HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication Applicant 10/5/2021 (2)TENTATIVE PARTTNON FOR CHAD WIISON
Written Statement
METROPLANNING
Applicant's Request:
Ltr0 l6t rutl[6 arD c0tstnl0 sEillctll Property Owner/ Applicant:
846 A STREET
SPRINGTIETD, OREGON 97477
154 I l 302-9830
WWW.METROPI.ANNING.COM
Surveyor:
Engineer:
Project Planner:
Location
Subject Property:
Property Size
Zoning
Comprehensive Plan
Number of Parcels Proposed 3
Size Proposed Parcel l-
7OlOsl2O21
Request for approval for Tentative Partition
Application to create a 3 Lot Partition
Chad Wilson and Katie Lewis
PO Box 5143
Eugene, OR 97405
Ryan Erickson
EGR & Associates
2535 B Prairie Rd.
Eugene, OR 97402
Eric Favreau, P.E.
Favreau Engineering
(54u 556-442s
Metro Planning, lnc.
c/o Jed Truett, AICP
846 A Street
Springfield, OR97477
Tel (541) 302-9830
5524 B St.
Springfield, OR97478
Assessor's Map 17-02-33-42
Tax Lot 00300 & 00700
.4L acres (17,952 sq ft)
R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Low Density Residential (per Metro Plan)
4501 Sq Ft
5814 Sq Ft (including pole)
Size Proposed Parcel 3 7637 Sq Ft (including pole)
Document Date:
Size Proposed Parcel 2:
Written Statement-Tentative Partition Plan for llot Partition
The applicant owns two adjacent parcels: Tax Lot 17-02-33-42-00700 and Tax Lot
17-02-33-42-00300. The applicant is proposing to partition these two parcels into three lots. There are no
existing dwellings or trees on the subject property. No development is proposed with this application except for
the platting of two lots into three.
Density:
The partition as proposed will have a density of 7.3 dwelling units peracre
This written statement addresses SDC 5.12.115 Tentative Plan - General, SDC 5.1,2-1,20 Tentative Plan Submittal
Requirements, and SDC 5.12-125 Tentative Plan Criteria, and demonstrates how this Proposed Partition
Application and Site Plan meet all of the SDC requirements and criteria.
SDC 5.12-115 Tentative Plan-General
Any residential lond division shall conform to the following standards
A. The lot/porcel dimensions sholl conform to the minimum standards of this Code. When lots/parcels ore
more than double the minimum oreo permitted by the zoning district, the Director shall require that
these lots/parcels be arronged:
7. To ollow re-division; ond
2. To allow for the extension of streets to serve future lots/porcels.
3. Placement of structures on the larger lots/parcels shall be subject to opproval by the Director
upon a determination thot the potential moximum density of the lorger lot/parcel is not impoired.
ln order to moke this determination, the Director may require a Future Development Plon os
specified in Section 5.12-120E.
Response:
The subject property is in an area zoned LDR (Low Density Residential), on an East-West street.
Parcel L conforms to the Minimum Area and Minimum Street Frontage requirements for a Standard Lot/Parcel
in a Spfld LDR zone on an East-West street, which requires (at minimum) 45 ft of street frontage and 4,500 sq ft
of area.
As proposed, Parcel t has 59 ft of streetfrontage, and 4,501 sq ft in area, so meeting the above stated
requirements.
Parcels 2 & 3 conform to the Minimum Area and Minimum Street Frontage requirements for Multiple
Panhandle Lots/Parcels in a Spfld LDR zone, which require (at minimum) 26 ft streetfrontage (or an equivalent
easement) and 4,500 sq ft of area.
As proposed, Parcels 2 & 3 share 26 ft panhandle of streetfrontage, as required. Parcel 2 has an area of 5,81,4
sq ft and Parcel 3 has an area of 7,637 sq ft, and so meet the minimum area requirements.
Background
Allthree proposed parcels meet the standards as specified in SDC 3.2-215 and are detailed in this Written
Statement in Section 5.13-130.
No Lots/Parcels are more than double the minimum area permitted
This standard has been met.
B. Double frontage lots/porcels sholl be avoided, unless necessory to prevent occess to residentiol
development from collector ond orteriol streets or to overcome specific topogrophic situotions.
