HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication Applicant 7/30/2024Docusign Envelope ID: 47512F4B-EAB3-49D5-B564-88A8D4C20C37
1City of Springfield
Development & Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Appeal
i
PRINOFIRLD
Application Type (Applicant: check one)
Appeal:
of a Director's Decision: ® of a Historic Commission Decision: ❑
of an Expedited Land Division: ❑ of a Planning Commission Decision: ❑
•-.(Applicant.- complete this section)
Case Number: 811-24-000126-Typ2 Date of Decision: 7/18/2024
Project Name: Woodland Ridge Phases 5-8 Subdivision
Date of Filing the Appeal: 7/30/2024
Must be within 15 calendar days of the date of decision
Briefly list the specific issues being raised in the appeal. These should be the specific points where you feel the
Approval Authority erred in making the decision, i.e. what approval criterion or criteria you allege to have been
Issues: inappropriately applied. If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your list of issues to this application.
Appeal of Condition 2. See attached.
Appellant Name: Brian Thoreson, Hayden Homes LLC Phone: (509) 492-0153
Statement of Interest: ❑ Owner
(check one) ❑ Applicant
❑ Person notified of the request as an adjacent owner or occupant
❑ Person asked to be notified of the request
❑ Other Explain:
Address: 2464 SW Glacier PI, #110, Redmond, OR 97756
The undersigned acknowledges that the appeal application form and its attachments have been read, acknowledges
that the requirements for filing an appeal of a land use decision are understood, and states that the information
supplied is correct and accurate.
acuSigned by:
Sia nature:
Associated Cases: Signs:
II N
�(,� 2Case No.: l2"qt)-V[ - l�> Date: Z Reviewed by:
Application Fee: $ �o lA� Technical Fee: $ Postage Fee: $
TOTAL FEES: $ ), 0, 00 PROJECT NUMBER:
Revised 11/17/08ddk 1 of 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 47512F4B-EAB3-49D5-B564-88A8D4C20C37
Appeal Application Process
1. Applicant Submits an Appeal Application to the Development & Public Works
Department
• The application must conform to the Appeal Submittal Requirements Checklist on
page 3 of this application packet.
• Planning Division staff screen the submittal at the front counter to determine
whether all required items listed in the Appeal Submittal Requirements Checklist
have been submitted.
• Applications missing required items will not be accepted for submittal.
2. City Staff Conduct Detailed Completeness Check
• Planning Division staff conducts a detailed completeness check within 30 days of
submittal.
• The assigned Planner notifies the applicant in writing regarding the completeness of
the application.
• An application is not be deemed technically complete until all information necessary
to evaluate the proposed development, its impacts, and its compliance with the
provisions of the Springfield Development Code and other applicable codes and
statutes have been provided.
• Incomplete applications, as well as insufficient or unclear data, will delay the
application review process.
3. Planning Commission or City Council Review the Application, Hold a Public Hearing,
and Issue a Decision
• These are Type III or Type IV decisions and thus are made after a public hearing.
• A notice is posted in the newspaper, and notice is mailed to property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to any applicable
neighborhood association. In addition, the applicant must post one sign, provided
by the City, on the subject property.
• Written comments may be submitted to the Development & Public Works
Department through the day of the public hearing or comments may be provided in
person during the public hearing.
• After a public hearing, the Planning Commission or City Council issues a decision
that addresses all applicable approval criteria and/or development standards, as
well as any written or oral testimony.
Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied.
• The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which
is effective on the day it is mailed.
The decision issued is the final decision of the City but the Planning Commission's
decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council, and the City
Council's decision may be appealed within 21 calendar days to the Land Use Board
of Appeals.
Revised 11/17/08ddk 2 of 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 47512F4B-EAB3-49D5-B564-88A8D4C20C37
Appeal 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, technology, and postage fees are collected
at the time of complete application submittal.
93 Appeal Application Form
f6 Narrative explaining each appeal issue listed on the application form in more detail. This
statement should indicate where you feel the Director, Historic Commission, or Planning
Commission erred in the decision based upon the evidence presented and in applying that
evidence to the criteria used to evaluate the request. Be sure to make this statement as
complete as possible.
NOTE: Appeals of a Director's or Historic Commission decision will be reviewed de novo by the
Planning Commission or Hearings Official. They shall consider all physical and documentary
evidence submitted to the Director or Historic Commission as part of the original application, as
well as any new evidence or testimony which the opponents or proponents may wish to present
at the public hearing.
Appeals of a Planning Commission decision will be reviewed by City Council and will be based
upon the record of proceeding. They shall consider all physical and documentary evidence
submitted to the Director or Historic Commission as part of the original application and any
evidence or testimony presented to the Planning Commission.
Revised 11/17/08ddk 3 of 3
LAND USE PLANNINS AND CONSULTING SERVICES
846 A STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97477
1541) 302.9830
W W W. M ETRO PLAN N I N G.CO M
NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
OF CONDITION 2
OF WOODLAND RIDGE SUBDIVISON
811-24-000126-TYP2
I. Appeal Requirements:
SDC 5.1.810:
July 30, 2024
(A) To file an appeal, an appellant must file a completed notice of appeal on a form
prescribed by the Director and pay an appeal fee.
