, filft,.Platt Name:Tax Lot Number: DEVETOPMENT TYPE (Check appropriate dwelling(s). SDC Calculations and dwelling type definitions are on the back.) A. Single Family - Detached --r' Single Family home I Manufactured home not in a park oe) NO OF UNITS B. Single Family - Attached NO OF UNITS C. Multi-Family Apartment D. Manufactured Home Park NO OF UNITS NO OF UNITS X $277 PER UNIT = X $400 PER UNIT = X $370 PER UNIT = X $280 PER UNIT = $L-IDD $ $ $ $WPRD SDC 2. SDC CREDIT (lf applicable) SDC-payer must furnish proof of WPRD Credit approval. See SDC Credit Worksheet. 3. TOTAL WPRD NEf SDC ASSESSED (lf SDC reduced for Credit) nity Services Divi $ City of Springfield Date &\ 4DDU', PHoNE: 141 - r+q34 .t- fr $ Lane Council of Governments Public Service Building 8th Avenue & Oak Steet Administztlon IncalGovernment Scnices Intergovernmental Senices 125 East 8th Avenue Eugens OR9740L-2922 (503) 6874283 Fax (503) 6874W9 Schaefers Building 100rAvenue & Willanrette Street Senior Senices 1025 Willamette Street Suite 200 Eugene, OR 97401-3178 (503)687498 1-800-441-4038 Fax (503) 687-3959 TDD/ff Access (503) 6874s67 Senior Financial Assistance 40 East 10th Averue Eugene, OR 97401-3126 (503) 687-3895 \055 pDL8,:& January 3,1994 Mr. Greg Mott, Planning Manager Development Services City of Springfield 225Ftfth Street Springfield, OR97477 Dear Mr. Moft: Please find the attached Springfield Hearing Official's decision in Journal No. 9349-143, remanding the Director's decision in 93-07-105 and affirming the Director's decision in Jo. No. 9347-Lll. Sincerely,a4u..> Guy/untelle Springfield Hearing Official Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3, L994 Page 1 of 1l SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS OFFICIAL APPEAL OF THE PARTTTTON OF TAX LOT 1002, ASSESSOR'S MAp 18-O2J}6 AND MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE Application Summary Paul Dixon, 315 West Broadway, Eugene, OR 97401 requested the partition of tax lot 1002, assessor's map 18-O2-{6 into two parcels: Parcel 1 to be 8.93 acres and Parcel2tobe 20 acres. Tax lot 1002 is zoned MDR/LlF-l0 Medium Density ResidentialAlrban Fringe Overlay Distict On July 9,1993, the applicant requested (Journal Number 93-07-105) the partition of this tax lot into a 8.92 and 20 acre parcel and this request was approved by the Springfield Planning Director on August 30,1993. On July 23, L993, the applicant filed a Modification of Provisions requesting (Joumal Number 93-{,7-lL1) an 11 percent reduction in the minimum lot size for Parcel l. The MDFruF-lO District requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres. This request was also approved by the Planning Director on August 30,1993. adjacent property owners, appealed the . The appeal was heard by the On September 9,1993, Dena Neman and Teresa Grimes, approval of Journal Numbers 93-07-105 and 93-O7-111 Springfield Hearing Offrcial on October 20,1993. Aoplication History Hearing Date: October 20,1993 (Record Held Open Until Novembr29,l993) Decision Date: January 3, 1994 Appeal Deadline: January 24, 1994 Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals Statement of Criteria and Standards Section 3.050(2Xb) Springfield Development Code Section 1 1.030( 1 ) Springfield Development Code Section 29. 070 (5) Springfield Development Code Section 34.030 Springfield Development Code Section 34.050 Springfield Development Code Facts Relied tlpon (Findings) 1. The property subject to this request, hereinafter referred to as the "subject properQ/," can also be identified as tax lot 1002, assessor's map 18-02-06. The applicant requested that tax lot 1002, assessor's map 18-02-06 be partitioned into two parcels: Parcel 1 to be 8.93 acres and Parcel 2 tobe 20 acres. Parcel 1 of tax lot 1002 is occupied with a dwelling. This dwelling is served by an on-site well and subsurface sewage disposal system and receives electricity from SUB and telephone service from U.S. West. Parcel2 is currently vacanl 2 3 4 5 Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3,1994 Page 2 of 11 Parcel 1 will have 570 feet of frontage along South 28th Street and Parcel 2 will have a 60 foot wide panhandle to South 28th Streer The applicant contends that he has an easement over the driveway located near the northern perimeter of the property to the souttr and apparently intends to utilize this easement to access Parcel2 although a gtavel driveway located near the northern perimeter of Parcel 1 also provides access to Parcel 2. The subject property is zoned MDR^IF-IO Medium Density ResidentiaVUrban Fringe Overlay District. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Mefro Plan) designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential, which requires between ten and 20 dwelling units per gross acre (Policy tI-E.2 of the Metro Plan). In the sununer of 1987, the City of Springfield eliminated a dike separating Gory Creek from the Millrace and filled an adjacent slough area. This filIactivity was accomplished through the use of 56+ truck loads of fill and the use of a D-8 bulldozer. No permit was ever iisued for this fill activity. The equipment used to fill the slough accessed the subject property through the driveway on the property to ttre south. There is some evidence that the itough was a regulated wetland and that no wetland fill permit was ever requested or issued by the Oregon Division of State Lands for this activity. The TransPlan identifies a street improvement project @roject 347) thatoccurs along old Booth Kelly Road. This project would enhance access to