Response: The proposed tentative partition will not result in the creation of double frontage parcels; this
standard does not apply.
C. Ponhondle lots/parcels sholl comply with the standords specified in Sections 3.2-215 and 4.2-1204. ln
the case af multiple ponhondles in Subdivisions, construction of necessory utilities to serve all opproved
ponhandle lots/parcels sholl occur prior to recording the Plat.
Response: Allthree lots will have a driveway access via a shared driveway, although Parcel 1 may opt for a
separate drive directly off B St. Parcels 2 & 3 are panhandle lots and will have a shared access easement of 26'
wide, or L3' each. As a condition of approval for this Tentative Partition, construction of necessary utilities will
occur prior to recording the Plat.
D. Block length for locol streets is as specified in Section 4.2-115.
Response: 4.2-115 is no longer a code section. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. The proposed tentative
partition utilizes an existing street network.
SDC 5. 1 2- 1 20 Tentative Pl a t Su bmjttet I BequlelDe$s
A Tentotive Plan application sholl contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this
Code ore being fulfilled. EXCEPTION: ln the cose of Partition applications with the sole intent to donate lond to a
public agency, the Director, during the Pre-Submittal Meeting, moy waive ony submittol requirements thot con
be addressed os part of o future development application.
A. Ge ne rol Re qui re me nts.
1. The Tentative Plan, including ony required Future Development Plon, sholl be prepared by an
Oregon Licensed Lond Surveyor on stondord sheets of 18' x 24". The services of and Oregon
registered Engineer may olso be required by the City in order to resolve utility issues (especiolly
stormwoter monogement, street design ond transportation issues), ond site constroint ond/or
woter quolity issues.
Response:The Proposed Partition Site Plan has been prepared by Ryan Erickson, a licensed Oregon Land
Surveyor as required.
2. The scole of the Tentative Plan sholl be oppropriote to the oreo involved ond the omount of
detoiland doto, normolly 1-" = 50', 1-" = 100', or 1" = 200'.
Response: The scale of the Tentative Plan is 1" = 20'; which is appropriate to the size of the development site
and the amount of data needing to be shown.
j. A north orrow ond the dote the Tentotive Plon wos prepored.
Response:A north arrow and date are included on the Proposed Partition Site Plan drawing that is included
with this application.
4. The nome and oddress of the owner, applicont, if different, and the Land Surveyor ond/or
Engineer who prepared the Portition Tentative Plon.
Response: This information is shown on the face of the Proposed Partition Site Plan
5. A drowing of the boundories of the entire area owned by the partitioner or sub-divider of which
the proposed lond division is o port.
Response: A thicker, black line is drawn around the subject property to easily show the area owned by the
partitioner. See attached Proposed Partition Site Plan.
6. City boundories, the Urbon Growth Boundory (UGB) and ony speciol service district boundories
or railroad right-of-way, which cross or obut the proposed land division.
Response: No city limit, UGB, or railroad right-of-way are adjacent to the subject property.
7. Applicoble zoning districts and the Metro Plan designotion of the proposed land division and of
properties within 100 feet of the baundory of the subiect property.
Response:The subject property in an area zoned LDR (Low Density Residential), and designated L (low density
residential) in the Metro Plan.
8. The dimensions (in feet) ond size (either in squore feet or ocres) of eoch lot/parcel ond the
opproximate dimensions of eoch building site, where applicoble, ond the top and toe of cut ond
fill slopes to scole.
Response:The proposed parcel sizes and dimensions are clearly labeled on the attached Proposed Partition Site
Plan drawing.
9. The location, outline to scole ond present use of all existing structures to remoin on the
property ofter plotting and their required setbocks fram the proposed new property lines.
Response: There are no existing structures on the site
10. The locotion ond size of existing and proposed utilities ond necessory eosements and
dedicotions on ond odjocent to the site, including but not limited to sanitory sewer moins,
stormwoter management systems, water mains, power, gos, telephone, and coble TV. lndicote
the proposed connection points.
Response: All existing utilities are located at the street. The public sanitary and storm sewer systems as well as
water and electricity are located within the B Street right-of-way. Notes 4, 5, and 5 on the Proposed Partition Site
Plan
11. The locotions widths and purpose of ollexisting or proposed eosements on and abutting the
proposed lond division; the location of ony existing or proposed reserve strips.