(B,) Unless a request for reconsideration has been filed, the notice of appeal and
appeal fee must be received by the Community Development Director no later than
the close of the public counter on the 12th day following mailing of the decision. If
a decision has been modified on reconsideration, an appeal must be filed no later
than the 12th day following mailing of the decision as modified. Notices of appeals
must not be received by facsimile machine or e-mail.
[C) In the case of an appeal of a Type 2 decision to the Hearings Officer or to the
Planning Commission, the Hearings Authority's decision on appeal is final 12 days
after the decision is mailed. Except that, within 12 days after the decision is mailed,
the City Council may, on its own motion and at its discretion, call up a decision of
the Planning Commission and conduct an on the record review of the decision and
limit issues identified in the Council's motion.
In the case of an appeal of a Type 3 decision, the City Council's decision
whether to grant review is discretionary. If the City Council declines review, the
appellant may be entitled to a partial refund according to the City's adopted Fees
Resolution.
The Hearings Officer's decision on a Type 3 decision or upon appeal of a Type
2 decision is the City's final decision and is appealable only.
Woodland Ridge Appeal
July 30, 2024
Page 2 of 3
Appellant is the applicant and/or property owner and is thus entitled to appeal. The
decision being appealed is attached as Exhibit A. A signed appeal form has been provided.
The fee will be paid upon submission. The decision is dated July 18, 2024, and this appeal
is filed within 12 calendar days of that decision.
SCD 5.1.815. (A) The Notice of Appeal must contain:
f&A description of the decision which is being appealed, including the date of
decision.
( A statement describing the interest the person who is appealing has in the
decision. Only persons who have proper standing as provided by the law, and
who have participated in the decision being appealed (if provision for such
participation was provided in the previous proceeding), may appeal the decision.
The statement of interest must demonstrate the person's standing and
participation.
A description of the issues sought to be raised by the appeal; and a statement
that the issues were raised during the proceeding that produced the decision
being appealed. This description must include the specific criteria relied upon as
the basis for the appeal, and an explanation of why the decision has not complied
with the standards or requirements of the criteria. The issues raised by the appeal
must be stated with sufficient specificity to afford the reviewing authority an
opportunity to resolve each issue raised.
In the case of a discretionary appeal request to the City Council, the Notice of
Appeal must include the following additional information to assist the City
Council in deciding whether to grant discretionary review of the decision being
appealed: ***.
The decision being appealed is noted on the appeal application form. It is a Type 2
Tentative Subdivision Reivew. The decision is dated July 18, 2024, and this appeal is filed
within 12 calendar days of that decision. The appeal issue is addressed below and relates to
a Condition of Approval attached to the decision.
II. Appeal
The Director erred in imposing Condition 2, which states,
Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phases 5, 6, 7 or 8, the
applicant must identify at least two acres of park tracts) for development of
public park space within the balance of the Woodland Ridge subdivision area (i. e.
Phases 5-8). The neighborhood park tract(s) must be unencumbered by steep
slopes or wetlands and transferred to Willamalane as public open space prior to
Woodland Ridge Appeal
July 30, 2024
Page 3 of 3
or concurrent with the final plat approval/recording of the phase of the
subdivision that the identified park parcel is located within. The public open
space tract(s) must be depicted as such on the affected subdivision plats.
The Director asserted that the Condition was necessary to satisfy Criterion B of SDC
5.12.125, which requires compliance with the Willamalane (WPRD) Comprehensive Plan
(Refinement Plan).
Criterion B states,
The zoning is consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Map and/or
applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual
Development Plan. [emphasis added]
Condition 2 is not required or justified by the SDC for reasons including but not limited to:
The purpose of Criterion B is to ensure that zoning is consistent with designation.
The proposed Subdivision does not affect or change existing zoning. The
property is zoned R-1.
a. The City has already acknowledged the R-1 zoning district as being in
compliance with the listed plans. As such, Criterion B is not applicable.
b. Criterion B is limited to plan "maps" or "diagrams" not text. The
proposed subdivision does not affect adopted plan maps. Criterion B is
not applicable.
c. The property is zoned R-1. The property is designated Residential on the
Comprehensive Plan Map. As such, zoning is consistent with the Comp
Plan. The Willamalane Comprehensive Plan diagram, to the extent it
exists, does not conflict with the Comp Plan Diagram. As such, the R-1
zonings district remains consistent with Residential designation.
2. The condition violates good faith and verbal understandings. The owner,
applicant and design team have been in constant contact with the City. Several
meetings were held. Tentative agreements were made. While the WPRD spoke
of purchasing park land, the City did not request or allude to requiring park
dedication.
3. The condition is too ambiguous to be enforceable under the Nollan/Dolan' tests.
Given the limited applicability of Criterion B, there is no proven Nexus; Rough
1 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994);
Hill v. City of Portland, 77 Or LUBA 317 (2018).