the subject property by developing a two-lane arterial street between South 28ttr Steet and South 48th Srcer The Springfield Millrace Conceptual Plan is an advisory plan that addresses multiple use opportunities for the Millrace. The Plan is intended to guide the Springfield City Council in its deliberations towards the future use of City--owned Millrace property and water rights. It is not a land use plan, within the context of ORS Chapter 197, and does not have the force of policy or legislative mandate to compel land use actions be consistent with its provisions. (See Exhibits 6, 9 and 11 of the appellants' November 2, 1993 submission). Parcels I and2 of the proposed partition have not been classified as to compliance with Section 34.010(3) of the Springfield Development Code (SDC). The Springfield Utility Board requested a 50 foot wide public utility easement and an access easement for maintenance and repair from the applicant for Gory Creek. Gory Creek is considered a diversion channel by this utility. These easements were incorporated into the Director's conditions of approval. (Ser Exhibit H of the appellants' October 20,1993 submission and page 5 of the Notice of Decision for Joumal Number 9347-111 (Exhibit C to the September 28,1993 memorandum to the Hearings Official from Mel Oberst, Associate Planner)). 6 7 Decision IN REGARD TO JOURNAL NUMBER 93-O9_I43,IT IS ORDERED THAT: THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION IN REGARD TO JOURNAL NUMBER 93-07_105 IS REMANDED FOR ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION. SPECIFICALLY, 1 2 Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3,1994 Page3of11 TTM PRELMINARY PARTMON PLAT SHALL BE AMENDED CONSISTENTWTTII TI{E DISCUSSION IN ALLEGATIONS OF ERROR #2.b., c., d., f., g., and i., BELOW. THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION IN REGARD TO JOURNAL NUMBER 93_07_111 IS AFFIRMED. .Iustification for the Decision (Conclusion) The appellants have raised multiple allegations of error and these allegations shall be considered separately as follows: Allegations of Error Concerning Journal No. 93-O7-105 1. Improper procedure: Lack of public notice under Section 34.A20 of the Springfield Development Code. Section 34.02A0) of the SDC requires that partitions be reviewed under Type tr procedure. Section 3.080(1) of the SDC states that "The purpose of the Type tr procedure is to hold a DRC meeting involving the applicant, the DRC and adjacentproperty owners and occupants to review the development application..." The appellants claim that adjacent property owners and occupants were never notified in writing of the review meeting. The City provided notice pursuant to ORS 227.173 and 197.195. A written notice describing the proposed land use action was prepared and mailed to all owners of property and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. A fourteen day comment period was provided and was extended seven days upon the submittal of new, but not substantive, information (Affidavit of Service). The notice made no mention of citizen participation in the Development Review Committee meeting but instructions on the application packet used by the applicant indicated that adjacent property owners may attend the review meeting and state their concerns. The City notes that the appellants were informed by phone of the time and place of the DRC meeting, were not restricted from attending, but did not attend. Section 3.080(1) of the SDC does not specifically require written notice of the DRC notice to be sent to adjacent property owners. The lack of written notice does not constitute a procedural error in this situation. Misleading information contained in the applicant's information packet does not otherwise require written notification if such a procedure is not required by the SDC. Even if the failure tb provide written notice was a protedural error, without a showing, of prejudice this error must be considered harmless. The appellants received oral notification and have not shown that this notice was inadequate; bnty that it was not written notice. In addition, the de novo public hearing before the hearingofficial has cured any procedural error related to notice that might hav-e been committed at the Planning Director level. The Hearing Official dismissei this allegation of error. 2. The partition application was incomplete. Section 34.030 of the SDC identifies the format of a preliminary partition plan. This section states that "the format of the plan and the data to be shown shali be as fo[6ws:" The appellants argue that the applicant's preliminary plan was inadequate as it tailed to include several categories of information required by Section 34.030 of the SDC. The City responds that the level of review is relevant to the intensity of the development and states thal "onerous requirements that are irrelevant to the test of approval are not placed upon the property owner for obvious reasons, e.g. a stonn drainage plan." Neither party seems to completely understand the operational requirements of Section 34.030. The City is not free to overlook omissions to the preliminary partition plan because the required information is felt not to be not relevant or important to the partition at hand. For example, Section 34.030(1Xh) of the SDC requires an identification of the zoning and Plan designation of properties within 100 feet of the subject property. This information must be on the preliminary partition plan as must the calculation of the solar factor. Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3,1994 Page 4 of 11 It is just as obvious that if data is not required by the action of partitioning a parcel and is not otherwise presen! it does not have to be shown upon the preliminary partition plan. Thus, sidewal-ls, pedestrian trails and bicycle paths, if not planned, existing or required, need not be shown. The Hearing Official will address each of the subparts of Appellant' regarding required information that is missing from the preliminary follows: s Allegation of Error 2 paftition plan as a The preliminary plan, including any required Future Development Plan, shatl be prepared by a surveyor on a map 18" x 24" in size. tsDC 3a.030(1Xa)l The issue here is whettrer the preliminary plan should include a Future Development Plan. A Future Development Plans is not required for this partition request (Journal No. 93-07-105) as Section 29.070(5Xb)(1) of the SDC requires a Future Development Plan for any new parcel between 5 and 10 acres in size, unless that parcel is located in the MDRruF-lO Disdcr Parcel 1 of this proposed partition is between five and ten acres in size but is zoned MDRruF-l0. Parcel 2, at20 acres, is larger than ten acres. The appellants are correct that Sections 29.070(3)(a) and (b)(1) of the SDC require a Future Development Plan for the siting of the applicant's proposed dwelling on Parcel 2.Ttre appellants further argue that while the siting of a residence in the UF-10 Overlay District is described as a Type I procedure by Section 29.040(1) of the SDC, the determination of the adequacy of the required Future Development Plan makes this a discretionary land use decision within the context of Doughton v. City of Roseburg. The Hearing Official does not disagree with this analysis but observes that this issue is not before him. The applicable zoning district and the Metro Plan designation of the proposed partition and of properties within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property. ISDC 34.030(1Xh)I See the third paragraph addressing the appellants' second allegation oferror, above. This information should be shown on the preliminary partition plan. b c. Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3,1994 Page 5 of 11 The proposed plan for drainage including handling storm water overflow for each individual parcel and sheet flow from adjacent properties. [SDC 34.030(3)] Whether there has been an error in the omission of this information is a question of facL The inqurry is whether topographic and hydrologic features necessitate the creation of a drainage plan. The staffhas commented that since the subject property is flat and no impervious surface other than the roof of the proposed dwelling on Parcel 2 will be constructed, no drainage plan is required.The Hearing Official agrees with this analysis as far as it goes but believes that the questions raised and information provided by the appellants more accurately goes to the satisfaction of Section 34.030(4) which requires the location of not just the floodway and the floodway fringe but also "alI other areas subject to seasonal ponding." The appellants carefully attempt to document the 1987 activities that apparently eliminated a dike separating Gory Creek from the Millrace and filled an adjacent slough area and they have presented some anecdotal evidence that this activity has adversely affected storrn water runoff on the subject propefty. It is uncontested that ttris fill activity was conducted on the subject property without a permit and that the preliminary partition map submitted by the applicant shows the presence of Flood Znnes A and B on the northwestern and eastem perimeters of the subject property. Given the large amount of fiIl transported onto the subject property in 1987, two years after the development of the flood maps for the area, it is reasonable to require the City to provide some expert testimony verifying that this activity did not change the flooding potential on the subject propefty. Upon remand, the City has several responsibilities. First, it must ascertain the magnitude and location of the fiIl activities that occured in 1987 and determine whether that activity required permits; i.e., a floodplain permit from the City or a regulatory wetlands fill permit from the State. Second, ttre City must determine whether the fill activity will adversely affect the subject property, and the proposed division thereof, because of its affect on floodwaters or storrnwater drainage. The locations, widths and names of all existing streets, alleys, or other rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed partition. The relationship of all proposed streets to any projected streets as shown on the Metro Plan, including the TransPlan and any approved Conceptual Development Plan. ISDC 34.030(5)l The only existing sfreet, alley or right of way within or adjacent to the proposed partition is South 28th Street. The preliminary partition plan does not identify the width of South 28th Sneet. City staff, in a November 17 ,1993 memorandum to file, notes that the TransPlan depicts street improvement project 347 , along the old Booth Kelly Road. This project would enhance access to the subject property by developing a rwo-lane arterial sreet between South 28th Sreet and South 48th Street. If the terminus of this project lies on South 28th Sneet adjacent to the subject property it should be d e Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3, 1994 Page 6 of 11 depicted on the preliminary partition plan. If not, the narrative description provided by staff is