Response: All locations, widths, and purpose of proposed easements on and abutting the proposed land division
are shown on the attached Proposed Partition Site Plan;there are no existing or proposed reserve strips.
12. The locotions of oll areos to be dedicoted or reserved for public use, with the purpose,
condition or limitotions of the reservotions cleorly indicoted.
Response:There are no areas being dedicated or reserved for public use; thus this requirement is not
applicable.
B. A Site Assessment of the Entire Development Area. The Site Assessment shall be prepored by an
Oregon Licensed Londscope Architect or Engineer and drown to scole with existing contours at lfoot
intervols and percent of slope thot precisely mops and delineotes the oreos described below. Proposed
modifications to physical features shall be cleorly indicated. The Director may woive portions of this
requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not hove on adverse impact on
physicol features or water quolity, either an the site or adjacent to the site. lnformation required for
adjacent properties may be generolized to show the connections to physicalfeatures. A Site Assessment
sholl contoin the following informotion.
Response:The enclosed Proposed Partition Site Plan prepared by Ryan Erickson, PLS, an Oregon licensed land
surveyor identifies all physical features of the subject property as required.
1. The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow ond top of bonk of oll wotercourses thot ore
shown on the Water Quolity Limited Wotercourses (WLQW) Mop on file in the Development
Services Department;
Response:There are no watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map that encumber
the subject property; thus this requirement is not applicable.
2. The T1oyeor floodplain ond floodwoy boundaries on the site, os specified in the latest adopted
FEMA Flood lnsurance Mops or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map
Revision;
Response: The subject propefi is located outside of the 500-year floodplain and floodway boundaries as
indicated on FIRM Map Number 41039C1166F dated 09/27/1985; thus this requirement is not applicable
3. The Time of TrovelZones, as specified in Section 3.i-200 ond delineated on the Wellhead
Protection Areos Map on file in the Development Service Deportment;
Response: The subject property falls within the 99-year time of travel zone for wellhead protection
4. Physicol feotures including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees ond shrubs,
wotercourses shown on the (WLOW) Mop ond their riporion oreos, wetlonds, and rock
outcroppings;
Response:There are no clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses, riparian areas, wetlands, or rock
outcroppings within the boundaries of the subject property.
5. Soil types and woter table informotion as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lone
County; and
The Natural Resource conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey indicates the soil type covering the subject
property consists of one-hundred percent (100%) Coburg-Urban land complex (32), with a depth to water table
of about 18-30 inches.
6. Noturol resource protection oreos os specified in Section 4.3-117,
Response: There are no natural resource protection areas present on the subject property; thus this
requirement is not applicable.
C. A Stormwater Monagement Plon drown to scole with existing contours at lfoot intervols ond percent
of slope thot precisely mops and oddresses the informotion described below. ln oreas where the percent
of slope is 1-0 percent or more, contours may be shown ot 5 foot intervals. This plan sholl show the
stormwoter manogement system for the entire development areo. Unless exempt by the Public Works
Director, the City sholl require that on Oregon licensed Civil Engineer prepore the plon. Where plants are
proposed as part of the stormwoter monagement system, an Oregon Licensed Landscope Architect moy
olso be required. The plon sholl include the following components:
1. Roof droinoge patterns ond dischorge locotions;
2. Pervious and impervious areo drainage patterns;
3. The size and locotion of stormwater management systems components, including but not
limited to: drain lines, cotch bosins, dry wells ond/or detention ponds; stormwoter quolity
measures; and noturol droinage-ways to be retoined;
4. Existing ond proposed site elevotions, grades and contours; ond
5. A stormwoter management system plan with supporting colculations ond documentation as
required in Section 4. j-1rc shall be submitted supporting the proposed system. The plon,
colculations ond documentation sholl be consistent with the Engineering Designs Standords ond
Procedures Monuol to allow stoff to determine if the proposed stormwoter monogement system
will occomplish its purposes.
Response: A stormwater drainage and managernent plan for each proposed parcel has been engineered by Eric
Favreau of Favreau Engineering, and detailed on the attached Proposed Partition Site Plan.
