Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet Planner 12/4/2023 1 AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET Conference Room 616 / MS Teams Staff Review: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 9:30– 10:00 a.m. 1. Partition Tentative 811-23-000261-TYP2 811-23-000169-PROJ Aster Kjessler LLC Assessor’s Map: 17-02-34-44 TL: 90001 Address: Aster St. at S. 67th St. Existing Use: vacant area in condominium lot Applicant submitted plans for a 2-lot partition Planner: Andy Limbird Meeting: Tuesday, December 19, 2023 9:30 – 10:00 virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams The Complete DRC Packet for this meeting is available online for you to review or print out from the laserfiche website: https://www.springfield-or.gov/weblink8/browse.aspx SITE VICINITY MAP 811-23-000261-TYP2 Partition Tentative 17-02-34-44 TL 90001 S. 67th Street & Aster Street Aster-KjesslerLLC Revised 1/7/14 kl 1 of 10 City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Land Division Tentative Plan Partition, Subdivision Application Type (Applicant: check one) Partition Tentative Pre-Submittal: Subdivision Tentative Pre-Submittal: Partition Tentative Submittal: Subdivision Tentative Submittal: Required Project Information (Applicant: complete this section) Applicant Name: Phone: Company: Fax: Address: Applicant’s Rep.: Phone: Company: Fax: Address: Property Owner: Phone: Company: Fax: Address: ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: TAX LOT NO(S): Property Address: Size of Property: Acres Square Feet Proposed Name of Subdivision: Description of Proposal: If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Existing Use: # of Lots/Parcels: Total acreage of parcels/ allowable density: Proposed # Dwell Units Signatures: Please sign and print your name and date in the appropriate box on the next page. Required Project Information (City Intake Staff: complete this section) Associated Applications: Signs: Pre-Sub Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Application Fee: $ Technical Fee: $ Postage Fee: $ TOTAL FEES: $ PROJECT NUMBER: Aster-Kjessler, LLC 3450 Walton Ln, Eugene, OR 97408 Jed Truett, AICP, Principal Planner (541) 302-9830 Metro Planning, Inc 846 A St, Spfld, OR 97477 Aster-Kjessler, LLC 3450 Walton Ln, Eugene, OR 97408 17-02-34-44 90001 1.13 X 2-Lot Partition 10 existing condominium dwellings and garages 2 1.13ac/6-14units No development is proposed w/ this application. N/A December 6, 2013 REQUIRED STORMWATER SCOPING SHEET USE POLICY: In October 2003, Springfield Public Works released a trial “stormwater scoping sheet,” provided to help engineers and developers meet stormwater requirements in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) and Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). After a five month trial period, it became apparent that users of the scoping sheet submitted much more complete applications than non-users. An added bonus was a decrease in the overall review time spent on the applications, resulting in quicker notice of decisions. As a result of the benefits of the scoping sheets, the City has decided to make their use a mandatory process. Current city policy is that the use of stormwater scoping sheets is required for all applications which require development review. All applications submitted to the City shall provide a copy of a completed stormwater scoping sheet with the application packet. Attached with this letter is the latest version of the scoping sheet, which reflects changes requested by the development community. PLEASE NOTE: SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS WILL NOW BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED STORMWATER SCOPING SHEET, STORMWATER STUDY AND PLANS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SCOPE REQUIREMENTS DIRECTIONS FOR USING STORMWATER SCOPING SHEETS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1.) Obtain scoping sheet from application packet, city website, or other location. 2.) Fill out project information (top half of front sheet) prior to commencement of work on stormwater study. (Note: Do not sign scoping sheet until it is received from the City with requirements checked.) 3.) Mail, fax, or email all pages to: City of Springfield, Development and Public Works Dept., Attn: Clayton McEachern. 4.) Receive completed scoping sheet (filled out by the City) indicating minimum requirements for a complete stormwater study. 5.) Include four (4) copies of complete scoping sheet (signed by engineer at the bottom of page 2), stormwater study and plans that comply with the minimum required scope with submittal of application packet. The scoping sheet shall be included as an attachment, inside the front cover of the stormwater study. Stormwater scoping sheets can be found with all application packets (City website and the DPW front counter) as well as on the Engineering and Construction Resources webpage located at: http://www.springfield- or.gov/DPW/EngineeringandConstructionResources.htm under the Public Improvement Permit Projects Forms section. Thank you in advance for working with the City of Springfield with this new process. Sincerely, Clayton McEachern, PE City of Springfield, Development and Public Works Email: cmceachern@springfield-or.gov Phone: (541) 736 – 1036 Fax: (541) 736 – 1021 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 PHONE: 541.726.3753 FAX: 541.736.1021 www.springfield-or.gov Return to Clayton McEachern @ City of Springfield, email: cmceachern@springfield-or,gov, FAX: (541) 736-1021 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 PHONE: 541.726.3753 FAX: 541.726.1021 www.springfield-or.gov STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SCOPE OF WORK Project Name: Applicant: Assessors Parcel #: Date: Land Use(s): Phone #: Project Size (Acres): Fax #: Approx. Impervious Area: Email: Project Description (Include a copy of Assessor’s map): Drainage Proposal (Public connection(s), discharge location(s), etc. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: Proposed Stormwater Best Management Practices: Drainage Study Type (EDSPM Section 4.03.2): (Note, UH may be substituted for Rational Method) Small Site Study – (use Rational Method for calculations) Mid-Level Development Study – (use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations) Full Drainage Development Study – (use Unit Hydrograph Method for calculations) Environmental Considerations: Wellhead Zone: Hillside Development: Wetland/Riparian: Floodway/Floodplain: Soil Type: Other Jurisdictions Downstream Analysis: N/A Flow line for starting water surface elevation: Design HGL to use for starting water surface elevation: Manhole/Junction to take analysis to: --------------------------------- (Area below this line filled out by the City and Returned to the Applicant) ---------------------------- (At a minimum, all boxes checked by the City on the front and back of this sheet shall be submitted for an application to be complete for submittal, although other requirements may be necessary.) ------------------------------------------------- (Area below this line filled out by Applicant) -------------------------------------------------- (Please return to Clayton McEachern @ City of Springfield Development and Public Works; Fax # 736-1021, Phone # 736-1036), email:cmceachern@springfield-or.gov Form Version 5: June 2015 COMPLETE STUDY ITEMS * Based upon the information provided on the front of this sheet, the following represents a minimum of what is needed for an application to be complete for submittal with respect to drainage; however, this list should not be used in lieu of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) or the City’s Engineering Design Manual. Compliance with these requirements does not constitute site approval; Additional site specific information may be required. Note: Upon scoping sheet submittal, ensure completed form has been signed in the space provided below: Interim Design Standards/Water Quality (EDSPM Chapter 3) Req’d N/A All non-building rooftop (NBR) impervious surfaces shall be pre-treated (e.g. multi-chambered catchbasin w/oil filtration media) for stormwater quality. Additionally, a minimum of 50% of the NBR impervious surface shall be treated by vegetated methods. Where required, vegetative stormwater design shall be consistent with design standards (EDSPM Section 3.02), set forth in Chapter 2 of the Eugene Stormwater Management Manual. For new NBR impervious area less than 15,000 square feet, a simplified design approach may be followed as specified by the Eugene Stormwater Management Manual (Sec2.4.1). If a stormwater treatment swale is proposed, submit calculations/specifications for sizing, velocity, flow, side slopes, bottom slope, and seed mix consistent with City of Springfield or Eugene’s Stormwater Management Manual. Water Quality calculations as required in Section 3.03.1 of the EDSPM. All building rooftop mounted equipment, or other fluid containing equipment located outside of the building, shall be provided with secondary containment or weather resistant enclosure. General Study Requirements (EDSPM Section 4.03) Drainage study prepared by a Professional Civil Engineer licensed in the state of Oregon. A complete drainage study, as required in EDSPM Section 4.03.1, including a hydrological study map. Calculations showing system capacity for a 2-year storm event and overflow effects of a 25-year storm event. The time of concentration (Tc) shall be determined using a 10 minute start time for developed basins. Review of Downstream System (EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C) A downstream drainage analysis as described in EDSPM Section 4.03.4.C. On-site drainage shall be governed by the Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code (OPSC). Elevations of the HGL and flow lines for both city and private systems where applicable. Design of Storm Systems (EDSPM Section 4.04). Flow lines, slopes, rim elevations, pipe type and sizes clearly indicated on the plan set. Minimum pipe cover shall be 18 inches for reinforced pipe and 36 inches for plain concrete and plastic pipe materials, or proper engineering calculations shall be provided when less. The cover shall be sufficient to support an 80,000 lb load without failure of the pipe structure. Manning’s “n” values for pipes shall be consistent with Table 4-1 of the EDSP. All storm pipes shall be designed to achieve a minimum velocity of three (3) feet per second at 0.5 pipe full based on Table 4-1 as well. Other/Miscellaneous Existing and proposed contours, located at one foot interval. Include spot elevations and site grades showing how site drains. Private stormwater easements shall be clearly