Woodland Ridge Appeal
July 30, 2024
Page 4 of 3
Proportionality is not present. The two-part test of Dolan was not addressed in
the decision.
a. Here, there is not an "essential nexus" between the condition and a
legitimate state interest, and the degree of the exaction is not roughly
proportional.
4. The condition is too broad, ambiguous and discretionary to be a valid condition.
As written, the condition pushes a discretionary decision to a later point where
there is no opportunity for review and/or appeal. The City may not defer such a
finding.
a. There is no definition of "steep slope," or discussion why slopes are
relevant under the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan.
b. There are no standards that define what would be an acceptable
dedication.
c. Other than "steep slope," there are no criteria that identify how the two
acres should be chosen.
Appeal is de novo. As such, the applicant reserves the right to identify additional errors
relating to Condition 2. The above identified errors will be more fully briefed at the
hearing.
TYPE 2 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Woodland Ridge Phases 5-8 Subdivision
Project Proposal: Subdivide six residentia
Case Number: 811-24-000126-TYP2
Project Location: Vacant parcels between
Pinehurst Subdivision and Phases 3 & 4 of
Woodland Ridge (Map 18-02-04-00, TL
305, 307 & 3500-3800)
Zoning: R-1 Residential District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
(Springfield Comprehensive Plan)
Completeness Check Meeting: 4/19/2024
Application Submitted Date: 5/10/2024
Application Complete: 5/28/2024
Decision Issued Date: 7/18/2024
Decision: Approved with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: 7/30/2024
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
Natural Features: A small portion of the property has a wooded
ridgeline with steep slope; and there are some wetlands present on the
property.
Density: Approximately 10.2 units per acre (net)
Associated Applications: 811-23-000281-TYP4 (Annexation); 811 -24 -000096 -PRE (Completeness Check Meeting)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION
REVIEW OF
NAME
PHONE
Project Manager
Planning
Andy Limbird
541-726-3784
Transportation Planning Engineer
Transportation
Michael Liebler
541-736-1034
Public Works Engineer
Utilities
Clayton McEachern
541-736-1036
Public Works Engineer
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
Clayton McEachern
541-736-1036
Deputy Fire Marshal
Fire and Life Safety
Gilbert Gordon
541-726-3661
Building Official
Building
Chris Carpenter
541-7444153
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner: Applicant: Engineer:
Will Goodwin Brian Thoreson Scott Morris, PE
SSR Investments LLC Hayden Homes Inc. A&O Engineering
P.O. Box 2617 2464 SW Glacier Place, Suite 100 380 Q Street, Suite 200
Eugene OR 97402 Redmond OR 97756 Springfield OR 97477
DECISION: Tentative Subdivision Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards
of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Subdivision Approval are listed
herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions
necessary for compliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE FINAL PLAT,
MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a limited land
use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please
read this document carefully.
(See Exhibit A and Page 21 for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: No additional uses are authorized by this decision beyond
what is approved in this decision. Future development must be in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield
Development Code (SDC), filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: The application is being reviewed under the Land Division Tentative Plan criteria of SDC
5.12.125 in effect on the date of submittal (May 10, 2024).
Procedural Finding: This application is reviewed under Type 2 procedures and the tentative land division provisions
of SDC 5.12.100. This application was accepted as complete on May 28, 2024; therefore, this decision is issued on
the 51St day of the 120 -day decision period in accordance with ORS 227.178.
SITE INFORMATION: The subject development area consists of six adjoining parcels that are located to the west
of the Pinehurst subdivision off South 54" Street; south of Phases 1 and 2 of the Woodland Ridge neighborhood;
north of Jasper Road and Mt Vernon Road; and east of Phases 3 and 4 of the Woodland Ridge neighborhood. The
property includes a residential parcel with panhandle driveway extending to Mt Vernon Road that is addressed as
5353 Ivy Street. Although the main pan portion of the property is annexed the linear panhandle is not, so this portion
of the subdivision area must be excluded from the phased tentative plan — see Section D.2 below. The remainder of
the parcels are annexed, vacant and not assigned municipal addresses (Map 18-02-04-00, Tax Lots 305, 307 and
3500-3800). The property is zoned and designated R-1 Residential District in accordance with the Springfield
Zoning Map and the adopted Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map.
The proposal is for four subdivision phases totaling 219 buildable lots and six tracts. Each lot is proposed to have
a single -unit dwelling so as to not exceed maximum density standards for the R-1 district. The applicant is also
proposing to plat 12 lots that are smaller than the 3,000 ftZ minimum size in the R-1 district. A minor variance
application has been submitted under separate cover in support of the proposed lot size reduction (File 811-24-
000127-TYP2).
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 -day comment period on the application
(SDC 5.1.425). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights
and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration.
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1.425, notice was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet
of the subject site on June 4, 2024. Staff responded to two telephone calls inquiring about the proposed development
but no written comments were received.
CRITERIA OF SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 5.12.125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application
upon determining that criteria A through I of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy
the criteria, the Director shall deny the application.
