HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 05 05 AIS MAJVAR METROSORRIC
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/5/2020
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Andrew Larson, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541.736.1003
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Goals: Promote and Enhance
our Hometown Feel
while Focusing on
Livability and
Environmental Quality
ITEM TITLE: REQUEST TO GRANT MAJOR VARIANCE TO THE LOT SIZE AND
DIMENSIONS FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN SDC 3.2-215
BASE ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing and deliberations, and approve, approve with conditions,
or deny a request to grant a Major Variance for two lots that do not meet the
minimum area standard and two lots that do not meet the minimum street frontage
standard for north/south streets, on vacant property located near the intersection of
Fairview Drive and Fairhaven Street.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
City staff approved a tentative subdivision plan with a condition to reconfigure the
subdivision to eliminate substandard lots, or obtain variance approval for
substandard lot area sizes and dimensions (Journal No. 811-19-000270-TYP2). The
Planning Commission is asked to determine whether the request is consistent with
the Criteria for Major Variance Approval set by SDC 5.21-130.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: PC Order – Major Variance Request 811-20-000030-TYP3
Exhibit A: Property Description
Exhibit B: Staff Report and Findings with Exhibits
Attachment 2: Site Overview, Context and Zoning Maps
Attachment 3: Tentative Subdivision Approval 811-19-000270-TYP2
Attachment 4: Requested Lot Adjustments
Attachment 5: Applicant Submittals
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The applicants received Tentative Subdivision Approval for eleven lots on an
approximately 1.59 acre vacant parcel on the condition that six lots be brought into
compliance with size and dimension standards or provide evidence of Major
Variance Approval for reduced lots sizes prior to Final Plat procedures. The
applicants submitted an application for Major Variance on February 3, 2020. City
staff thereafter determined that two of these six meet the minimum standards
without variance approval; the Staff Report addresses four lots.
The Planning Commission is asked to apply the Major Variance Criteria of
Approval located at SDC 5.21-130 and render a decision on the facts of the case.
Staff found that planned street connections and existing easements impact the
design and density of the site and the proposed lot size adjustments were minimal
and necessary to achieve the proposed number of lots within the subdivision and are
therefore recommending Approval with Condition(s). The Applicant Submittals,
Public Comments and Staff’s Report and Findings are attached for the
Commission’s consideration. The scheduled public hearing will be conducted on
line and in compliance with COVID19 protections.
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
FINAL ORDER FOR:
REQUEST TO GRANT MAJOR VARIANCE TO THE LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS
FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN SDC 3.2-215 BASE ZONE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
] 811-20-000030-TYP3
]
]
]
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
Request to grant a Major Variance for two lots that do not meet the minimum area standards and two
lots that do not meet minimum street frontage standards for north-south streets within a tentatively
approved subdivision on vacant property located near the intersection of Fairview Drive and Fairhaven
Street. The subject property is generally depicted and more particularly described in Exhibit A to this
Order.
Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to SDC 5.2-115 and
Executive Order 20-16.
On May 5, 2020, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations
on the proposed request for a Major Variance. The staff report, written comments, and testimony of
those who spoke in person or electronically at the public hearing were entered into the record.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed Major Variance request is consistent with the criteria of SDC 5.
21-130 as conditioned. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in
the Staff Report and Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that of the Major Variance requested, Case
Number 811-20-000030-TYP3, be approved as conditioned. This ORDER was presented to and approved
by the Planning Commission on May 5, 2020.
____________________________ ____________________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 10
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 10
Exhibit B, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 10
Staff Report and Findings Before the Planning Commission Request for Major Variance from Lot Area Size and Dimension Hearing Date: May 5, 2020 Case Number: 811-20-000030-TYP3 Applicant & Property Owner: Richard Sorric PO Box 10092 Eugene, OR 97440 Applicant Representative: Metro Planning, Inc.
Jed Truett 846 A Street Springfield, OR 97477 Site: Map Number 17-03-27-31; Tax Lots 1900 & 1902
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST Request to allow a variance on lot area for two lots and lot frontage for two lots in the Tentatively Approved Johnathan Court 11-Lot Subdivision. The request would allow two lots to be created below the minimum 5,000 sq. ft. lot size and two lots below the minimum 60 feet of frontage for lots located on a north/south street.
SITE INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The application was submitted on February 3, 2020, and the public hearing on the matter of the Major Variance request is scheduled for May 5, 2020. The City conducted a Development Review Committee meeting on the
variance request on February 25, 2020. The property is located just south and west of the intersection of Fairview and Rainbow Drive; with minimum frontage on Fairview. The property is zoned Low Density Residential in accordance with the Metro Plan. The site is approximately 1.59 acres and is currently vacant. The site has not yet been assigned a municipal street address and is identified as Assessor’s Map 17-03-27-31, Tax Lots 1900 & 1902. An 11-Lot Subdivision, Johnathan Court, was approved for the subject property on January 24, 2020 and conditioned to either reconfigure lots to meet minimum standards or receive approval of a Major Variance prior to Final Plat approval. In accordance with Section 3.2-215 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC), for lots fronting on north/south streets, the standards for minimum lot size and dimensions are 5,000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 60 feet. The applicant is requesting Lots 1 & 2 to be approved with 4,269 square feet of area, and Lots 10 & 11 to be
approved with 53.47 feet of frontage on proposed Fairhaven Street; a north/south public street. The Major Variance Criteria applied to a request for relief from minimum standards of the code are listed in Section 5.21-130 of the Springfield Development Code. The applicants’ response and findings proposed by staff for the Planning
Commission’s consideration are provided herein.