depicted on plans when private stormwater flows from one property to another. Drywells shall not receive runoff from any surface w/o being treated by one or more BMPs, with the exception of residential building roofs (EDSP Section 3.03.4.A). Additional provisions apply to this as required by the DEQ. Refer to the website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/uic/uic.htm for more information. Detention ponds shall be designed to limit runoff to pre-development rates for the 2 through 25-year storm events. *This form shall be included as an attachment, inside the front cover, of the stormwater study. For Official Use Only: As the engineer of record, I hereby certify the above required items are complete and included with the submitted stormwater study and plan set. Signature Date . * IMPORTANT: ENGINEER PLEASE READ BELOW AND SIGN! TENTATIVE PARTITION PLAN FOR ASTER-KJESSLER LLC Submittal No. 2 Document Date: November 14, 2023 Applicant’s Request: Approval of Type II Tentative Partition Plan for Replat of “Parcel B” of Aster Condominiums Plat (1980) Property Owner/ Applicant: Aster-Kjessler LLC 3450 Walton Ln Eugene, OR 97408 Applicant’s Representative/ Planner/Project Coordinator: Metro Planning, Inc. Katie Keidel, Associate Planner 846 A Street Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 302-9830 Surveyor: EGR & Associates 2535 Prairie Rd Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 688-8322 Civil Engineer: A & O Engineering 380 Q Street, Suite 200 Springfield, OR 97477 (541) 302-9790 Subject property: Assesssor’s Map Number 17-02-34-44 Tax Lot 90001 Site Address/ Location: N/A Total Property Size: 1.13+/- acres Zoning/ Designation: R-1/ LDR Size Proposed Parcel 1: Size Proposed Parcel 2: 5,135 sf 44,496 sf WRITTEN NARRATIVE 1 Background This proposal pertains to Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot 17-02-34-44-90001, an approximately 1.13-acre lot located inside the Springfield city limits, on Aster Street near S 67th Street (“subject property”). The subject property is “Parcel B” of the 1980 Aster Condominiums Plat. It is zoned City of Springfield R-1 which maintains density standards of a minimum of six (6) and a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units per net acre. The proposed land division will create two (2) new lots – Lot 1 is proposed at 5,135 square feet and Lot 2 is proposed at 44,496 square feet. No development is proposed as a part of this Tentative Partition plan and the parent parcel meets density requirements as there are ten (10) existing dwelling units situated among the 1.13-acre subject property. This written statement intends to demonstrate the proposal’s compliance with all criteria and standards for Land Divisions under SDC 5.12-115 Tentative Plan – General; SDC 5.12-120 Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements; and SDC 5.12-125 Tentative Plan Criteria. The Springfield Development Code (SDC) sections are indicated by bold and/or italic typeface; applicant responses follow in plain typeface. 5.12.115 Tentative Plan—General. Any residential land division shall conform to the following standards: (A) The lot/parcel dimensions shall conform to the minimum standards of this code. When lots/parcels are more than double the minimum area permitted by the zoning district, the Director shall require that these lots/parcels be arranged: (1) To allow redivision; and (2) To allow for the extension of streets to serve future lots/parcels. (3) Placement of structures on the larger lots/parcels shall be subject to approval by the Director upon a determination that the potential maximum density of the larger lot/parcel is not impaired. In order to make this determination, the Director may require a Future Development Plan as specified in SDC 5.12.120(E). Response: The subject property is zoned R-1 which maintains a 3,000 sq ft minimum lot size. Lot 1 is proposed at 5,135 sf; Lot 2 is proposed at 44,496 sf. Neither proposed lot exceeds double the minimum size allowed. This criterion is met. (B) Double frontage lots/parcels shall be avoided, unless necessary to prevent access to residential development from collector and arterial streets or to overcome specific topographic situations. Response: SDC currently maintains no R-1 minimum frontage requirements. (C) Panhandle lots/parcels shall comply with the standards specified in SDC 3.2.215 and 4.2.120(A). In the case of multiple panhandles in Partitions, construction of necessary utilities to serve all approved panhandle lots/parcels shall occur prior to recording the Plat. Response: This tentative partition plan proposes no panhandle lots/ parcels. (D) Public street standards as specified in SDC 4.2.105. Response: No public streets are included or proposed in this tentative partition. 