A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 3.2.215(A) and Table 3.2.215, R-1 lots for single -unit and duplex
dwellings must be at least 3,000 ft2.
Finding 1: The applicant is proposing to create 209 lots within the four phases that meet or exceed the minimum
lot size requirements. However, 12 lots within Phase 7 are proposed to be 2,695 to 2,700 ft2 in area, which is
about 300 ft2 or 10% variance in minimum lot size. The applicant has submitted a minor variance request under
separate cover (File 811-24-000127-TYP2) in support of the lot size reduction. Approval of the minor variance
request is required prior to platting of Phase 7 and a condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Finding 2: There are no minimum street frontage requirements for residential lots per SDC 3.2.215. Therefore,
the proposed lots meet the requirements of SDC 3.2.215(A) and Table 3.2.215.
Approval Standard: SDC Table 3.2.215 requires a minimum of six (6) dwelling units per net acre for single -
unit, duplex, tri-plex and townhome style homes in the R-1 residential district. There is a maximum density
of 14 single unit dwellings per net acre; other styles of housing have no upper limit on density.
Finding 3: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 219 developable lots for single -unit
dwellings on the site. Six open space tracts are proposed for public stormwater facilities, wetland preservation
and common open space, and these tract areas along with the public road rights-of-way are deducted from the
total development area. With a single -unit dwelling on each lot, the proposal will achieve approximately 10.2
dwelling units per net acre which meets the R-1 density range of 6 to 14 units per net acre.
Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7 the minor variance initiated by File 811-
24-000127-TYP2 must be approved for Lots 295-300, 309-312, 326 and 327 as depicted on the
applicant's tentative subdivision plan. The minor variance must approve an approximately 10%
reduction in lot area for the 12 lots (Lots 295-300, 309-312, 326 & 327) allowing for 2,695 to 2,700 ft2
lot areas where 3,000 ft2 is the minimum area required in the R-1 District.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion A.
B. The zoning is consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Map and/or applicable Refinement Plan
diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding 4: The subject property is zoned R-1 residential district in accordance with the Springfield Zoning Map
and is designated Low Density Residential on the Springfield Comprehensive Plan Map. The applicant is not
proposing to change the zoning or comprehensive plan designation for the site.
Finding 5: There is no adopted neighborhood Refinement Plan for this area of Springfield. Therefore, the
prevailing comprehensive plan applicable to this proposal is the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Finding 6: The City of Springfield has adopted the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan as a refinement plan to
the Springfield Comprehensive Plan for the provision of city-wide public park and recreation facilities. At the
time of tentative subdivision submittal (May 2024) the City had not yet adopted the 2023 Willamalane
Comprehensive Plan so the policies in effect at that time are from the 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan.
Finding 7: The Community Needs Assessment performed by Willamalane for the 2012 Comprehensive Plan
identified an overall target service level of 14 acres of park space for every 1,000 residents. This level has
remained relatively consistent since the prior Community Needs Assessment in 2002. The allocation of public
open space includes providing a variety of facilities and amenities throughout the community, and also
considers geographical distribution and adequate public access. The Community Needs Assessment also
found strong community interest in off-street bicycle paths and trails and smaller, close -to -home neighborhood
parks (2012 Willamalane Community Needs Assessment — Key Findings, Pages 111-112). As Springfield
continues to grow and add residents the need for public parks and open space increases proportionally.
Finding 8: The 2012 and 2023 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan identify the portion of Springfield that
encapsulates the Woodland Ridge neighborhood (a region that is generally bounded by South 48' Street to the
west, Booth -Kelly Road to the north, Jasper Road to the south, and South 57' Street to the east) as being
underserved with public park and recreation facilities. To address this deficiency, the 2012 Comprehensive
Plan depicts a potential neighborhood park project in the vicinity of the Pinehurst subdivision (Project 1.33).
However, when the two Pinehurst subdivision phases were constructed in 2016 a public park was not
developed in this neighborhood. Private open space that is owned and maintained by the Pinehurst
homeowners' association was set aside under the high voltage transmission lines along the eastern edge of the
subdivision area.
Finding 9: The 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan identifies a neighborhood park standard of two acres
per 1,000 residents (Neighborhood Park Strategy A.20). The 2023 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan
recommends 3 to 20 acres as the standard neighborhood park size (Section 5, Page 48). Neighborhood parks
are designed and intended to be within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods and provide
access to basic recreation opportunities for users. According to the park classifications and standards used by
Wjllamalane, neighborhood parks typically have a service capture area of about '/4 to 'h mile radius.
Finding 10: The nearest existing neighborhood parks to the subdivision area are located about 0.75 miles
walking distance away as measured by tracing paths along public streets and sidewalks. These parks include
Bluebelle Park which is located north of Daisy Street between South 49' Place and South 51 s' Place, and Rob
Adams Park which is located on Mountaingate Drive east of the intersection with South 58'i' Street. Both of
these parks are well outside the optimal '/4 to '/z mile walking or biking distance from the Woodland Ridge
Phases 5-8 subdivision area.