D. A Response to Tronsportotion issues complying with the provisions of this Code
1. The locations, condition, e.g., fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC mot, or grovel,
widths and names of all existing streets, olleys, or other rights-of-woy within or odjacent to the
proposed land divisian;
Response: The subject site has 85 ft of frontage on B Street. B Street does not have a curb, gutter or sidewalk
and is made of gravel. There is a ditch adjacent to the property in the B Street right-of-way that will serve as the
destination for stormwater exiting the site. An irrevocable petition for future improvements can be signed by
the applicant.
2. The locotions, widths ond nomes of oll proposed streets and other rights-of-woy to include the
opproximote rodius of curves and grodes. The relotionship of oll proposed streets to any proiected
streets as shown on the Metro Plan, including the TronsPlon, ony opproved Conceptuol
Development Plan and the lotest version of the Conceptuol Local Street Mop;
Response:There are no proposed streets or other rights-of-way adjacent to the subject site; thus this
requirement is not applicable.
j. The locations ond widths of oll existing ond proposed sidewolks, pedestrion troils ond
occesswoys, including the locotion, size and type of plontings ond street trees in any required
plonter strip;
Response: There are not any existing and proposed sidewalks, pedestrian trails and accessways. The applicant
can sign an irrevocable petition to improve the sidewalk, curb, gutter, street trees, paving, etc.
4. The locotion of existing ond proposed traffic control devices, fire hydronts, power poles,
tronsformers, neighborhood moilbox units ond similor public facilities, where opplicable;
Response:As referenced on the Proposed Partition Site Plan, the nearestfire hydrant is approximatelyg0feet
West of the Southwest corner of the subject property on the North right of way of B Street.
As indicated on the Proposed Partition Site Plan there is a Power Pole with light on the Northeast corner of B
and 55th streets. There are no other publicfacilities such as traffic control devices, transformers, or
neighborhood mailbox units located adjacent or within the development site.
5. The location ond dimensions of existing ond proposed driveways, where applicable;
Response: The proposed location and dimension specifications of driveway are included on the Proposed
Partition Site Plan and willtake place in the panhandles of the property. The panhandle driveway will be shared
and will be installed at the time of site development. All panhandle driveway standards will be met per SDC 3.2-
220.
6. The locotion of existing and proposed street lighting: including the type, height ond oreo of
illuminotion;
Response:As illustrated on the Proposed Partition Site Plan, there is an existing streetlight on the Northeast
corner of B and 55th Street. No additional streetlights are proposed.
7. The locotion of existing ond proposed tronsit facilities;
Response: There are no existing or proposed transit facilities adjacent, or within, the subject property. The
nearest transit facility is located near the intersection of Main Street and 54th Street and served by Lane Transit
District (LTD) Route 11.
8. A capy of o Right-of-woy Approoch Permit opplicotion where the property has frontage on on
Oregon Deportment of Tronsportotion (ODOT) focility; ond
Response: B Street is a city street and not ODOT facility; thus, this requirement is not applicable.
9. A Troffic lmpact Study prepored by a Troffic Engineer, where necessary, os specified in Section
4.2-1054.4.
Response: Based on the lnstitute of Transportation Engineers (lTE)Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, single-
family detached houses have an average trip generation rate of 9.57 vehicles daily. A single-family dwelling on
each of the three parcels proposed generating 9.57 trips per parcel per day results in fewer peak hour or
average daily trips necessary for a traffic impact study to be required.
E. A Future Development Plon. Where phasing and/or lots/porcels thot ore more than twice the minimum
lot/parcel size ore proposed, the Tentotive Plon sholl include o Future Development Plan thot:
1. lndicotes the praposed redivision, including the boundories, lot/porcel dimensions ond
sequencing af eoch proposed redivision in ony residential district, ond shall include a plot plon
showing building footprints for complionce with the minimum residential densities specified in
Section j.2-205;
2. Addresses street connectivity between the vorious phoses of the praposed development bosed
upon compliance with the Springfield Transportation System Plan (including the Conceptual
Street Mop), the RegionolTransportotion Plon (RTP), opplicable Refinement Plons. Plan Districts,
Moster Plans, or the Code;
3. Accommodotes other required public improvements, including but not limited to, sonitary
sewer, stormwoter monogement, woter and electricity;
4. Addresses physical feotures, including but not limited to, significant clusters of trees ond
shrubs, wotercourses shown on the Water Quolity Limited Watercourse Mop ond their ossociated