2 5.12.120 Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements. A Tentative Plan application shall contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this code are being fulfilled. EXCEPTION: In the case of Partition applications with the sole intent to donate land to a public agency, the Director, during the Application Completeness Check Meeting, may waive any submittal requirements that can be addressed as part of a future development application. (A) General Requirements. (1) The Tentative Plan, including any required Future Development Plan, shall be prepared by an Oregon Licensed Professional Land Surveyor on standard sheets of 18 inches x 24 inches. The services of an Oregon Licensed Professional Engineer may also be require d by the City in order to resolve utility issues (especially stormwater management, street design and transportation issues), and site constraint and/or water quality issues. Response: The Tentative Partition Plan has been prepared by Ryan Erickson, PLS of EGR & Associates, Inc., an Oregon Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, and is included with this submittal on standard sheets of 18” x 24”. (2) The scale of the Tentative Plan shall be appropriate to the area involved and the amount of detail and data, normally 1 inch = 50 feet, 1 inch = 100 feet, or 1 inch = 200 feet. Response: A scale of 1”:30’ is used on the Tentative Plans. (3) A north arrow and the date the Tentative Plan was prepared. Response: A north arrow and date of plan preparation are included on the Tentative Partition Plans included with this application. (4) The name and address of the owner, applicant, if different, and the Land Surveyor and/or Engineer who prepared the Partition Tentative Plan. Response: Owner/Applicant is Aster-Kjessler LLC. Surveyor who prepared the Tentative Partition Plan is Ryan Erickson, of EGR & Associates, an Oregon Professional Licensed Surveyor. (5) A drawing of the boundaries of the entire area owned by the partitioner or subdivider of which the proposed land division is a part. Response: On the Tentative Partition Plan, a thicker black line is drawn around the subject property to easily show the boundaries of the subject property. (6) City boundaries, the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and any special service district boundaries or railroad right-of-way, which cross or abut the proposed land division. Response: There are no special service district boundaries, city boundaries, or railroad rights -of-way that cross or abut the proposed Partition. 3 (7) Applicable zoning districts and the Metro Plan designation of the proposed land division and of properties within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Response: The subject property is zoned City of Springfield R-1 and designated Low Density Residential on the Metro Plan. All adjacent properties are also zoned R-1. (8) The dimensions (in feet) and size (either in square feet or acres) of each lot/parcel and the approximate dimensions of each building site, where applicable, and the top and toe of cut and fill slopes to scale. Response: Dimensions and sizes for each proposed lot are indicated in square feet and/or acres on the attached Tentative Partition plans. (9) The location, outline to scale and present use of all existing structures to remain on the property after platting and their required setbacks from the proposed new property lines. Response: There are ten (10) platted condominium lots (each with an associated tax lot number) with attached garages existing within tax lot 90001, but not included as a part of tax lot 90001. Technically, no structures are existing on the subject property, “Parcel B” of the Aster Condominiums Plat. (10) The location and size of existing and proposed utilities and necessary easements and dedications on and adjacent to the site, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer mains, stormwater management systems, water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the proposed connection points. Response: All utilities are existing and connection points will be addressed at time of final partition plat. (11) The locations, widths and purpose of all existing or proposed easements on and abutting the proposed land division; the location of any existing or proposed reserve strips. Response: The locations of existing and proposed public and private utility easements are shown are the Tentative Partition plan. (12) The locations of all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use, with the purpose, condition or limitations of the reservations clearly indicated. Response: There is no proposed open space. (B) A Site Assessment of the Entire Development Area. The Site Assessment shall be prepared by an Oregon Licensed Landscape Architect or Engineer and drawn to scale with existing contours at 1 -foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps and delineates the areas described below. Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. The Director may waive portions of this requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on physical features or water quality, either on the site or adjacent to the site. Information required for adjacent properties may be generalized to show the connections to physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information. Response: No site assessment is necessary as there is no development proposed. (1) The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses that are shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map on file in the Development and Public Works Department; Response: There are no watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map that encumber the subject property. 