sufficient. The appellants have also identified the Springfield Millrace Conceptual Plan as being applicable to the applicant's request to partition the subject properly. While this conceptual plan does apparently address the banks of the Millrace, which borders the subject property on the north and east" the Springfield Millrace Conceptual Plan does not create any rights-of-way. This plan therefore is not applicable to the satisfaction of Section 34.030(5) of the SDC. (It should be pointed out that a future development plan, as required by Section 29.070(3)(a) and (b)(1) of the SDC, is not the same as a conceptual development plan.) No other Conceptual Development Plans have been approved for the subject property or adjacent properties. The location and widths of all proposed sidewalks existing and proposed sidewalks, including the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any required planter strip; pedestrian trails; and bicycle paths. ISDC 34.030(6)I There are no existing or proposed sidewalks, pedestrian frails or bicycle paths and such improvements are not required by the proposal. While some of these types of improvements are addressed by the Springfield Millrace Conceptual Plan, they are addressed in a "visionary" rather than mandatory manner and the applicant is not required to either construct or grant right--of-way easements for their developmenl The absence of these improvements from the preliminary partition plan is not error. The location and size of all existing and proposed utilities including but not limited to, sanitary sewer mains, storm drains, water lines, electric, telephone, tv cable and gas lines. ISDC 34.030(7)I Since the existing residence on Parcel 1 is served by electric, telephone and possibly cable television, and the applicant has indicated an intent to build on Parcel 2, information concerning the location and size of all existing and proposed utilities is also relevant and required. The locations, widths and purpose of all existing or proposed easements on and abutting the proposed partition; the location of any existing or proposed reserve strips. ISDC 34.030(S)l The record shows an existing dwelling is located on Parcel 1 and presumably, the services to this dwelling (telephone, electric, etc.) are located on easements. Pages 3 and 4 of the August 30, 1993 Notice of Decision (Exhibit B to September 28, 1993 memorandum to the Hearings Officer from Mel Oberst) identify, for instance, a seven foot public utility easement along the frontage of South 28th Sreet. In this document staff noted that this easement must be shown on the final plat. There is also evidence in the record regarding an access easement over the appellants' driveway, which is located along the northern perimeter of the tax lot to the south. The preliminary partition plan does not show the utility easements on Parcel 1 nor f g Jo. No. 9349-1,43 January 3, L994 Page 7 of 11 does it show the access easement over the appellants'driveway to the south. This information must be shown on the preliminary partition plan. In addition, as a condition of approval, the Director has required the applicant to record a public utility easement along Gory CYeek and a stormwater maintenance easement along the south bank of the Millrace, both for the benefit of the Springfield Utility Board. The appellants' concern about the operation of heavy equipment over their bridge and suspicions regarding the public acquisition of property for improvenrcnts are apparent. What is not apparent is how these required easements will adversely affect the interests of the appellants as these conditions create no greater right in SUB to access the appellants' property. Nevertheless, these two easements must be shown on the preliminary partition plan. The locations of all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use, with the purpose, condition or limitations of the reservations clearly indicated. [SDC 34.030(9)l There is no information in the record regarding any areas that are or will be dedicated or reserved for public use. The appellants have identified the Springfield Millrace Conceptual Plan as being relevant to this partition request. However, this plan is advisory only and has not mandated the dedication or reservation of any land for public use. h. I j k The classification of each lot as complying complying (non-solar lot) with section 34. tsDC 34.030(12)I (solar lot) or not 010(3) of this Article. There is no evidence in the record that the lots to be created by the proposed partition have been classified according to SDC 34.010(3). This information must be provided on the preliminary partition plan supporting documents. A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed partition and the existing use of the property. ISDC 3a.030(13Xa)l While the preliminary plot plan is not annotated with a narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed partition and existing use of the subject property, that information is adequately provided by the August 30, 1993 Notice of Decision in Journal Number 93-{7-105 and the October 30,1993letter to the City of Springfield from Paul and Eva Dixon. This information can be attached to the preliminary partition plan documents by reference. A draft of proposed restrictions and covenants affecting the partition. tSDC 3a.030(13Xc)l The Hearing Official is not aware of any proposed resfrictions or covenants that affect the partition. The disputed restriction regarding the use of the appellants' driveway is not relevant if the applicant otherwise has