riparian oreos, wetlands, rock outcroppings ond historic feotures; ond
5. Discusses the timing ond financiol provisions relating to phosing.
Response: No phasing plan is being proposed
F. Additional informotion ond/or opplications required ot the time of Tentotive Plon applicotion submittal
shall include the following items, where applicable:
1. A brief narrotive exploining the purpose of the proposed land division and the existing use of
the property;
Response:This written statementserves as a narrative explainingthe purpose of the proposed partition and the
existing use of the subject property. ***PLEASE NOTE: As of October 5,2021, an additional letter accompanies
this written statement with supplemental information to further address incomplete application items as
formally indicated by City of Spfld Planning Staff in a letter dated August 24,2o21,.This application has been
resubmitted to correct any errors in prior Written Statements which indicated that there was an existing
dwelling still remaining on Proposed Parcel L of the subject property.***
2. lf the applicont is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is
required;
Response: The attached application form has been signed by the property owner
3. A Vicinity Mop drown ta scale showing bus stops, streets, drivewoys, pedestrian cannections,
fire hydronts ond other transportation/fire access issues within 20A feet of the proposed land
divisian and all existing Partitions or Subdivisions immediately adjacent to the proposed land
division;
Response: A vicinity map is shown on the Proposed Partition Site Plan sheet.
4. How the Tentotive Plan addresses the stondards af any opplicoble overlay district;
Response: Not applicable
5. How the Tentative Plan addresses Discretianary Use criteria, where applicable;
Response:The proposed parcels are for low density residential use, and so no Discretionary Use is requested
6. A Tree Felling Permit os specified in Section 5.L9-1"00;
Response: There are no trees on the property.
7. A Geotechnicol Report for slopes of 15 percent or greoter ond os specified in Section 3.3-500,
and/ar if the required Site Assessment in Section 5.1-2L20B. indicates the proposed development
area has unstoble soils and/or high water table os specified in the Sails Survey of Lone County;
Response:The site is flat and there are not high water tables
8. An Annexation applicotion os specified in Section 5.7L00 where o development is proposed
outside of the city limits but within City's urban growth boundary and can be serviced by sanitory
sewer;
Response:The subject property is located within the city limits; thus no annexation application is necessary
9. A wetland delineotion approved by the Deportment of State Londs sholl be submitted
concurrently where there is o wetland on the property;
Response:There are no existing wetlands on the subject site;thus this requirement is not applicable.
1-0. Evidence that ony required Federol or State permit hos been applied for or opproved shall be
su b m itte d co ncu rre ntly ;
Response: No federal or state permits are required with this partition application; thus this requirement is not
applicable.
1-1. All public improvements praposed to be installed and to include the approximate time of
instollotion and methad af finoncing;
Response: There are no proposed public improvements with this proposed partition application
L2. Proposed deed restrictions ond o draft of a Homeowner's Associotion Agreement, where
oppropriate;
Response: No deed restrictions or Homeowner's Association are proposed; thus this requirement is not
applicable.
13, Cluster Subdivisions shall olso oddress the design stondards specified in Section 3.2230;
Response: This application is for a tentative partition and not a cluster subdivision
L4. Where the Subdivision of a monufoctured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the
Director may woive certain submittal requirements specified in Subsections A. throuqh M.
However, the Tentative Plon shall oddress the applicable stondords listed under the pork
Subdivision approvol criteria specified in Section 5.12-L25.
Response: This application is for a tentative partition and not a subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park.
5.13-130
The Director sholl opprove or opprove with conditions o Tentative Plon opplicotion upon determining thot oll
applicable criteria have been satisfied. lf conditions cannot be attoched to sotisfy the opproval criterio, the
Directar shall deny the applicotion. ln the cose of Partitions that involve the donotion of lond to o public ogency,
the Director moy waive any opprovol criteria upon determining the particular criterion con be oddressed as part
of a future development opplication.
A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/porcel size and dimensions.