4 (2) The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision; Response: According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 41039C1166F, the subject site is located in Zone X, an area determined to be outside of the 500-year floodplain. (3) The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in SDC 3.3.200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development and Public Works Department; Response: According to the Wellhead Protection Map, the subject property falls outside the Time of Travel Zone for wellhead protection. (4) Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their riparian areas, wetlands, and rock outcroppings; Response: There are no significant physical features such as clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses, riparian areas, wetlands, or rock outcroppings located within the boundaries of the subject property. (5) Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County; and Response: The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey indicates that the soil types covering the subject property consist of sixty-three percent (63%) 105A – Pengra Silt Loam and thirty-seven (37%) 43C – Dixonville- Philomath-Hazelair Complex. The depth to water table is more than 80 inches for Dixonville soils and 0 to 30 inches for Pengra soils. (6) Natural resource protection areas as specified in SDC 4.3.117. Response: There are no natural resource protection areas present on the subject property. (C) A Stormwater Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at 1 -foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps and addresses the information described below. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours may be shown at 5-foot intervals. This plan shall show the stormwater management system for the entire development area. Unless exempt by the Director, the City shall require that an Oregon Licensed Civil Engineer prepare the plan. Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system, an Oregon Licensed Landscape Architect may also be required. The plan shall inc lude the following components: (1) Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations; (2) Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns; (3) The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be retained. (4) Existing and proposed site elevations, grades and contours; and (5) A stormwater study and management system plan with supporting calculations and 5 documentation as required in SDC 4.3.110 shall be submitted supporting the proposed system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be consistent with the Engineering Designs Standards and Procedures Manual to allow staff to determine if the proposed stormwater management system will accomplish its purposes. Response: Per advisement from public works staff (Clayton McEachern, PE), no Stormwater Management Plan is required with this proposal. (D) A response to transportation issues complying with the provisions of this code. (1) The locations, condition, e.g., fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC mat, or gravel, widths and names of all existing streets, alleys, or other rights -of-way within or adjacent to the proposed land division; Response: The attached Existing Conditions site plan indicates the above as applicable. (2) The locations, widths and names of all proposed streets and other rights -of-way to include the approximate radius of curves and grades. The relationship of all proposed streets to any projected streets as shown on the Metro Plan or Springfield Comprehensive Plan, including the Springfield Transportation System Plan (including the Conceptual Street M ap) and, any approved Conceptual Development Plan; Response. No new development, streets or otherwise, is proposed with this Tentative Partition plan. (3) The locations and widths of all existing and proposed sidewalks, multi -use paths, and accessways, including the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any required planter strip; Response: The location and widths of existing sidewalks adjacent to the subject property are shown on the Tentative Partition plan. There are no existing multi-use paths, accessways, or planter strips; none are proposed. (4) The location of existing and proposed traffic control devices, fire hydrants, power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public facilities, where applicable; Response: The above are indicated on the attached Existing Conditions Sheet, where applicable. (5) The location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways demonstrating conformance with lot or parcel dimensions and frontage requirements for single -family and duplex lots/parcels established in SDC 3.2.215, and driveway width and separation specifications established in SDC 4.2.120, where applicable; Response: Location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways are indicated on the attached Existing Conditions site plan. (6) The location of existing and proposed street trees, associated utilities along street frontage(s), and street lighting: including the type, height and area of illumination; Response: Existing streetlights are Cobra style Low Pressure Sodium lamps and are shown on the tentative partition plan. (7) The location of existing and proposed transit facilities; Response: Closest transit facility is located on the south side of Thurston Rd, east on 68th St. Route 11 – Thurston. 