approved access under the requirements of Section 34.030 of the SDC. 3. Jo. No. 9349-L43 January 3, t994 Page8of11 Failure to provide review documents Allegation of Error #3 concerns the appellants' claim ttrat their ability to review the "application and supporting documents" was impaired by the lack of a future development plan accompanylng the preliminary partition plan and insufficient information regarding access and other data. The Hearing Official has determined that a future development plan was not required as a part of the partition process and its omission is not fatal to the Director's decision in Joumal Number 93-07-105 and -111. The concerns regarding the issue of access also not appear to violate the letter or intent of Section 34.030 of the SDC. Parcel 2 has 60 feet of frontage on South 28th Street via a panhandle. This frontage width is adequate to support a minimum access driveway or the development of a street during the future division of Parcel Z.The latter would have to be located on the preliminary partitiodsuMivision plat submitted at that time. The appellants apparently contest the use of their driveway as an access easement to serve the proposed single-family development on Parcel 2. Under Section 34.030 of the SDC, however, this issue seems relevant only to the extent that the easement should be shown on the preliminary partition plan (Section 34.030(8)). Even if that easement becomes unavailable to the applicant, the panhandle of Parcel 2 has more than adequate width to provide driveway access to a single dwelling. Other supporting information that the appellants' allege was not available concerned the history of the removal of the dike across Gory Creek and the history of the subject property's designation by the Meffo Plan. This decision addresses the fust issue under Allegation of Error 2.c. and requires, on remand, that the City document the fill activity through appropriate permiting processes. In regard to the second issue, the record does not suggest that there is any plan designation "history," as such, concerning the subject property. The vast number of properties within the Metro Plan's Urban Growth Boundary were designated on the basis of recommendations by planning staff. These recommendations were largely based upon the natue of existing uses and trends in development. Few properties were singled out for selective discussion, either during the development of the "working papers," which established a factual background for the Metro Plan, or during the legislative adoption process. There is no indication that the subject property was ever selected for individual attention during or since the Plan adoption process. Dispite the above discussion, the Hearing Official senses that the appellans, applicant and staff all share misgivings about the appropriateness of the Medium Density Residential designation of the subject property. If this perception is true, the best strategy would be for the City to request a redesignation of the subject property at the next appropriate opportunity to amend the Metro Plan. The hearing before the Hearing Official was de novo in nature. The Hearing Official has no reason to believe that any information or documents required by the partitioning process, other than those explicitly addressed in this decision, were unavailable to the appellants for review. The Hearing Official dismisses this allegation of eror. 4 Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3,1994 Page 9 of 11 Improper notification to Lane County The standard for the adequacy of referrals that are sent to interested or affected governmental agencies is one of reasonableness of notice. That is, was the referral reasonably adequate to alert Lane County regarding the basic nature of the land use action being contemplated? If the refenal is adequate in this regard then the burden shifts to the County to inquire as to more details regarding the proposed action. Also, the County was advised of the de novo hearing process on this mattor and could have participated further in these proceedings. The Hearing Official finds that Lane County had adequate notice of the nature of the proposed partition request before the Director and received adequate opportunity to participate in the de novo hearing before the Hearing Official. This allegation of error is dismissed. Section 34.050(1) of the SDC has been violated as no proper access has been required. The applicant does not need an access easement for Parcel 2 as it has 60 feet offrontage on South 28th Sreet. It is immaterial that the driveway is not located on the preliminary partition plan since it is not required to be so. The property is flat and the bridging of Gory Creek is the only unique aspect relating to the consffuction of the driveway. This allegation of error is dismissed. Section 34.050(3) is violated because of improper access to Parcel 2. Section 34.050(3) of the SDC requires a showing that the remainder of the property being partitioned can be accomplished within the provisions of the SDC. There is nothing in the record to indicate that access is inadequate to support either the proposed partition or future development of the subject property. As stated above, for the purposes of supporting the proposed single-family dwelling, the applicant only needs to show access conforming to the minimum driveway width standards: 20 foot For purposes of developing the remainder of the subject property, the applicant must demonsftate sufficient access to support a street. The 60-foot wide panhandle