Response
Parcel 1 is on an East-West street in a LDR zone and meets the requirements of a minimum of 4,500 ft of area
and 45 ft of street frontage.
Parcels 2 and 3 both meet the minimum area of 4,500 sq ft each, and street frontage of 26 ft total (1"3' each),
for development requirements for Multiple Panhandle lots in a Low-Density Residential zone.
etr* Plann E FaEe I X0
Below are specific details of each lot, demonstrating that each conforms to the respective required sizes and
dimensions, and are included on the Proposed Partition Site Plan.
Lot Area:
The proposed Parcel 1 is 4,501 sq. ft., and so meets the requirement.
The proposed Parcel 2 is 5,814 sq ft., and proposed Parcel 3 (LDR Panhandle Lot) minimum is 4,500 sq ft is
7,637 sq ft., and so meet the requirement.
Lot Frontage:
Proposed Parcel t has 59 ft of street frontage, and so meets the requirement.
Proposed Parcels 2 & 3 have L3 ft each of street frontage, for a total of 26 ft of street frontage, and so meets
the requirement .
B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plon diagram ond/or applicoble Refinement Plan diagrom, Plon
District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Response:The zoning of the subject property is Low-Density Residential. ln the Metro Plan, this area is
designated as Low-Density Residential. The minimum density in the LDR zone is 6 units per acre and the
maximum is 14. The proposed development is approximately 7 units per acre.
C. Capocity requirements of public and privote focilities, including but not limited to, water ond
electricity; sanitary sewer ond stormwoter monogementfacilities; ond streefs ond troffic safety controls
sholl not be exceeded, ond the public improvements shall be ovailoble to serve the site at the time of
development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other opplicoble regulotions. The Public
Works Director or o utility pravider sholl determine capacity issues.
Response: A public sanitary mainline and water mainline are located within the B Street rights-of-way. Parcel 1
will be served by the existing lateral line that served the previously existing dwelling. Parcels 2 and 3 will be served
by a future line/lateral that will connect to the existing Iine. Stormwater drainage will be managed by three private
soakage trenches sized to accommodate runoff from each home plus {3 of the driveway surface.
D. The proposed land division sholl comply with oll opplicable public ond private design and construction
stondords contoined in this Code ond other applicoble regulations.
Response:Allthe existing public and private facilities meetthe design and construction standards of the SDC.
There are no public improvements proposed with this partition application. ln addition, the future private
utilities will be constructed according to all applicable SDC and other regulations. This approval criterion will be
satisfied.
E, Physicol features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstoble soil or geologic conditions;
oreos with susceptibility of flooding; significont clusters of trees ond shrubs; watercourses shown on the
WQLW Mop ond their ossocioted riparion oreas; other riparion oreas ond wetlonds specified in Section
4.3-1L7; rock outcroppings; open spoces; and oreos of historic ond/or archaeologicol significonce, os
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 Stote or Federal low.
Response:The subject property does not have steep slopes, susceptibilityto flooding, clusters of trees,
watercourses and riparian areas, open spaces, historical significance, etc, This criterion is not applicable.
F. Porking oreos ond ingress-egress paints have been designed to: facilitote vehiculor traffic, bicycle ond
pedestrion sofety to ovoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development oreo ond to odjacent
residential oreos, tronsit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industriol and public
oreos; minimize drivewoys on orteriol and collector streets os specified in this Code or other applicable
regulations ond comply with the ODOT occess monogement standords for Stote highways.
G. Development of any remoinder of the property under the some ownership con be occomplished as
specified in this Code.
Response: The applicant acknowledges and accepts the terms under this condition
H. Adjocent land con be developed or is provided occess thot will ollow its development os specified in
this Code.
Response: All adjacent land is developed; therefore, this criterion is not applicable
l. Where the Portition of property thot is outside of the city limits but within the City's urbanizoble oreo
ond no concurrent onnexotion applicotion is submitted, the standards specified below shall olso opply.
Response: Not applicable. The proposed development is within the city limits; therefore, this criterion does not
apply.
J. Where the Subdivision of o manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the following
approvol criterio op ply :
Response: This tentative partition is not part of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park; therefore,
this criterion does not apply.
Page I
Response:The proposal is for single family dwellings. Parking will be provided on each lot.