6 (8) A copy of a Right-of-Way Approach Permit application where the property has frontage on an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility; and Response: The subject property is not adjacent to an ODOT facility. (9) A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Oregon Licensed Traffic Engineer, where necessary, as specified in SDC 4.2.105(A)(4). Response: A Traffic Impact Study is not necessary as no dwellings are proposed with this tentative partition. (E) A Future Development Plan. Where phasing and/or lots/parcels that are more than twice the minimum lot/parcel size are proposed, the Tentative Plan shall include a Future Development Plan that: (1) Indicates the proposed redivision, including the boundaries, lot/parcel dimensions and sequencing of each proposed redivision in any residential district, and shall include a plot plan showing building footprints for compliance with the minimum residential densities specified in SDC 3.2.205; (2) Addresses street connectivity between the various phases of the proposed development based upon compliance with the Springfield Transportation System Plan (including the Conceptual Street Map), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), applicable Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, Master Plans, or this code; (3) Accommodates other required public improvements, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, water and electricity; (4) Addresses physical features, including, but not limited to, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features; and (5) Discusses the timing and financial provisions relating to phasing. Response: No Future Development Plan is required. (F) Additional information and/or applications required at the time of Tentative Plan application submittal shall include the following items, where applicable: (1) A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed land division and the existing use of the property; Response: This written statement serves as the narrative describing the proposal in detail. (2) If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required; Response: The applicant, Aster-Kjessler, LLC, is the property owner. 7 (3) A Vicinity Map drawn to scale showing bus stops, streets, driveways, pedestrian connections, fire hydrants, and other transportation/fire access issues within 200 feet of the proposed land division and all existing Partitions or Subdivisions immediately adjacent to the proposed land division; Response: A vicinity map is shown on the attached Tentative Partition Plan. (4) How the Tentative Plan addresses the standards of any applicable overlay district; Response: No overlay districts apply to the subject property. (5) How the Tentative Plan addresses Discretionary Use criteria, where applicable Response: The proposed 2-Lot tentative partition within the R-1 zone is a permitted use according to SDC 3.2-210. No Discretionary Use Permit is required. (6) A Tree Felling Permit as specified in SDC 5.19.100; Response: No trees will be felled as a result of this Tentative Partition Plan. (7) A Geotechnical Report for slopes of 15 percent or greater and as specified in SDC 3.3.500, and/or if the required Site Assessment in SDC 5.12.120(B) indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or high water table as specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County; Response: There are no slopes greater than 15% on this site. Soils are not classified as unstable and water table is not high; a site assessment is not required. (8) An Annexation application as specified in SDC 5.7.100 where a development is proposed outside of the city limits but within City’s urban growth boundary and can be serviced by sanitary sewer; Response: The subject property is within the City of Springfield city limits. (9) A wetland delineation approved by the Department of State Lands shall be submitted concurrently where there is a wetland on the property; Response: There are no existing wetlands on the subject property. (10) Evidence that any required Federal or State permit has been applied for or approved shall be submitted concurrently; Response: No Federal or State permits are required with this tentative Partition application. (11) All public improvements proposed to be installed and to include the approximate time of installation and method of financing; Response: There are no public improvements proposed. The tentative partition is funded with private financing resources. 8 (12) Proposed deed restrictions and a draft of a Homeowner’s Association Agreement, where appropriate; Response: No deed restrictions or Homeowner’s Association are proposed at this juncture. (13) Where the Subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the Director may waive certain submittal requirements specified in subsections (A) through (M). However, the Tentative Plan shall address the applicable standards listed under the park Subdivision approval criteria specified in SDC 5.12.125. Response: This application is not proposing the Partition of a manufactured dwelling or mobile home park. 5.12.125 Tentative Plan Criteria. The Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Tentative Plan application upon determining that all applicable criteria have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the Director shall deny the application. In the case of Partitions that involve the donation of land to a public agency, the Director may waive any approval criteria upon determining the particular