The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication Applicant 5/23/2024 Revised 07/20/22 sm2 of 4 Development Initiation Meeting Process The purpose of a Development Initiation Meeting is to give an applicant the opportunity to discuss a development proposal with the development review staff of the City. The discussion can be general or specific, depending on the details provided with the application. A Development Initiation Meeting provides information to an applicant related to the current development conditions and standards of the City. The Development Initiation Meeting is not a land use decision and does not confer any development rights, establish any conditions, or bind the applicant or the City to any course of action. The meeting conveys the status of known development opportunities and constraints. The status may change over time as development conditions or standards change. 1. Applicant Submits a Development Initiation Meeting Application • The application must conform to the Development Initiation Meeting Submittal Requirements Checklist on page 3 of this application packet. • Development Initiation Meetings are typically scheduled on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Tuesday time slot is 11:00 am and the Thursday time slot is 1:30 pm. • We strive to conduct the Development Initiation Meetings between three to four weeks of receiving the application. • The applicant’s proposal is circulated to the relevant staff and referral agencies in preparation for the meeting. 2. Applicant and the City Conduct the Development Initiation Meeting • The applicant and any design team should attend the Development Initiation Meeting. • The meeting is scheduled for one hour. • Staff attending the meeting will be prepared to discuss the issues raised in the submittal by the applicant. Other issues raised during the meeting may also be discussed. • The meeting is informal and the City will issue no staff report. Revised 07/20/22 sm3 of 4 Development Initiation Meeting Submittal Requirements Checklist Application Fee – Refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development & Public Works Department. The applicable application fees are collected at the time of complete application submittal. Development Initiation Meeting Application Form Five (5) Questions – List specific questions the applicant would like staff to answer during the meeting. So that each question may be fully evaluated, the list is limited to five questions. If more than five questions are asked or multiple part questions are presented staff may not be able to address all relevant concerns. Prioritizing the five questions is recommended. One (1) Copy and one (1) digital copy of the Proposed Plan - Suggested information valuable for staff to review the proposal is listed below. review the proposal is listed below. It is not necessary to include all these items on the site or plot plan. However, applicants are encouraged to address as many as possible given that the level of information that will be derived from the meeting is commensurate with the level of detail provided in the application. Applicants are also encouraged to include additional information on the plan as listed in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.12.120, Land Divisions – Partitions & Subdivisions – Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements or 5.17.120, Site Plan Review Submittal Requirements. Drawn in ink on quality paper no smaller than 11” x 17” Scale appropriate to the area involved and sufficient to show detail of the plan and related data, such as 1” = 30’, 1” = 50’ or 1” = 100’ North arrow Date of preparation Street address and assessor’s map and tax lot number Dimensions (in feet) and size (either square feet or acres) of the development area Location and size of existing and proposed utilities, including connection points On-site drainage collection system and flow patterns, the size and location of drain lines and catch basins, dry wells, and natural drainageways to be retained Area and dimensions of all property