Finding 11: The neighborhoods to the east and west of the subject site — specifically, the Hayden Homes
subdivisions of Westwind Estates and Pinehurst — have already built -out and did not dedicate or develop any
public open space areas that would satisfy all or part of the neighborhood park requirement. However, the
hundreds of residents of these subdivisions generate a nexus of demand for public park and recreation services.
The private open space areas dedicated with Phases 1-4 of Woodland Ridge are primarily wooded hillside
areas that are not designed or intended for active recreational use. The existing open space areas are owned
and maintained by the neighborhood homeowners' association and are not usable and accessible by residents
of adjacent subdivisions or the general public. Additionally, the privately -owned tracts are generally kept in
a natural state and have not been improved with active or passive recreational facilities that would provide a
park function for residents. For these reasons, the 2023 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan again identifies a
new neighborhood park (a bit farther west than the 2012 plan) centrally located in the neighborhood
collectively comprised of Westwind Estates, Woodland Ridge and Pinehurst. Upon build -out of Woodland
Ridge Phases 5-8, in aggregate the three Hayden Homes subdivision areas will comprise about 570 dwellings
with approximately 1,400 Springfield residents.
Finding 12: Proposed Tract S within Phase 7 is approximately 1.73 acres in size and contains some mature
trees along the eastern edge. On its own, Tract S does not satisfy the minimum size requirements for a
neighborhood park as described in the 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan. However, proposed Tract S
is generally located where Project 1.33 is depicted on Map 2-1, "Proposed Neighborhood Park Projects" of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Finding 13: To address the public open space deficiency in a rapidly -growing area of southeast Springfield,
both the 2012 and 2023 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan identify a new neighborhood park as being a short-
term priority. The applicant did not identify any potential public open space areas within Westwind Estates,
Pinehurst or Woodland Ridge Phases 1-4. The applicant has not identified any potential public open space
area(s) on the Phases 5-8 subdivision plan for the provision of needed park and recreation facilities. Private
4
open space is depicted along the southern and eastern edges of the subdivision area in Tracts J, R, S and T of
the tentative subdivision plan. Based on feedback from Willamalane staff it is possible that portions of the
private open space tracts could be consolidated or reconfigured to create a single neighborhood park site or
operate as multiple smaller sites. Alternatively, the applicant could discuss other options with Willamalane
such as exchanging usable park space for residential systems development charge (SDC) credits or upgrading
developable portions of Tract J with recreation facilities, playground equipment, etc.
Finding 14: Because Woodland Ridge Phases 5-8 is the last remaining residential subdivision area within the
underserved neighborhoods of Westwind Estates, Woodland Ridge and Pinehurst, the requirements of the
adopted 2012 Willamalane Comprehensive Plan apply to the subject site. The public responses outlined in
the Community Needs Assessment were used as the basis for setting park and recreation priorities within the
Willamalane Comprehensive Plan — a refinement plan to the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The
findings and conclusions of the Needs Assessment clearly illustrate the importance of having available and
accessible public open space and park facilities throughout Springfield. This principle applies equally to both
existing, mature neighborhoods and newly developing areas such as Woodland Ridge that are still under
construction and yet to welcome most of their residents.
Finding 15: Based on the above, staff concludes that there is a nexus from the proposed subdivision and
providing a minimum of two acres for park space within the proposed Phases 5-8 subdivision, and the required
2 -acre minimum area is roughly proportional to the impacts of creating 400 new lots with more than 900 new
residents in the Woodland Ridge neighborhood. The applicant must identify one or more suitable areas for
the development of a neighborhood park in the Phases 5-8 area. In aggregate, the subject area(s) must be large
enough to meet the neighborhood park standards of at least two acres per 1,000 residents and must not be
impacted by wetlands, steep slopes or other constraints that would prevent Willamalane from developing the
tract(s) with usable open space and recreational amenities for the residents of Woodland Ridge and the general
public. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Finding 16: There is no adopted Master Plan or approved conceptual development plan for this specific site
or area of Springfield.
Condition of Approval:
2. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phases 5, 6, 7 or 8, the applicant must identify at
least two acres of park tract(s) for development of public park space within the balance of the
Woodland Ridge subdivision area (i.e. Phases 5-8). The neighborhood park tract(s) must be
unencumbered by steep slopes or wetlands and transferred to Willamalane as public open space
prior to or concurrent with the final plat approval/recording of the phase of the subdivision that the
identified park parcel is located within. The public open space tract(s) must be depicted as such on
the affected subdivision plats.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion B.
C. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity;
sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be
exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development,
unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Director or a utility
provider shall determine capacity issues.
General Finding 17: For all public improvements, the applicant must retain a private professional civil
engineer to design the subdivision improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer is required to
provide construction inspection services.
General Finding 18: City Building Permits are required for installation of private utilities. Developers are
required to obtain necessary City permits prior to initiation of construction activity.
General Finding 19: The Development & Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed
subdivision. City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein.