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 10
Notification and Written Comments Notification of the May 5, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the outer boundary of the development site on April 14, 2020 . Notification was also published in the April 15, 2020 edition of The Register Guard. One letter was received prior to completion of this staff report:
Comment: Douglas & Suzi Ginter, 1007 W N Street, Springfield, OR 97477, provided comment via email on March 9, 2020 stating the following:
“We are OPPOSED to allowing a variance on lot area for the two lots and lot frontage for two lots in
tentatively approved Johnathan Court 11-lot subdivision. 1.) The two lots that are requested to be created, ARE BELOW the MINIMUM 5,000 sq. ft. lot size required.
2.) The other two lots ARE BELOW the MINIMUM 60 feet of FRONTAGE required. Why is Mr. Sorric trying to cram so many lots into such a small area? Perhaps 6-8 homes would be overly sufficient. Eleven is outrageous in our opinion. Solution: Give them bigger lots and charge more money. There are safety issues there: if there were a fire in the inner most houses and vehicles were parked along the street (most people have more than one auto plus visiting friends/family) how would an emergency vehicle get to those in need? The congestion is going to be awful cramming that many people in that small area. You asked for our input, We Are Opposed to that many lots to build on, especially since they ARE BELOW the MINIMUM that is required.” Staff Response: Section 5.21-130 states that the Approval Authority, Planning Commission, may approve or approve
with conditions a Major Variance on finding that all of the criteria listed in Section 5.21-130(A-E) are satisfied, otherwise the request will be denied.
The applicant received tentative approval for the 11-Lot Subdivision, Johnathan Court, on January 24, 2020. The required density range in the Low Density Residential District is 6-14 units per developable acre. The proposed
density is 10.25 units to the developable acre and is within the allowable range for the district. Additionally, the City of Springfield Development Review Committee reviewed the tentative subdivision proposal and found that the existing and proposed public infrastructure meets applicable standards for traffic safety and emergency access. As part of that review the Deputy Fire Marshall reviewed access widths, emergency turn around functions and available or proposed fire hydrants and found them adequate to serve the development. The Planning Commission will determine if the requested variance of lot sizes poses an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood by applying the Variance Criteria of Approval cited above. Criteria of Approval Section 5.21-130 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Major Variances. The Major Variance approval criteria are:
SDC 5.21-130. CRITERIA
A. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure; lot/parcel size, shape or
topography; the location or size of physical improvements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property that would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other
property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district;
B. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the development standards of this Code or of any applicable
Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual Development Plan or other applicable plans or studies;
Exhibit B, Page 2 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 10
C. The Variance shall have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the same zoning district and/or vicinity, or the request can be conditioned so that there are no significant adverse affects;
D. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. above shall not arise from a previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need; and
E. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition.
Applicant Submittals and Proposed Findings in Response to Criteria 1. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure; lot/parcel size, shape
or topography; the location or size of physical improvements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property that would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district. Applicant Submittal: There are a few unusual conditions that exist with the subject property. First is that an east/west continuation of Olympic Street must occur even though there is no adjacency. As noted above, the initial proposal in Exhibit A (utilizing panhandle lots) helped to mitigate this while still
yielding enough lots to make the project feasible. Second, there eventually needs to be a connection to Fairview Drive. Even though our parcel is not the
midpoint between connections, it is “first in time” and so became the candidate property to provide that connection. The additional requirement of an alternate public street layout brought in different lot requirements (those required for north-south street vs panhandle lots). The public street is also a more
expensive item than a panhandle driveway, and so it is even more important to keep the initial lot count to make the project feasible.
Once this project is complete the north-south street connection will allow property owners to the east and west to develop their respective properties without having to worry about the additional expense and loss of
property for a public street connection to Fairview. In other words, they will be beneficiaries and so will
enjoy a property right that the Applicant is deprived of. Finding 1: The applicant has tentative subdivision approval to dedicate and construct a north/south local street segment leading to an intersection with a future east/west collector street as part of a single family residential subdivision on LDR property, Case Number 811-19-000270-TYP2. The lots involved in this request are all located on the north/south local street segment of the development. Finding 2: In accordance with Section 3.2-215 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) the standards for minimum lot size and dimensions are 5,000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 60 feet on north/south streets. The applicant is requesting Lots 1 & 2 to be approved with 4,269 square feet of area, and Lots 10 & 11 to be approved with 53.47 feet of frontage on proposed Fairhaven Street; a north/south public street.
Finding 3: The applicant has included Lots 3 & 9 in tabular data submitted under Criterion 5; however, staff
has determined that these two lots can be oriented to Olympic Street and meet the minimum development standards for an east/west street and do not require a Major Variance. Finding 4: Section 3.2-205 establishes sites for Low Density Residential development where primarily detached single-family dwelling and duplexes are permitted with a density range of 6 to 14 dwelling units per net acre. The subject property is 1.59 gross acres in size; removal of the right of way area from the gross
acreage results in a net developable area of 1.42 acres. The allowable density range corresponds to 6-14 units. The applicant proposed 11 lots with a net density of 10.25 dwelling units per acre, which falls within the allowable density range.
Exhibit B, Page 3 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 10
Finding 5: The site’s location, shape and frontage dictated its connection points to existing and planned streets during subdivision design and review procedures. As approved, the street connections to Fairview and Olympic Streets form an inverted “T” design that reduces the net developable area by 0.17 acres and limits the design of lots along the north/south local street. Finding 6: There is an existing EWEB easement and water main diagonally spanning the northern portion of the property which affected subdivision design during tentative review. As tentatively approved, the applicant will relocate the easement and main to an east/west orientation across the site to reduce impacts of the current
alignment. Lots 1 & 2 and 10 & 11 have fixed lot depths and have been further limited in developable area by placement of the easement along common property lines.