to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved for common open spaces DIMs Related to Land Divisions Approximate location, number, and dimensions of proposed lots How streets in the proposal area connect with existing streets DIMs Related to Site Plan Review Proposed and existing buildings: location, dimensions, size (gross floor area), setbacks from property lines, distance between buildings, and height Revised 8/4/22 MEM Area and percentage of the site proposed for buildings, structures, driveways, sidewalks, patios, and other impervious surfaces Parking and circulation plan EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD 310 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 | p: 541.746.0637 | www.branchengineering.com May 22, 2024 DIM QUESTIONS TAX MAP: 18-02-05-21; TAX LOT 8502 SUBDIVISION Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. 24-158 This application proposes a conceptual design of a subdivision at a site located at Tax Map 18-02-05-21, TL 8502. The site wraps around a corner lot on Mt Vernon Road and S 42nd Street, and has frontage on both roads. It is zoned R-1 which is consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan designating the area as Low Density Residential. The site is vacant except for a concrete driveway allowing access to the above-mentioned corner lot. Several trees exist on site. To the north the site abuts and takes primary access off Mt Vernon Road, a local road within the City of Springfield’s jurisdiction. Current improvements within Mt Vernon Road include full street improvements with curbside sidewalks as well as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main, gas, street lights on its southerly side (the first being 200-feet from the intersection) and underground power and communication lines. To the west the site abuts S 42nd Street, an arterial within the City of Springfield’s jurisdiction. Current improvements within S 42nd Street include full street improvements with setback sidewalks as well as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main, gas, street lights on its easterly side (the first and second being 50- and 200-feet from the intersection, respectively) and overhead power and communication lines. The following are a list of questions from the applicant regarding the subdivision: 1. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: a. As previously conceptualized, Lots 1 and 2 have frontage on 42nd and panhandles on Mt Vernon Road. Are the panhandles required? Can the lots meet frontage standards along S 42nd and take access to Mt Vernon via an easement over the other lots? b. Does the city predict any improvements within either right-of-way in order to perform the subdivision? c. How many street trees should the developer expect to need? Can they be located under the existing power lines? d. Will the existing power lines along S 42nd Street be an issue for future development? Subdivision – DIM Questions May 21, 2024 Branch Engineering, Inc. Page 2 of 2 2. PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE: a. Are there any downstream deficiencies in the existing public stormwater system that could impact future development on the property? Based on this answer, what are the design standards required for any development? b. Will connections to the stormwater, sanitary, or water mains in either right- of-way be an issue for any future development (i.e. saw cuts, class of pipe, etc.)? Would the city be able to provide existing as builts for the area? 3. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT: a. The nearest fire hydrant exists at the southwest corner of the S 43 rd Street and Mt Vernon Road intersection. Does the fire marshal see any reason why this hydrant would not be sufficient for any future development? b. The previous concept utilized two driveway cuts to serve five properties (four subdivision lots plus the existing duplex at the corner). Can these be combined into one driveway cut that serves all five properties? If so, what are the design standards? c. What would the screening standards be along S 42nd Street? Would homes need to face S 42nd Street if they take access from Mt Vernon Road? 4. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT: a. For any trees that are currently in the right-of-way or are designated as street trees, what process and cost should the applicant consider if any of the trees need to be removed? 5. Are there any red flags that the city sees with this annexation that weren’t addressed as part of the questions above? FH S ow Q RIM = 492.65 FL 8" IN S. = 486.47 x N O 3 cf �srJ FH 3 FIRE HYDRANT . CS L 3 0 v TS O TS 0 F-- PIP L7. I ww PED rn 3 � EXISTING M PED 0 3 3 ❑r EXISTING TELEPHONE RISER STOP & STREET 3 TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX NAME SIGN(S) (E) STORMWATER MANHOLE00 BROADBAND RISER OPP �00 � j RIM = 492.89 FL 12" IN E. = 487.12 EXISTING POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR 00 I FL 12" IN W. = 487.42 STREET LIGHT 492 N = FL 18" IN N. = 486.73 6" W W N EXISTING 3 FL 18" OUT S. = 486.75 rn PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL POLE n EXISTING ELECTRIC METER 0 EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER O MB 3 0 (E) STORMWATER MANHOLE DENOTES 3 3 RIM = 492.91 FH S ow 3 RIM = 492.65 FL 8" IN S. = 486.47 x N O } _ w Of �srJ FH 3 FIRE HYDRANT CS L 3 0 v T O TS 0 F-- PIP EXISTING 4 ww PED rn p co EXISTING M O 0 3 3 ❑r EXISTING TELEPHONE RISER STOP & STREET 3 TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX NAME SIGN(S) 0 BROADBAND RISER OPP 0 3 E- EXISTING POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR C W STREET LIGHT 492 N = W 6" W W N -(E) CURB INLET SCALE 1 " = 20 FT GUTTER = 49 RIM 492.12 =491.62 NORTH - (E) STORMWATER MANHOLE 0 1 O 2O 4O RIM = 492.24 WFL (STUB?) IN E. (SIZE UNKNOWN) = 487.47 WFL 12" IN S. = 487.56 FL 12" IN N. = 487.50 WFL 12" OUT W. = 487.66 (E) WASTEWATER MANHOLE - (E) CURB INLETRIM = 492.57 RIM = 492.24 FL 6" IN N. = 487.65 GUTTER = 491.74 (E) CATCH BASIN (BUBBLER) FL 8" IN E. = 487.61 GRATE = 491.88 FL 8" OUT W. = 487.56 W W W W 6" W- W =� W W W W W W W 6., W W yy FL 18" IN N. = 486.68 0 492 3 iv CV FL 18" OUT S. = 486.14 cn M O U N T Z V E R N O N R O A D W C¢7 N (E) WASTEWATER MANHOLE S ow ST 3 12° `. RIM = 492.65 FL 8" IN S. = 486.47 EXISTING WATER METER �srJ FH FL 8" IN E. = 486.46 FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING FL 8" OUT N. = 486.51 T EXISTING Ww W, PIP EXISTING CURB INLET ww OHW WASTEWATER MANHOLE p co EXISTING CLEANOUT O OH 3 3 ❑r EXISTING TELEPHONE RISER ON�\ EXISTING TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX 0 T EXISTING BROADBAND RISER OPP EXISTING 3 E- EXISTING POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR C EXISTING STREET LIGHT o SL EXISTING STREET LIGHT JUNCTION BOX 0 Ts EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL JUNCTION BOX O PED rn PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL POLE D EXISTING ELECTRIC METER 0 EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER O MB 3 MAIL BOX P.U.E. DENOTES 3 (E) DENOTES EXISTING 0 DENOTES FLOWLINE OF PIPE WFL W FLOWLINE (DEBRIS IN PIPE OR MANHOLE) EXISTING 3 w X" ST EXISTING STORMWATER PIPE (SIZE AS NOTED) Of EXISTING WASTEWATER PIPE (SIZE AS NOTED) X" GAS EXISTING NATURAL GAS LINE (SIZE AS NOTED) x" w EXISTING � E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE 3 EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE OHw OHw N OVERHEAD WIRE EXISTING WOOD FENCE (SEE SHT. 1 FOR HEIGHT) -x x x- EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE (SEE SHT. 1 FOR HEIGHT) wM EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING DENOTES - WM WIM 3 0 ( CURB INLET I Z RIM = 492.51 FL GUTTER = 492.01 3 (V FL 12" OUT W. = 487.63 SUMP = 486.48 (STORMWATER MANHOLE RIM = 492.41 FL 12" IN E. = 487.24 FL 12" IN W. = 487.44 FL 18" IN N.