General Finding 20: Criterion C contains sub -elements and applicable code standards. The subdivision
application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub -element unless otherwise noted
with specific findings and conclusions. The sub -elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not
limited to:
Public improvements in accordance with SDC 4.2. 100 and 4.3. 100
• Public and Private Streets (SDC 4.2.105 — 4.2.145)
• Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3.105)
• Stormwater Management (SDC 4.3.110 — 4.3.115)
• Utilities (SDC 4.3.120 — 4.3.130)
• Water Service and Fire Protection (SDC 4.3.130)
• Public and Private Easements (SDC 4.3.140)
Public and Private Streets
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.105(G)(1) states that whenever an existing street of inadequate width is abutting
or within a development area requiring Development Approval, dedication of additional right-of-way is
required.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.105(G)(2) states that whenever a proposed land division or development
will increase traffic on the city street system and the development has undeveloped frontage abutting a fully
improved street, that street frontage must be fully improved to City specifications.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 4.2.140, where street trees cannot be planted in the public
right-of-way, trees in the front yard or street side yard setbacks can be substituted for street trees in accordance
with SDC 4.2.140(B). Maintenance of street trees on private property is the responsibility of the landowner
in accordance with SDC 4.2.140(C)(2).
Finding 21: The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the phased subdivision area that
has been reviewed and accepted by the City's Transportation Planning Engineer. The applicant's TIA outlines
the projected traffic volumes on internal and peripheral public streets and intersections at buildout of the four
subdivision phases.
Finding 22: The additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated by the proposed development would
contribute to the need for public street improvements in accordance with SDC 4.2.105(G). These
improvements include extension of public streets from bordering subdivision areas including Holly Street (to
be extended eastward from Phase 3 and westward from its current terminus in the Pinehurst subdivision);
South 54' Street (to be extended northward from its current terminus); Cedar View Drive (to be extended
eastward from its current terminus in Phase 4); and Pinehurst Street (to be extended westward from its current
terminus).
Finding 23: The applicant is also responsible for a proportionate share of future traffic system improvements
for the Daisy Street and Bob Straub Parkway intersection. The method of calculating the proportionate share
of the future intersection improvements is detailed in the Annexation Agreement for the property.
Finding 24: Extension of Holly Street and Pinehurst Street westward from their current termination points in
the Pinehurst subdivision is dependent upon a land exchange between the developer and the City of Springfield
affecting Tax Lots 307 and 308. The City has initiated vacation of a segment of Ivy Street at the north end of
South 54" Street and bordering Tax Lot 307. Vacation of the Ivy Street right-of-way has been effected by
City Council adoption of Ordinance 6480. A land exchange agreement between the City and the developer
provides for transfer of the vacated Ivy Street right-of-way to the applicant in consideration for dedication of
the extensions of Holly Street and Pinehurst Street. The two street connections at Holly Street and Pinehurst
Street are also necessary for traffic balancing within the Woodland Ridge neighborhood, provision of
secondary emergency access and neighborhood interconnectivity. These two street connections are proposed
with the application and are required for full build -out of the development area. These dedications of the
unannexed portions of the street must be done outside of the subdivision plat process, due to short segments
being currently unannexed, and must be dedicated prior to final plat approval of the phases of the development
that they are adjacent to/within or associated with if dedication is required prior to platting of Phases 7 and/or
8.
Finding 25: The applicant owns Tax Lot 307 and the City owns Tax Lot 308. Currently, an 18 -foot wide by
approximately 1,192 -foot long panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307 extends along the full length of the western
boundary of Pinehurst. The linear parcel effectively separates the Pinehurst subdivision from the Woodland
Ridge development area to the west. Additionally, most of the length of the panhandle extension is not
currently annexed to the City of Springfield and remains unincorporated territory. The panhandle extension
must be annexed to the City and then portions can be dedicated as public rights-of-way for Holly Street and
Pinehurst Street. Annexing the panhandle extension to the City ensures that the dedicated public rights-of-
way and portions of proposed Tracts R, S and T are wholly under Springfield jurisdiction and not split with
Lane County. Because the annexation action has not been completed as of this decision date, it is a condition
of approval to exclude the unannexed linear panhandle extension from the Phases 5-8 tentative subdivision
plan. Staff and the developer can then discuss the best mechanism to incorporate the linear parcel into the
Woodland Ridge neighborhood after annexation occurs. Additional discussion about the unincorporated
panhandle extension of Tax lot 307 and the associated condition of approval referenced herein is found in
Section D.2 below.
Finding 26: The subject property has frontage on a stub of Holly Street along the eastern boundary. The stub
of Holly Street was constructed with the first phase of the Pinehurst subdivision in 2015. Holly Street is
classified as a collector street and will serve as a connection between the Westwind subdivision to the west
and the Pinehurst subdivision to the east. Holly Street is to be improved with curb, gutter, setback sidewalk,
paving, street lighting and street trees along its full length through the Woodland Ridge neighborhood. The
applicant is also installing curb bump outs at the local street intersections along Holly Street to mitigate traffic
speeds, provide for safer crosswalks and promote bicycle and pedestrian use of the street. It is anticipated that
Holly Street will be completed from its current terminus near South 51St Place through to South 54' Street in
the Pinehurst subdivision prior to or concurrent with development of Phase 7.