Finding 7: The location and shape of the parent parcel limit the available options for access and connectivity to the existing and planned street network. The resulting net developable area and the size of building
envelopes along the north/south street are further limited by the existence of the existing EWEB infrastructure. The EWEB easement has limited options for relocation and must remain near its current location. Reducing lot sizes at this location and co-locating driveways over the re-aligned easement area focuses and limits the impacts to the subject lots, limits the ripple effect on lot designs and preserves remaining lot sizes within the development area. Finding 8: The applicant’s request is for relief from minimum lot size and dimension standards for four of eleven lots within a development area with limited street connectivity and lot design options and which is further impacted by existing infrastructure and easements which do not serve the site and poses limited relocation options. Finding 9: The street dedication requirement as it relates to the overall development area configuration and
the existence of the EWEB easement across the northern portion of the property are unusual conditions not anticipated by the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Denying relief from these standards would
deprive the property owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district: specifically, the ability to develop housing at or below the maximum density for the LDR zone, and lots that meet the smaller minimum standards for east/west streets (4500 sq. ft. area and 45’
frontage). Conclusion: The above findings show that Criterion A is met. 2. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the development standards of this Code or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual Development Plan or other applicable plans or studies; Applicant Response: North-south lots are generally larger in dimension and size than those on an east-west
street. The lot dimension variances requested would not reduce the subject lots below the size or dimensions allowed for lots on an east-west street or panhandle lots. To that degree the variances leave the lots consistent with the comprehensive plan and proposed minimum densities for low-density residential zoning.
The proposed variance requests are very minor and will not be inconsistent with any other applicable plans or studies.
Finding10: The subject site is not within any Refinement Plan diagram, overlay district or other applicable special plans or studies.
Finding 11: New residential development will be required to comply with all height, setback, parking, coverage and solar standards of the Low Density Residential District at the time of development.
Finding 12: The City of Springfield’s Engineering Division reviewed the request for reduced lot sizes and recommended shared driveways for the lots to limit the conflict points and impacts the reduced width right of way approved during tentative subdivision review. The reviewing engineer found that the proposed
Exhibit B, Page 4 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 10
north/south street (tentatively named Fairview St. in the subdivision application) serving the undersized lots is a narrower alternative design standard which was tentatively approved to provide the needed connectivity and access. The street design is narrow (20 feet in width) with sidewalk on one side. The following condition is recommended to reduce the number of driveways serving the proposed lots and provide additional area for standard utilities, above ground appurtenances and on street parking area:
Condition of Approval: On the Final Plat, and as part of the Public Improvement Plans, the applicant shall show shared driveway access easements, centered over the EWEB waterline easement, for Lots 10 & 11 on the west side of Fairview Street and Lots 1 & 2 on the east side of Fairview Street. Conclusion: As conditioned, the above findings demonstrate that Criterion B is satisfied. 3. The Variance shall have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the same zoning district and/or vicinity, or the request can be conditioned so that there are no significant adverse effects; Applicant Response: Since the area and dimensions of the subject lots will still exceed the minimum required for lots on east-west streets and panhandle lots, there will be no noticeable or adverse affects on any other properties zoned LDR in the immediate vicinity. The overall density for this subdivision with these variances will be under 7 units per acre, and so won’t even come close to the 14 unit per acre maximum allowed in the
LDR zone. The variances requested are relatively minor (15% or less variance from the standard) and will not be noticeable. Finding 13: If approved, the proposed density of 10.25 units per acre is within the allowed range of 6-14 units per developable acre in the LDR zoning district. Densities within the prescribed range are not considered an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Finding 14: The LDR permitted use list allows for a range of designs to meet prescribed densities such as
single family homes, duplexes or attached single family structures. A full range of lot sizes and techniques are evident in the surrounding neighborhood as shown in Attachment 2 and throughout the City of Springfield. Finding 15: All residential development is subject to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) and must meet applicable standards for the Low Density Residential District including applicable setbacks, height restrictions, and parking requirements. The provision of street improvements and the application of residential development standards during building permit review will prohibit any adverse effects on neighboring properties. Finding 16: As conditioned herein, shared driveways for Lots 1 & 2 and Lots 10 & 11 will limit pedestrian vehicle conflict points and provide a safer transportation environment within the subdivision area. The tentatively approved street connections at the northerly and southerly boundaries of the subdivision will be further reviewed during Public Improvement Project review to ensure safe and efficient connectivity to the existing street network. Conclusion: As submitted and conditioned herein, the above findings demonstrate that Criterion C is satisfied.
4. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. above shall not arise from a previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need;
Applicant Response: The unusual conditions described in Subsection A did not arise from a previous Code violation and although there would be substantial loss of profit if the variances were not granted this is not
the unusual condition described in Subsection A.
Exhibit B, Page 5 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 10
Finding 17: The unusual conditions noted above are the location, shape, frontage, required street connectivity standards and pre-existing infrastructure and associated easements affecting the development area and do not arise from a prior code violation. Finding 18: While the applicant mentions project feasibility as a reason justifying the Major Variance, the
need for a variance is not solely due to motivation of loss of profit. In addition to the circumstances described above, the Major Variance can be justified in that it provides additional housing units within the allowable density range. It is well-established that the State of Oregon has an overall housing shortage.1 The proposed
Major Variance increases the number of lots that can be provided and therefore the number of units constructed, which provides more housing in response to this statewide shortage.
Conclusion: There are no existing Code violations and the request is not solely based on loss of profit or financial need. As proposed, the above findings demonstrate that Criterion D is satisfied.
5. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition. Applicant Response: The variance requested is the minimum needed to alleviate the impact of the public street requirement from Fairview Drive to Olympic Street while maintaining the feasibility of the project. The specific required and proposed dimensions and minimum amount needed though this variance request are in
the table below. Variance Requested Standard Proposed % variance requested
Lot area for Lot 1
5000sf
4269sf
15% Lot area for Lot 2 5000sf 4269sf 15% Lot area for Lot 3 5000sf 4551sf 9%
Lot area for Lot 9 5000sf 4522sf 10% Lot frontage for Lot 10 60.00’ 53.47’ 11% Lot frontage for Lot 11 60.00’ 53.47’ 11% Finding 19: Upon further review, no variance is needed for Lots 3 and 9 because those lots may be oriented
toward an east/west street. These lots meet the minimum lot size and dimension standards for lots on an east/west street (4500 sf and 45’ frontage). Finding 20: The requested variances are limited to four of the eleven lots proposed The request maintains buildable areas for the subject lots while preserving the compliant design of other lots within the tentatively approved subdivision. Conclusion: The above findings demonstrate that Criterion E is satisfied. Conclusion: With one mitigating condition of approval, City staff recommends support for the request based upon findings of compliance with the criteria for Major Variance approval in accordance with Section 5.21-130 of the Springfield Development Code.
Additional Considerations: Finding 21: Even if the Major Variance did not meet the above criteria, state law limits the City’s ability to conditionally approve housing development in a way that reduces housing density within the City’s allowable range.
ORS 227.175(4)(c) states “A city may not condition an application for a housing development on a reduction in density if: (A) The density applied for is at or below the authorized density level under the local land use regulations; and (B) At least 75 percent of the floor area applied for is reserved for housing.”
1 See Governor Kate Brown’s Housing Policy Agenda (August 30, 2018), available at https://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/ Documents/Housing%20Agenda%20FINAL.pdf. Oregon underbuilt 155,156 housing units from 2000-2015. See page 4. This housing shortage in Oregon includes market rate housing. See Attachment 1, page 22.
Exhibit B, Page 6 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 10
Finding 22: Residential subdivision applications do not require the applicant to provide the floor areas for each use. However, the uses in the LDR zone are limited to housing uses and small number of institutional and secondary uses and the applicant has proposed only housing uses at this time. The lot configuration proposed in the Major Variance does not exceed the allowable density for the LDR zone. Therefore, the proposed development meets the requirements
in ORS 227.175(4)(c)(A)-(B). Finding 23: The subdivision was previously conditioned upon approval of a Major Variance for the lot size and lot
dimensions, If the applicant does not obtain approval for a Major Variance as requested, the applicant would be required to reconfigure the subdivision to meet minimum lot sizes and frontage requirements, which would reduce the
number of lots approved and thereby reduce the density. Therefore, denying the Major Variance would be inconsistent with the requirement in ORS 227.175(4)(c) not to condition housing developments upon a reduction in density below the maximum allowed.
Conditions of Approval SDC Section 5.21-130 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Major Variance request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from the code section is cited below: 5.21-135 CONDITIONS The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow the Major Variance to be granted. Staff recommends approval subject to one condition: 1. Condition of Approval: On the Final Plat, and as part of thePublic Improvement Plans, the applicant shall show shared driveway access easements, centered over the EWEB waterline easement, for Lots 10 & 11 on the west side of Fairview Street and Lots 1 & 2 on the east side of Fairview Street. Decision: The Planning Commission shall make the final decision on the proposal by adopting, modifying or denying the request by taking action on the attached Planning Commission Order.
Exhibit B, Page 7 of 7
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 10
CASE 811-20-000030-TYP3 – MAJOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRVIEW DRIVEW AND FAIRHAVEN STREET
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17032731; TAX LOTS 1900 & 1902)
LOCATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO VARIANCE REQUEST Attachment 2, Page 1 of 3
CASE 811-20-000030-TYP3 – MAJOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRVIEW DRIVEW AND FAIRHAVEN STREET
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17032731; TAX LOTS 1900 & 1902)
SITE CONTEXT MAP
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 3
CASE 811-20-000030-TYP3 – MAJOR VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRVIEW DRIVEW AND FAIRHAVEN STREET
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17032731; TAX LOTS 1900 & 1902)
EXISTING ZONING MAP
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 3
1
811-19-000270-TYPII
TYPE II TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Johnathan Court Subdivision
Project Proposal: Subdivide two (2) existing
tracts of land into 11 residential lots
Case Number: 811-19-000270-TYP2
Project Location: Near the intersection of
Fairview and Rainbow Drives.
Map 17-03-27-31, TLs 1900 & 1902
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: Oct. 11, 2019
Application Submitted Date: Nov. 13, 2019
Decision Issued Date: January 24, 2020
Recommendation: Approved with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: February 10, 2020
Natural Features: N/A
Gross Density: 6.9 units per acre
Net Density: 10.25 units per acre (removal of right of way)
Associated Applications: 811-18-000143-TYP1 (PLA); 811-19-000229-PRE (Subdivision Pre-Submittal)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Drew Larson 541-736-1003
Transportation Planning Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Eric Phillips-Meadow 541-729-2293
Building Official Building Robert Castile 541-726-3666
APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Applicant/Owner Applicant Representative Engineer Surveyor
Richard Sorric
PO Box 10092
Eugene, OR 97440
Metro Planning, Inc.
Jed Truett
846 A Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Olson & Morris, LLC
Scott Morris
380 Q Street, STE 200
Springfield, OR 97477
Olson & Morris, LLC
Lawrence Olson
380 Q Street, STE 200
Springfield, OR 97477
2
811-19-000270-TYPII
DECISION: The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Subdivision
Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with
findings and conditions necessary for compliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE
FINAL PLAT, MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS 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 carefully.