criterion can be addressed as part of a future development application. (A) The request conforms to the provisions of this code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. Response: The applicant’s request to subdivide the subject property’s approximately 1.13 acres into two (2) lots conforms with all provisions and mandatory minimum development standards for City of Springfield, R-1 zoned properties, as specified in SDC 3.2-215. (B) The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Response: The subject property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) for the City of Springfield, which is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. (C) Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, 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 Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. Response: No development is proposed; capacity requirements will be addressed at time of potential future development. (D) The proposed land division shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this code and other applicable regulations. Response: This proposed 2-lot partition complies with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this SDC criteria, and all other applicable regulations. All existing public and private facilities meet the design and construction standards of the SDC. 9 (E) Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian area s; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in SDC 4.3.117; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in SDC 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. Response: Physical features as relevant are included on the attached Existing Conditions site plan. (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. Response: No new parking areas or ingress-egress points are proposed. (G) Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as specified in this code. Response: Development of any remainder of the subject property owned by Kjessler -Aster, LLC can be accomplished in compliance with the Springfield Development Code. (H) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this code. Response: Adjacent land either is, or can be, developed. (I) Where the Partition 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. (1) The minimum area for the partitioning of land in the UF -10 Overlay District shall be 10 acres. (2) EXCEPTIONS: (a) Any proposed new parcel between 5 and 10 acres shall require a Future Development Plan as specified in SDC 5.12.120(E) for ultimate development with urban densities as required in this code. (b) In addition to the standards of subsection (I)(2)(a), above, any proposed new parcel that is less than 5 acres shall meet 1 of the following standards: (i) The property to be partitioned shall be owned or operated by a governmental agency or public utility; or (ii) A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property to be partitioned shall be smaller than 5 acres. 10 (iii) No more than 3 parcels shall be created from 1 tract of land while the property remains within the UF-10 Overlay District. EXCEPTION: Land within the UF-10 Overlay District may be partitioned more than once as long as no proposed parcel is less than 5 acres in size. Response: The subject property is within the City of Springfield city limits. (J) Where the Partition of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the following approval criteria apply: (1) The park was approved before July 2, 2001 and is in compliance with the standards in SDC 3.2.235 or other land use regulations in effect at the time the site was approved as a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park; or the park is an approved non-conforming use. In the latter case, a park is in compliance if the City has not issued a notice of noncompliance on or before July 2, 2001. (2) The number of lots proposed shall be the same or less than the number of mobile home spaces previously approved or legally existing in the park. (3) The external boundary or setbacks of the park shall not be changed. (4) The use of lots, as shown on the Tentative Plan, shall be limited to the installation of manufactured dwellings; i.e., “stick-built” houses are prohibited. (5) Any other area in the Partition other than the proposed lots shall be used as common property, unless park streets have previously been dedicated to the City or there are public utilities in the park. All common property shall be addressed in a Homeowners’ Association Agreement. (a) Areas that are used for vehicle circulation (streets), driveways that serve more than 2 lots/parcels or common parking areas, shall be shown in a Tract or easement on the Tentative Plan. (b) All other services and utilities that serve more than 1 lot shall be in a Tract or easement. Where a service or utility serves only 1 lot, but crosses another, that service or utility shall also be in an easement shown on the Tentative Plan. (c) Existing buildings in the park used for recreational, meetings or other purposes for the park residents shall be in a Tract shown on the Tentative Plan. (6) Any public utilities shall be within a public utility easement. (7) If public utilities or services are required to serve the Partition, the park owner shall sign and execute a waiver of the right to remonstrate against the formation of a local improvement district