= 486.36 3 FL 18" OUT S. = 486.01 12" ST - (E) CURB INLET I = RIM = 492.53 GUTTER = 492.03 3 0 N T 10 3 35'NF- 3 3 (STORMWATER MANHOLE RIM = 492.64 FL 12" IN E. = 486.48 FL 12" IN W. = 485.74 FL 18" IN N. = 486.09 3 FL 24" OUT S. = 485.65 ST ST 12" ST 3 LO 00 w 41 3 3 (1 WASTEWATER MANHOLE WASTEWATER MANHOLE RIM = 492.58 FL 8" OUT N. = UNKNOWN co a iT S -12" ST T_o- ST 12" ST- ST ST 00 O + 3 1 3 M (E) CURB WEEPHOLE (E) CURB WEEPHOLE ST FL = 491.84 FL = 492.04 r 07WW WW WW WW 8" WW - WW -N WW WW WW ww 8" wW - WW WW WW WW W WW -8" Ww - WW - " 3 0 4g2 N GN ww ww ww s" ww- N 3 492 PLAYGROUND SIGN 3 (n W 3 3 N 5.o cuRasioE MB , 117.04' S 89-16'34" E, 7 3.32SIDEWALK -Mg S 89' 16'34" E _ 3 MIR MB, Ht� 0 EL 43.7: 3 N N \ O/ -/w E E E E E E TV F GAS GAS GAS 1 " GAS o =GAS 0� co co ET GAS 1 " AS GAS EGAS E G E A-1 '_GAS E GA / Co--coO I '71.04' - w 00 PP + - CO--- HP (O 20.00 71.04 r--- 00 00 ,.• 3 LO MB ro x _ 3 ^ a . 182.' TOEXISTIN 6.00' EXISTING N 'o J INT USE 5.00' (E) FIRE 'HYDRANT 04 w ,� °ACCES UTILITY P.U.E. N a .M TSV) I of Ih ...EASEM NT 3 F_-- _ OD < 3 EXISTING 0 o DUPLEX 1s.o'-� o ': pp 23.7' PORCH 25.0' DWELLING : L (TO REMAIN) W 0 N < L0 29.1'- Z .---- 13.2' = 4215 & 4217 p NEIGHBORING a °a N Lv 0493 MT. VERNON RD. O N . • 3 TAX LOT DWELLING 00 M w 8504 4255 0 I 18.2'- O : • O 0MT. VERNON RD. r- TAX LOT r_� 0 .� O 5,269 S.F. N z 00 0DSPEED O 8508 Z .: oM- I 25.4 LIMIT p " 13.5' 23.3'SGN Q ,Oww� 28.9' L. _N 0.9' EAVE/ROOF COVERED L. --- �y l O - - -- -- W W OVERHANG PATIO _ TAX LOT 8503 00 Q JN Q O T 'o �•' 11 O- O MI M O O 04 ao 0� = N 0� 3. x o w° 0 , ......... S 89' 16'34" E, 85.49' o In m II .. ... ..ft O o S 89' 16'34" E, 71.04' in U) U z 06 N o I SOUTH RLY TERMINUS OF EXISTING 26.00' v .JOINT SE ACCESS 4 UTILITY EASEMENTEXISTING 7.00' P.U.E. v� LOT 1 : : LOT 4 n a o L0 , 3 N EXISTING 5,326 S.F. I 4,887 S.F.LO T - N .I 7.00' P.U.E. (EXCLUDING , ' O (EXCLUDING M ST j� o ; PANHANDLE) PANHANDLE) ?� 12" ST LO p r N I I Z. 493 O O N _�• I M a o'' Q W O O w w o I S 89' 16'34" E, 94.1.2. .. ......... . I 493 N o ` S 89' 16'34" E, 91.04' N M N a 0 \ �r a I ... .......... . I ... ........ . . o In Z o I mow, : PROPOSED 26.00' PRIVATE JOINT ° o N HJSE ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT N00 Oaf 3. 00 �3 �I LOT 2 I LOT 3 TAX LOT 8505 - 0000 LO co 5,671 S.F. 5,226 S.F. Q 35' (EXCLUDING I (EXCLUDINGLO ; PANHANDLE) PANHANDLE) = ; o w 'PROPOSED 18' o� N 3 :WIDE DRIVEWAY a v ' xo I ww cn N'�\ ...................102.77' ........:....: :....:..............99.71.x.. < 11 TAX LOT 8506 ST ,z" STST--- �g3/ S 89'09'41" W, 202.48' TAX LOT 8501 TAX LOT 8511 Q 3a REGISTERED V = LINE DATA TABLE ELATION NOTE UTILITY NOTE PROFESS L a a � N o WING " " I LAND VEYO ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON CITY OF UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON 3 N0. BEARING DISTANCE SPRINGFIELD DATUM (NAVD 88). BENCHMARK USED ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF INA NL1 N 38°20'05" E 19.69' a _ WAS CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BENCHMARK NO. 532, A FIELD SURVEY OF OBSERVABLE a MAG NAIL & DISK STAMPED "CITY OF SPRINGFIELD EVIDENCE (INCLUDING SOME UTILITY EG v " wM CONTROL" IN TOP OF CURB AT NORTHEAST CORNER MARKING PAINT) UTILITY COMPANY00 2000 N �1 I ao 1 I OF INTERSECTION OF MT. VERNON RD. AND 42ND ST AT 1/2 CURB RETURN BETWEEN HANDICAP RAMPS. ELEVATION = 492.60 (NAVD 88) LOCATION MAPS AND CITY OF SPRINGFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE MAPS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. LY 1, MIC L R. DAHRENS 60052 RENEWS: 12-31-2015 NOTES: 1.) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH DO NOT CROSS OR ABUT THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION. 2.) NO SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OR RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS CROSS OR ABUT THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION. 3.) TAX LOT 8508 IS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP BUT IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. 4.) EXISTING STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, SIDEWALKS, STREET TREES AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE LOCATED AS SHOWN HEREON. NO NEW STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, SIDEWALKS, STREET TREES OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE PROPOSED. 5.) EXISTING PUBLIC STREET STREETS ARE AS SHOWN HEREON. NO NEW STREETS OR DEDICATION(S) OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE PROPOSED. 