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the
provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the tentative
subdivision plan criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-125. This application was accepted as complete on November 13,
2019. This decision is issued on the 43rd day of the 120 days mandated by the state.
SITE INFORMATION: The subject property is located just south and west of the intersection of Fairview and
Rainbow Drive; with minimum frontage on Fairview. The property is zoned Low Density Residential in
accordance with the Metro Plan. The site is approximately 1.59 acres and is currently vacant.
PROCEDURAL FINDING: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-day comment period on the
application (SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the
notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration.
PROCEDURAL FINDING: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on November 27, 2019; staff received five (5) written
comments. The comments are made a part of this decision by reference here and addressed in summary as
referenced under the criteria, findings and conditions here in. All parties have standing in this decision.
Comments were received from:
1. John and Paula Churchill, 975 W. Fairview Drive, Springfield OR 97477
2. Mr. & Mrs. D. Ginter, 1007 West N Street, Springfield OR 97477
3. Janet Paxson, 1000 W N St, Springfield OR 97477
4. Devon Ashbridge, 1717 Fairhaven Dr, Springfield OR 97477
5. Cindy Burk, 1035 Fairview Dr, Springfield OR 97477
6. Jackie Chandler, 1105 W Fairview Dr, Springfield OR 97477
The comments from the surrounding neighbors relevant to the criteria fell into the categories of flooding,
density, parking and traffic safety. General responses and specific references to relevant parts of this decision
are included below;
FLOODING: The applicant is required to construct public stormwater facilities to mitigate all new impervious
surface areas including the roadway, curb and gutter and sidewalks. The applicant has provided a 10”
stormwater main to accommodate the proposed impervious areas. In addition, each lot, at the time of
construction, will either direct their stormwater to the public infrastructure or establish infiltration on site to
ensure stormwater does not flow onto adjacent properties. See Findings and Conditions, page(s) 6 – 8 of this
decision.
3
811-19-000270-TYPII
DENSITY: The creation of new homes is referred to as increased density. Density is planned for and where
necessary additional public infrastructure or improvements are required. Section 3.2-205 of the Springfield
Development Code establishes density ranges for all residential zoning districts; in this case, the property is
zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan designation. The density range
for LDR zoning district is 6-14 dwelling units per acre and the applicants have proposed a net density of 10.25
dwelling units per acre; meeting this requirement.
Additionally, the applicants have proposed several lots ( Lots 1-3 & Lot 9) that do not meet minimum lot size
and two lots (Lots 11 & 10) which do not meet minimum street frontage for a north/south street. The City has
conditioned the approval to eliminate substandard lots to meet minimum lot sizes or obtain a major variance
from the Springfield Planning Commission. If the applicant chooses to proceed with the variance option you will
have another opportunity to comment and be part of the decision process. See Findings and Conditions, pages 3
– 4 of this decision.
PARKING: Parking on public right of way is permitted by the Springfield Municipal Code. The Springfield
Development Code requires each detached single-unit dwelling to provide at least two off-street parking spaces
to serve the dwelling. The owner of each individual lot may choose to provide additional off-street parking but is
not required to do so. See Findings and Conditions, page 10 of this decision.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: The observation that additional traffic will be generated is both natural
and accurate; however, analysis of standard traffic data finds that residential dwellings produce on average 9.44
vehicle trips per day and City transportation and civil engineers have examined the impacts of the proposed
development and found the surrounding infrastructure is well under normal carrying capacity and are adequate
as conditioned here in to serve the new residential subdivision. See Findings and Conditions, page(s) 4 – 5 of this
decision.
A deed restriction exists on Tax Lot 1900 which was imposed as a condition of approval for Minor Partition 1035.
The restriction states that the property can neither be sold, improved upon, built upon nor building permits
issued therefore, until the property is further divided. The applicant is required to construct West Olympic
across the subject property and all utilities have been planned for an provided through Fairhaven Street.
The proposed infrastructure at the intersection of Fairhaven Drive and the proposed Fairhaven Street is the
responsibility of the developer and all existing driveways will be taken into account during the Public
Improvement Permit required for all public infrastructure; costs of this new infrastructure will be borne by the
developer, no surrounding residents will be required to pay for any improvements at this.
CRITERIA OF TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL:
SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Tentative Plan application upon
determining that criteria A through I of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to
satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions.
1. In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, lots on east-west streets shall have a minimum lot size of 4,500 sq. ft.
with at least 45 feet of street frontage; lots on north-south streets shall have a minimum lot size of
5,000 sq. ft. with at least 60 feet of frontage.
4
811-19-000270-TYPII
2. Proposed Lots 1-3 and Lot 9 do not meet the minimum parcel size for north-south streets. In addition,
Lots 10 and 11 do not meet minimum street frontage requirements for north-south streets. All other
lots meet minimum street frontage and parcel size of the zoning district.
3. In addition, shown sidewalks on Lots 3-9, along Olympic Drive, are proposed to be within a public access
sidewalk easement. However, all public infrastructure is to be within City owned property or within
dedicated right of way. Condition of approval Number 4 requires that the right of way be extended to
include the sidewalks, which would further reduce proposed lots below minimum lot size, or obtain a
variance to allow sidewalks on private property within a public access easement.
4. Prior to Final Plat these lots will need to be amended to meet current standards; these will likely result
in the loss of proposed lots while still meeting minimum density requirements. Alternatively, the
applicant may apply for a major variance as described in Section 5.5-100 Variances of the Springfield
Development Code.
Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall reconfigure the lot layout to meet minimum lot size
and street frontage requirements of Section 3.2-215 of the Springfield Development Code; or receive
approval of a Major Variance to reduce lot size and street frontage as described in Section 5.5-100 of
the Springfield Development Code.