to provide the public utilities or services. (6443) Response: This proposal does not include a manufactured dwelling park/mobile home park; this criterion is not applicable. City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Attn: Andy Limbird November 13, 2023 Re: Notice of Incomplete Application Case Number: 811-23-000167-PRE Project Name: Aster Condominiums Partition Applicant: Aster-Kjessler, LLC Submitted: July 26, 2023 Completeness Review Meeting: August 8, 2023 Assessor’s Map & Tax Lot: 17-02-34-44-90001 Dear Andy, Please accept this letter in response to the August 8, 2023 Completeness Review Meeting for the Aster Condominium Partition – Tentative Plan. Herein addressed are all Completeness Checklist items that City staff indicated were missing or incomplete. Staff comments and Springfield Development Code (SDC) sections are indicated by bold and/or italic typeface; applicant responses follow in plain typeface. Should you have questions or require additional information to deem the application complete for substantive review processing, please contact me at your earliest opportunity. Respectfully, Katie Keidel Associate Planner PLANNING 1. There is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line that runs along the southern edge of proposed Parcel 1 to a point approximately 45 feet from the western boundary. At the terminus of the public line there are multiple service connections to existing dwelling units within the complex. The alignment of all these service laterals are not shown on the tentative partition plan. A public utility easement will be required for the segment of public sewer line running along the southern boundary of Parcel 1, and private utility easement(s) will be required for all service laterals extending from the public line. Response: A 7’ PUE (public utility easement) is proposed for the segment of the public sanitary-sewer line running along the southern boundary of proposed Parcel 1 and is shown on the tentative partition plan. A private utility easement for co-locating potentially existing utilities is proposed on the tentative partition plan. Should relocating of utilities be necessary for potential future development this will be completed by the property owner. 2. The proposed building envelope area is not depicted on the partition plan. Because of multiple buried utility lines the applicant will need to confirm buildability of this proposed parcel. Response: The tentative partition plan does not show a building envelope area as development is not proposed at this time. The property owner will relocate/co-locate any existing utilities that require relocating to ensure buildability of proposed Parcel 1 at the time of any potential future development. 3. Street trees will be required along the South 67th Street and Aster Street frontages of the partition area. Response: The required number of street trees along the South 67th and Aster Street frontages are proposed on the tentative partition plan and if approved will be planted when required. 4. As noted above the applicant has not depicted the alignment of sanitary sewer, water and electrical lines that cross the Parcel 1 area. Applicant must request utility locates to determine location and alignment of service lines prior to submitting tentative partition plan. Response: The property owner chooses not to request a private utility locate at this time and will address any possibly existing utility necessities at the time of any potential future development of proposed Parcel 1. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 1. Existing street trees not shown. Three new street trees will be required as part of the partition along Aster and S 67th Street. Response: Existing and proposed street trees are now shown on the tentative partition plan. 2. A 7' PUE along Aster and S 67t h Street will be required. It appears sewer service to the southern units is by a public sewer main that crosses the proposed parcel 1 and a 14' wide sewer easement is required for this. It is likely a water and power easement will be required for this area also and these can be co-located. The likely location of the utilities will probably make parcel 1 not buildable. Response: A 14’ wide sewer easement is proposed on the revised tentative partition plan. The property owner will relocate/co-locate any existing utilities on proposed Parcel 1 so that it is buildable for any potential future development. 3. No new impervious surface is being proposed with this land division but any additional development of either parcel will require stormwater management when that occurs. Response: Noted. TRANSPORTATION 1. Applicant must provide a plan showing access to the new parcel from the existing shared driveway to minimize access points onto the collector roadway. An access easement must be established providing access rights to the new parcel. Response: A proposed access easement extending from the existing shared driveway to proposed Parcel 1 is shown on the revised Tentative Partition plans. 2. Ramps at the intersection of Aster and S 67th are not shown. Sidewalk on the west side of S 6 7t h is shown yet does not exist. Response: These revisions have been made to the tentative partition plan. 3. Missing the stop sign and no parking signage installations. Response: These items have been added to the tentative partition plan.