6.) EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES AND ASSOCIATED TRANSIT FACILITIES ARE LOCATED ON MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NO NEW TRANSIT FACILITIES ARE PROPOSED. 7.) EXISTING BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE PER COUNTY SURVEYOR'S FILE NO. 42285 PREPARED BY SSW ENGINEERS IN 2012. PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION TENTATIVE PLAN FOR: CATALEJO PROPERTIES, LLC TAX LOT 8502, MAP 18-02-05-21 SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON SSWEN61NEERS,N, V CIVIL STRUCTURAL BUILDING DESIGN SURVEYING LAND USE PLANNING 2350 Oakmont Way, Suite 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 485-8383 JOB NO. 12/12/19 SHEET - OF - LEGEND ow EXISTING WATER VALVE ElwM EXISTING WATER METER �srJ FH EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING STORMWATER MANHOLE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING CURB INLET ww EXISTING WASTEWATER MANHOLE p co EXISTING CLEANOUT O EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE ❑r EXISTING TELEPHONE RISER 0 TEL EXISTING TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX 0 T EXISTING BROADBAND RISER OPP EXISTING POWER POLE E- EXISTING POWER POLE GUY ANCHOR C EXISTING STREET LIGHT o SL EXISTING STREET LIGHT JUNCTION BOX 0 Ts EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL JUNCTION BOX O PED EXISTING PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL POLE D EXISTING ELECTRIC METER 0 EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER O MB EXISTING MAIL BOX P.U.E. DENOTES PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (E) DENOTES EXISTING FL DENOTES FLOWLINE OF PIPE WFL WORKING FLOWLINE (DEBRIS IN PIPE OR MANHOLE) EXISTING CURBING X" ST EXISTING STORMWATER PIPE (SIZE AS NOTED) X" ww EXISTING WASTEWATER PIPE (SIZE AS NOTED) X" GAS EXISTING NATURAL GAS LINE (SIZE AS NOTED) x" w EXISTING WATER LINE (SIZE AS NOTED) E E EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINE T T EXISTING UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE LINE OHw OHw EXISTING OVERHEAD WIRE EXISTING WOOD FENCE (SEE SHT. 1 FOR HEIGHT) -x x x- EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE (SEE SHT. 1 FOR HEIGHT) DENOTES EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES EXISTING ASPHALT PAVING DENOTES PROPOSED CONCRETE SURFACE NOTES: 1.) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, THE BOUNDARIES OF WHICH DO NOT CROSS OR ABUT THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION. 2.) NO SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OR RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS CROSS OR ABUT THE PROPOSED LAND DIVISION. 3.) TAX LOT 8508 IS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP BUT IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. 4.) EXISTING STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, SIDEWALKS, STREET TREES AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE LOCATED AS SHOWN HEREON. NO NEW STREET LIGHTS, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, FIRE HYDRANTS, POWER POLES, SIDEWALKS, STREET TREES OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE PROPOSED. 5.) EXISTING PUBLIC STREET STREETS ARE AS SHOWN HEREON. NO NEW STREETS OR DEDICATION(S) OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE PROPOSED. 6.) EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES AND ASSOCIATED TRANSIT FACILITIES ARE LOCATED ON MAIN STREET APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. NO NEW TRANSIT FACILITIES ARE PROPOSED. 7.) EXISTING BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE PER COUNTY SURVEYOR'S FILE NO. 42285 PREPARED BY SSW ENGINEERS IN 2012. PRELIMINARY LAND DIVISION TENTATIVE PLAN FOR: CATALEJO PROPERTIES, LLC TAX LOT 8502, MAP 18-02-05-21 SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON SSWEN61NEERS,N, V CIVIL STRUCTURAL BUILDING DESIGN SURVEYING LAND USE PLANNING 2350 Oakmont Way, Suite 105 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541) 485-8383 JOB NO. 12/12/19 SHEET - OF -