Conclusion: As condition, this proposal will satisfy Criterion A.
B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan
District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
5. The subject property is zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the
Springfield Zoning Map and the Metro Plan. The applicant is not proposing to change the zoning or plan
designation.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion B.
C. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary
sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded
and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless
otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility
provider shall determine capacity issues.
General
6. For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the
subdivision improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to
provide construction inspection services. Permits are required for the installation of all public and
private utilities.
7. The Development & Public Works Director’s representatives have reviewed the proposed subdivision
plan. City staff’s review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein.
5
811-19-000270-TYPII
8. Criterion C contains sub-elements and applicable code standards. The tentative subdivision application
as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted
with specific findings and conclusions. The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but
are not limited to:
Public improvements in accordance with SDC 4.2-100 and 4.3-100
Public and Private Streets (SDC 4.2-105 – 4.2-145)
Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3-105)
Stormwater Management (SDC 4.3-110 – 4.3-115)
Utilities (SDC 4.3-120 – 4.3-130)
Water Service and Fire Protection (SDC 4.3-130)
Public and Private Easements (SDC 4.3-140)
Public and Private Streets
9. Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a proposed land
division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any
unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage shall be fully improved
to City specifications.
10. The sidewalk along Fairview at the future intersection with Fairhaven is not completed on the west side
of the intersection. All connecting public facilities must be completed to meet ADA standards.
11. The applicant is showing public sidewalks to be included in a sidewalk easement. City of Springfield
requires that all public infrastructures be located within either City owned property or public right of
way whenever possible.
12. City transportation and civil engineers have examined the impacts of the proposed development and
found the surrounding infrastructure is well under normal carrying capacity and are adequate.
Conditions of Approval:
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat and as part of the Public Improvement Permit, the applicant will
show full street improvements at the intersection of Fairview Drive and Fairhaven Street connecting
both existing sidewalks on the east and west side along Fairview Drive.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the developer will construct full street improvements along all new
and existing streets to current city standards including curb and gutter, sidewalk and paving using the
City of Springfield Public Improvement Project permit.
4. The applicant will show public right of way lines that extend to the back of the sidewalk plus 0.5 Feet
for all lot frontages, or obtain an approved variance allowing the sidewalk to be in an easement to
meet conditions of the variance.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
11. Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary
sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
6
811-19-000270-TYPII
12. Section 4.3-105.C of the SDC requires that proposed sewer systems shall include design consideration of
additional development within the area as projected by the Metro Plan.
13. Section 2.02.1 of the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) states that
when land outside a new development will logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new
development, the sewers shall be public sewers and shall normally extend to one or more of the
property boundaries.
14. The applicant has proposed extension of public wastewater lines with service laterals to serve all lots
within the development. The connection to the existing public system is located on the north side of
Fairview Drive.
Condition of Approval:
5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will construct the public sanitary sewer system that
meets all requirements of the EDSPM using the City of Springfield Public Improvement Process.
Stormwater Management & Quality
15. Section 4.3-110.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only
where adequate public and/or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as
determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual (EDSPM).
16. Section 4.3-110.C of the SDC states that a stormwater management system shall accommodate
potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside of the development.
17. Section 4.3-110.D of the SDC requires that run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved
stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
18. The applicant is proposing a storm drain system for W Olympic St that utilizes a system of catch basins
and underground piping for conveying storm drainage to the infiltration planter. This system will
require shallow manholes and a bubble system. This type of arrangement will require increased
maintenance and may decrease the lifespan of the road (W. Olympic) in order to function properly.
19. Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices,
which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which
promote water quality.
20. To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site is proposed to be routed
through a curbside stormwater planter, which includes all streets.
21. The stormwater drainage memorandum supplied does not show any infiltration rate or infiltration test
for the proposed infiltration planter.
22. The existing public stormwater system, to which the applicant proposes connection, has limited
capacity. The applicant has turned in hydrologic stormwater calculations showing a large increase in
stormwater to a system with limited capacity that will likely cause downstream flooding in Fairhaven
Street. This is not consistent with the City’s EDSPM, which requires showing, that some mechanism will
limit the peak stormwater discharge rates to the pre-developed 2-year storm event for both the 2 and
25-year post-developed storm event, thereby limiting the flow into the existing system.
7
811-19-000270-TYPII
23. Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield has obtained a Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate
efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).
24. Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City’s MS4 plan
address six “Minimum Control Measures.” Minimum Control Measure 5, “Post-Construction
Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment,” applies to the proposed
development.
25. Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a
program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City must also
develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) appropriated for the community.
26. Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an ordinance or other regulatory
mechanism to address post construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent
allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the Springfield
Development Code (SDC), the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and
the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP).
27. As required in Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC, “a development shall be required to employ drainage
management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies
and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.”
28. Section 3.01 of the City’s EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim design
standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the City of Eugene
Stormwater Management Manual.
29. Section 3.02 of the City’s EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects
shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in combination are designed to achieve
at least a 70 percent reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that
development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building
rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative
methods.
30. To meet the requirements of the City’s MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code, and the City’s
EDSPM, the applicant has proposed an infiltration planter. The infiltration planter will be located in city
owned ROW of W Olympic Street.,
31. The vegetation proposed for use in the swales will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism
for the stormwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of
sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has
been fully established.
8
811-19-000270-TYPII
Conditions of Approval:
6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will submit a design for the stormwater system that
does not require the use of a ‘bubbler’ type facility for inflow in the stormwater infiltration planter
and shall minimize the use of pipes that do not meet the city requirement for cover over the pipe.
7. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the applicant will provide as part of the final plat, a stormwater treatment
system that provides flow mitigation to prevent downstream flooding or a downstream analysis that
shows the increased runoff from this development will not exceed the downstream systems capacity
in Fairhaven St.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will design and construct all stormwater
improvements, including areas required for access, required for this subdivision using the City of
Springfield Public Improvement Permit Process.
9. As part of the PIP required and prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision, the applicant
shall submit a vegetation plan for the detention ponds and any other vegetated treatment area that
meets the requirements of the City’s interim design standards as required in Section 3.02 of the
EDSPM. The City of Eugene stormwater management manual may be referenced for design.
10. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of the city’s MS4 permit, the
applicant will maintain the vegetation in the stormwater treatment areas for the 2 year warranty
period after acceptance of the PIP.
Utilities
32. Section 4.3-120, 125, & 130 of the Springfield Development Code requires each development area to be
provided with all utilities at the developer’s expense.
33. There is an existing EWEB waterline easement that crosses the proposed subdivision. The applicant is
showing this easement to be relocated as part of the subdivision development.
34. The applicant is showing the waterline easement crossing the public street and across lot 1 and lot 2
which are proposed as undersized lots. This easement cannot have any structures placed over it,
including items such as street lights, street trees and utilities.
Condition of Approval:
11. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install all required utilities in the public ROW or a
suitable easement and coordinate their placement with other utility providers and site features such
as driveways, sidewalk and curb ramps to minimize disruption or compromise required design
features. All utility locations to be shown and coordinated using the City of Springfield’s Public
Improvement Permit process.
12. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall provide documents that show the EWEB waterline
easement has been relocated and any associated construction work completed to the easement
owner’s (EWEB) satisfaction.
ADVISORY NOTE: The applicant has shown some lots on the tentative plan to be under current city
requirements for lot size. This will require either a variance or the applicant to submit a different lot
configuration that meets these requirements. As part of the variance the public works department
9
811-19-000270-TYPII
will restrict the entire subdivision to no overwidth driveways (no more the 24’ wide) and no more than
20’ wide on any lots below the minimum lot size standard. In addition all undersize lots will need to
have the building envelopes shown driveways shown (this condition will be met by the shared
driveway requirement above.
Water Service and Fire Protection
35. Section 4.3-130.A of the SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water system
having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and
sufficient access for maintenance. SUB Water coordinates the design of the water system within
Springfield city limits. All new water system facilities and modifications required to serve the proposed
subdivision area must be constructed in accordance with SUB Water standards.
36. The Eugene/Springfield Deputy Fire Marshal stated no concerns with the proposed subdivision.
Public and Private Easements
37. Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements with
the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the
development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for Public Utility Easements
(PUEs) adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other PUEs shall be 7
feet unless the Development & Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate
maintenance.
Condition of Approval:
13. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall coordinate with each utility company and the City of
Springfield to ensure the proper placement and language of each proposed or required easement,
subject to review and approval of Public Works, City Surveyor, and the Springfield Utility Board.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion C.
D. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction
standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
38. Criterion D contains two elements with sub-elements and applicable Code standards. The tentative
subdivision application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element
unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and Code
standards of Criterion D include but are not limited to:
D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.1-100 (Infrastructure
Standards), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading
and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review)
Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3.2-215)
Height Standards (SDC 3.2-215)
Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105)
Screening (SDC 4.4-110)
Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115)
On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC 4.5-100)
10
811-19-000270-TYPII
Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100)
Parcel Coverage and Setbacks
39. The proposed subdivision area is zoned standard Low Density Residential (LDR). The LDR District provide
for dwelling unit densities of 6-14 units per acre. The land division must meet the minimum density
standards of 6 dwelling units per acre.
40. The applicant proposes to create 11 lots, sized for single-unit dwellings, for a net density of 10.25
dwelling units per acre. However, as noted above and conditioned, Lots 1-3 and Lot 9 do not meet
minimum lot size and Lots 10 & 11 do not meet minimum street frontage requirements. The condition
requires the applicant to reconfigure the lot layout to meet minimum lot size and frontage
requirements. This will likely result in the loss to two lots which will reduce the net density to 8.54
dwelling units per acre which will still meet minimum density requirements.
41. In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, the maximum parcel coverage is 45% in all residential districts. Parcel
coverage will be confirmed at the time of building permit.
Height Standards
42. In accordance with SDC 3.2-215 and 3.2-225, the maximum building height in the LDR district is 30 feet
except where modified by solar access standards. Building height will be confirmed at the time of
building permit
Landscaping Standards
43. In accordance with SDC 3.2-215 footnote (5), all residential building setbacks shall be landscaped unless
the setback area is use for a garage or carport driveway.
44. In accordance with SDC 4.4-100, site landscaping consists of trees, shrubs, groundcover plants and turf,
or a combination thereof. Site landscaping does not consist of only gravel or bark mulch ground cover,
unless the latter is used as a growing medium for planted trees and shrubs. Site landscaping will be
reviewed at the time of building permit.
Screening
45. In accordance with SDC 4.4-110.B, screening may be used to provide visual separation between adjacent
properties, but it is not required for single family or duplex residential development in the LDR Districts.
Fence Standards
46. The Springfield Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts.
However, there is no specific requirement for fencing of residential lots in the LDR Districts.
On-Site Lighting Standards
47. It is not expected that any outdoor lighting will be required within the subdivision area at this time.
Vehicle Parking Standards
48. In accordance with SDC 4.6-100, a minimum of two off-street parking spaces are required for each
residential dwelling unit.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.1.
11
811-19-000270-TYPII
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
49. Development Review staff has reviewed the application and the subject property is not located within
any overlay district or any special requirements of any Refinement Plan.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D.2.