frontage for Parcel2 is adequate for this purposes. The actual location of the street is not necessary until future partition. This allegation of error is dismissed. Section 34.050(4) is violated because adjacent land can not be developed or provided access in accordance with the SDC. Because adjacent land to the south (the appellants' property) lies outside of the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, the appellants argue that it cannot by definition be developed under the provisions of the SDC. The Hearing Official does not believe this is a reasonable interpretation of the intent or operation of Section 34.050(4) of the SDC. Adopting the appellants' interpretation of this section would mean that no parcel adjacent to the urban growth boundary could be partitioned. This clearly is not the intent of this provision. Section 34.050(4) is intended to prevent the approvals of partitions that would adversely affect the development of or access to adjacent land. Thus, a partition of a parcel that does not provide for access to an otherwise land locked property could not be 5. 6 7 8. Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3,1994 Page l0 of 11 approved. A partition that did not adequately address sheet drainage onto adjacent parcels from anticipated development could also not be approved. It is not clear that Section 34.050(4) was intended to apply to adjacent land located outside of the urban growth boundary but as is language makes no distinction, the Hearing Official will assume that it does. In the present situation, the property to the south has its own driveway and its access is not affected by this request for partition. As long as the applicanl has demonsftated the ability to provide adequate access to Parcel 2,the use (or non-use) of a driveway on the property to the south is irrelevant. Conformity with the Lane Code The appellants' argument that ttre applicant's use of an easement on propefly outside of the urban-growth boundary requires the application of the Lane Code standards (eg., Chapters 13 and 15) to this decision is incorrect. The request is before the City of Springfield and City planning standards are applied through an intergovernmental arrangement with Lane County. The SDC does not incorporate Chapters 13 or 15 of the Lane Code into ttre partition approval process and in the present case, the City has found that the applicant has demonstrated adequate access on the subject property to serve the level of land use permitted by the requesl The fact that the applicant may choose to use another route to access Parcel 2 is not directly relevant to the standard of adequate access and probably is a matter for the Circuit Court The Hearing Officia1 dismisses allegations of error related to lack of conformity with the Lane Code. The application for partition was not signed by all affected property owners. This allegation of error refers to Section 3.050(2Xb) of the SDC, which requires that the application be accompanied by evidence that the subject property is either under the exclusive ownership or contol of the applicant or the applicant has the consent from the owners of all affected property to act on their behalf. If is not entirely clear, but the appellants appear to argue that since their property will be used for access to Parcel 2 and will be adversely affected by the approval of this partition request, they are required to sign the application form. This interpretation is not correcl The term "affected property" refers to the property subject to the discretionary land use approval being requested of the City. The intent of this provision is twofold. First, it ensures that the City does not embark upon a quasi-judicial land use request when not all owners of the property directly affected by the request are in agreement. Second, it prevents persons without a direct property interest from initiating a land use change without the owners consent. In the present case, the partition approval does not require that the applicant take access via the driveway on the property to the south. Indeed, the partition approval is explicitly based upon the existence of adequate frontage access on South 28th Street for both of the proposed parcels. If the applicant's use of the appellants driveway exceeds his easement rights or is in violation of the Lane Code then the appropriate remedy can be found in Circuit Court or through the Lane County Compliance Office. In the present matter, the application for partition of the subject property, dated July 9, 1993, was signed by the applicant, as purchaser, and by Bob Peterson, as property owner. 9 Jo. No. 9349-143 January 3, 1994 Page 11 of 11 There is no evidence that there are other parties involved in the ownership of the subject property. This allegation of error is dismissed. Allegations of Error Concerning Journal No. 93-O7-111 The appellants argue that the Director has improperly applied Section 11.030(2) of the SDC to allow the creation of substandard Parcel 1. Section 11.030(2) concerns five criteria that must be met to justify the issuance of a variance. The Director approval of the substandard size of Parcel 1, however, was based upon the standards of Section 11.030(1) of the SDC, which allow the Director to adjust any quantitative standard of the SDC by 20 percent. It was the standards of the latter provision that were applied by the Director and not cha[6nged by rhe appellants. This allegation of error is dismissed. Respectfully submitted, 6i,r;'/)o..,\ Gt{L. Darnielle Springfield Hearings Officiat