Loading...
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.