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas
with susceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water
Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open
spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or
ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or
Federal law.
50. The site moderately flat and is currently vacant.
51. The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated Wetlands
Map, Hydric Soils Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Map and the list of Historic Landmark
sites have been consulted and there are no natural features needing to be protected or preserved on
this site. If any artifacts are found during construction, there are state laws that could apply; ORS
97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class
“C” felony to proceed under ORS 97.740.
Conclusion: As proposed, this proposal satisfies Criterion E.
F. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and
pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent
residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas;
minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations
and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways.
Transportation System Impacts
52. SDC 4.2-105.A.4 sets the threshold for requiring a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) at 100 peak hour or 1,000
average daily trips (ADT) as determined by rates from the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The proposed subdivision is predicted to generate
approximately 328 average daily trips which does not trigger the requirement for a traffic study and
should have no adverse traffic impacts to the surrounding street system.
Site Access and Circulation
53. Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. A greater number of
conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C, driveways
shall be designed to allow safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-2
through 4.2-5, the City’s EDSPM and Standard Construction Specifications. Driveway locations will be
confirmed during the Public Improvement Permit prior to installation.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion F.
G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as specified
in this Code.
12
811-19-000270-TYPII
54. There is no other property under the same ownership that can be further developed in this area.
Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion G.
H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this
Code.
55. Adjacent lands to the east and west remain undeveloped and special consideration for future roadway
connections has been accounted for by constructing a portion of West Olympic Street across the subject
property. West Olympic will connect when the adjacent properties develop.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H.
I. Where the Subdivision of property that is outside of the city limits but within the City’s urbanizable area and
no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shall also apply.
56. The property involved in this proposal is inside the City limits. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
FINAL CONCLUSION: The tentative subdivision plan, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A – I
of SDC 5.12-125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during
platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12-145.
What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to two years from the date of this letter to meet the
applicable conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Subdivision Plan. Please
refer to SDC 5.12-135 & 5.12-140 for more information. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN MUST BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE TENTATIVE PLANS AND THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
The Final Subdivision Plan is required to go through a pre-submittal process. After the Final Plat application is
complete, it must be submitted to the Springfield Development & Public Works Department. A separate
application and fees will be required. Upon signature by the City Surveyor and the Planning Department, the
Final Subdivision Plan may be submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall reconfigure the lot layout to meet minimum lot size
and street frontage requirements of Section 3.2-215 of the Springfield Development Code; or receive
approval of a Major Variance to reduce lot size and street frontage as described in Section 5.5-100 of
the Springfield Development Code.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat and as part of the Public Improvement Permit, the applicant will
show full street improvements at the intersection of Fairview Drive and Fairhaven Street connecting
both existing sidewalks on the east and west side along Fairview Drive.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the developer will construct full street improvements along all new
and existing streets to current city standards including curb and gutter, sidewalk and paving using the
City of Springfield Public Improvement Project permit.
4. The applicant will show public right of way lines that extend to the back of the sidewalk plus 0.5 Feet
for all lot frontages, or obtain an approved variance allowing the sidewalk to be in an easement to
meet conditions of the variance.
13
811-19-000270-TYPII
5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will construct the public sanitary sewer system that
meets all requirements of the EDSPM using the City of Springfield Public Improvement Process.
6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will submit a design for the stormwater system that
does not require the use of a ‘bubbler’ type facility for inflow in the stormwater infiltration planter
and shall minimize the use of pipes that do not meet the city requirement for cover over the pipe.
7. Prior to Final Plat Approval, the applicant will provide as part of the final plat, a stormwater treatment
system that provides flow mitigation to prevent downstream flooding or a downstream analysis that
shows the increased runoff from this development will not exceed the downstream systems capacity
in Fairhaven St.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will design and construct all stormwater
improvements, including areas required for access, required for this subdivision using the City of
Springfield Public Improvement Permit Process.
9. As part of the PIP required and prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision, the applicant
shall submit a vegetation plan for the detention ponds and any other vegetated treatment area that
meets the requirements of the City’s interim design standards as required in Section 3.02 of the
EDSPM. The City of Eugene stormwater management manual may be referenced for design.
10. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of the city’s MS4 permit, the
applicant will maintain the vegetation in the stormwater treatment areas for the 2 year warranty
period after acceptance of the PIP.
11. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install all required utilities in the public ROW or a
suitable easement and coordinate their placement with other utility providers and site features such
as driveways, sidewalk and curb ramps to minimize disruption or compromise required design
features. All utility locations to be shown and coordinated using the City of Springfield’s Public
Improvement Permit process.
12. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall provide documents that show the EWEB waterline
easement has been relocated and any associated construction work completed to the easement
owner’s (EWEB) satisfaction.
13. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall coordinate with each utility company and the City of
Springfield to ensure the proper placement and language of each proposed or required easement,
subject to review and approval of Public Works, City Surveyor, and the Springfield Utility Board.
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the
applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the
Development & Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Tentative Subdivision decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be
appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development & Public Works
Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals
application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the
Planning Commission approves the appeal application.
14
811-19-000270-TYPII
In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures,
Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on June 3, 2019.
Questions: Please call Drew Larson in the Planning Division of the Development & Public Works Department at
(541) 736-1003 or email alarson@springfield-or.gov if you have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared By:
Andrew Larson
Development Planner
ATTACHMENT 2-C – REQUESTED LOT ADJUSTMENTS
TENTATIVELY APPROVED JOHNATHAN COURT 11-LOT SUBDIVISION
CASE NO. 811-19-000270-TYP2
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT 2-C – REQUESTED LOT ADJUSTMENTS
REQUESTED LOT AND FRONTAGE VARIANCE
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 10
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 10