Finding 27: The subject property has frontage on a stub of Pinehurst Street along the southeastern boundary.
The stub of Pinehurst Street was constructed with the second phase of the Pinehurst subdivision in 2016.
Pinehurst Street is classified as a local street and it will be extended eastward and northward from its current
terminus to provide a connection with the Phase 7 area of Woodland Ridge. As depicted on the applicant's
tentative plan, Pinehurst Street will be improved with curb, gutter, setback sidewalks, street trees and street
lighting.
Finding 28: The subject property has frontage on a stub of South 54th Street at the northeast corner. The stub
of South 54' Street was constructed with the first phase of the Pinehurst subdivision in 2015. South 54' Street
is classified as a local street and it will be extended northward and then westward to a connection with Cedar
View Drive to provide a connection with the Phase 8 area of Woodland Ridge. As depicted on the applicant's
tentative plan, South 54' Street will be improved with curb, gutter, setback sidewalks, street trees and street
lighting.
Finding 29: The subject property has frontage on a short segment of Mt Vernon Road along the southeast
edge. Mt Vernon Road is classified as a collector street and is currently under Lane County jurisdiction. There
is a construction access to the property developed off Mt Vernon Road that will be closed upon buildout of
Phase 7. The applicant is not deriving any direct street access from the Mt Vernon Road frontage but traffic
from the subject development area will be directed out through Holly Street and Pinehurst Street to South 50,
Street and ultimately connect with Mt Vernon Road as described in the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis.
Because of the projected traffic impacts to Mt Vernon Road, the applicant will be responsible for public street
improvements along the short segment of frontage to meet the requirements of SDC 4.2.105(G)(2)(b). Mt
Vernon Road will be improved as a partial -width street in accordance with SDC 4.2.105(G)(4) because the
applicant has frontage on the north side of the road only. The partial -width street improvements include curb,
gutter, sidewalk and additional width of paving along the rear of Lots 316 and 317 and across the frontage of
Tract T within Phase 7. The Mt Vernon Road improvements must be shown on the Public Improvement
Project (PIP) plans for the Phase 7 subdivision area. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this
decision.
Finding 30: The applicant's tentative subdivision plan depicts two unnamed streets (X Street and Y Street)
and a segment of incorrectly numbered street (South 53rd Street, between Pinehurst Street and Holly Street).
The segment of north -south street within Phase 7 labeled as "South 53" Street" does not fall within an
alignment that allows for a numerical street because the other numerical values have already been used (i.e.
South 53' Street and Place, and South 54' Street are already assigned but in different locations and
alignments). For this reason, staff advises that the entire length of proposed Y Street — from its intersection
with Cedar View Drive to the north and extending southward to the cul-de-sac terminus in Phase 7 — must be
a uniquely named street. Similarly, proposed X Street must be a uniquely named street. The applicant must
submit a list of potential names to the City for review and approval by the Lane County Road Naming
Committee before the street name can be shown on the subdivision plat(s). A condition to this effect is hereby
made a part of this decision.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.140 states that street trees may be located within a planter strip or within
individual tree wells in a sidewalk, roundabout, or median. In order to meet street tree requirements where
there is no planter strip and street trees cannot be planted within the public right-of-way, trees must be planted
in the required front yard or street side yard setback of private property as specified in the applicable land use
district.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.4.105(C)(1) states that all required setbacks must be landscaped unless otherwise
excepted by the Development Code. The required setbacks for the R-1 Residential district include the front,
rear and side yards.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.140(A) states that new street trees must be a minimum of 2 inch (dbh) caliper.
New street trees must be selected from the City Street Tree List contained in Appendix 6A, Approved Street
Tree List, in the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and installed as specified in Chapter
6 of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
Approval Standard: Chapter 6, Section 6.02A of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual requires street trees to be installed at 30 -foot intervals except where the planting would interfere with
driveways, street lights, street signs, utilities or vision clearance areas.
Finding 31: The applicant's tentative subdivision shows the conceptual locations of street trees to be installed
within the subdivision phases. A total of 168 street trees are proposed across the four phases of development,
which has approximately 11,150 linear feet of curb line. The calculations show that, on average, the developer
will be installing one tree for every 66 feet of curb line. Taking into account the proposed driveways, street
lights, vision clearance areas and other impediments, staff finds that there is - and will be - available areas
within the public rights-of-way or fronting private properties for the installation of additional street trees in
order to meet the overall requirement. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Conditions of Approval:
3. Following annexation of the panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307 to the City of Springfield and prior
to or concurrently with platting of Phase 7, the applicant must dedicate (by separate document) the
road rights-of-way for Holly Street and Pinehurst Street from Tax Lot 307.
4. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7 the applicant must provide for installation
of public street improvements on Mt Vernon Road along the frontage of Lots 316, 317 and Tract T
to meet the requirements of SDC 4.2.105(G)(2)(b). The public street improvements include but are
not limited to extra width of paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees. The required Mt Vernon
Road improvements must be depicted on the Public Improvement Project (PIP) plans for Phase 7.
5. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 5, the applicant must obtain approval for a
unique street name for "Street X" which runs generally east -west between the elbow at South 52nd
Street and a T -intersection at "Street Y" in Phase 7.
6. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must obtain approval for a
unique street name for "Street Y" which runs generally north -south from a cul-de-sac at the
southeast corner of Phase 7 northward to a T -intersection with Cedar View Drive in Phase 8.
7. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plats for Phases 5-8 inclusive, the applicant must revise the
street tree plans (Sheets C -4.0—C-4.3) to provide for street tree planting at —30 -foot intervals as
required by SDC 4.2.140(A) and Section 6.02(A) of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual. Where street trees cannot be provided in the public right-of-way, the street trees must be
provided on private property in accordance with SDC 4.2.140.
Conclusion: The City's Transportation Planning Engineer has reviewed the submitted subdivision plans and
related information and concluded that existing and proposed transportation facilities have adequate capacity to
accommodate the additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient
manner. As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.105(B) requires that sanitary sewers must be installed to serve each new
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers must
provide sufficient access for maintenance activities.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.105(C) requires that the sanitary sewer must be designed and constructed in
conformance with Chapter 2 of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM).
Approval Standard: Section 2.02.1 of the City's EDSPM states that when land outside a new development will
logically direct flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers must be public sewers and will
normally extend to one or more of the property boundaries.
Approval Standard: Section 2.02.8 of the City's EDSPM states that sewers must be located in the public right-
of-way at street centerline, or within 5 feet of street centerline. Sewers in easements will be allowed only after
all reasonable attempts to place mains in the public right-of-way have been exhausted.
Finding 32: The Jasper trunk sewer line runs along the southern boundary of the multi -phase development area.
The applicant's utility plans (Sheets C -3.0—C-3.3) show 8 -inch sanitary sewer lines within the proposed public
streets and sewer laterals to be extended to each lot within Phases 5-8. The system of 8 -inch sanitary sewer
lines serving the subdivision phases connect with the existing 27 -inch trunk sewer line along the southern edge
of the property.
Finding 33: The Jasper trunk sewer line has been sized for full buildout of the southeast quadrant of Springfield,
including the subject development area. Only a fraction of the projected sewer service area has been developed
with urban uses and is contributing flows to the public system. Therefore, there is adequate capacity in the
public system for the proposed four-phase, 219 -lot subdivision.
0
Finding 34: The applicant's civil drawings depict an articulated alignment of sanitary sewer lines and manholes
between the edge of the subdivision phases and the connection points at the Jasper trunk sewer line. There are
also new connections to the trunk sewer line shown on the civil drawings.
Finding 35: There are two proposed sewer line alignments of concern to the City: First, the applicant is
directing all sewer flows from proposed Phases 5, 6 and 8 (and a very small portion of Phase 7) northward to
an existing manhole in Phase 3 (manhole #1018729). Staff is recommending shortening the overall run of
sewer line serving Phases 5, 6 and 8 and making a direct connection to the existing manhole in the Jasper trunk
sewer line which is in the southwest corner of the Phase 5 area (manhole #610618). Second, the applicant is
proposing to extend separate stormwater and sanitary sewer lines around Tract W and installing a new manhole
and connection to the trunk sewer line at the southeast corner of Phase 7 (proposed manhole #18). Staff is
recommending against another direct tap to the trunk sewer line and, instead, having the sanitary sewer
discharge from Phase 7 directed through Tract W to an existing manhole approximately 70 feet to the northwest
(manhole #610600). Staff finds that the proposed manhole #18 would introduce another direct connection to
the trunk sewer line which is not desirable if it can be reasonably avoided. Additionally, the alignment of the
proposed manhole #18 creates an "elbow" in the maintenance access road that is greater than a 90° turn.
Flattening out the turn by realigning the sewer line will ensure that maintenance vehicles can negotiate the
access road more easily and efficiently.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Stormwater Management
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(1) requires that all stormwater management system designs including
supporting documentation must be prepared and stamped by an Oregon licensed engineer.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(2) states that a stormwater management system must be installed to serve
each new development within the city limits.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(3) states that a stormwater management system must be designed and
constructed in conformance with SDC 4.3.110(B) - Stormwater Study Standards.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(A)(5) states that any development that creates or replaces 5,000 square feet or
more of impervious surface area and discharges to the storm system must install storm water controls that
minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into the City's stormwater system. The stormwater
system must be constructed consistent with the City's EDSPM and SDC Appendix D.
AMroval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(B) and EDSPM Section 4 requires new developments that create or alter more
than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface to capture and treat the first 1.4" of rainfall from each storm event and
direct it to one or more structural stormwater controls with sufficient capacity to fully infiltrate, evapotranspirate,
and/or reuse the runoff on site without stormwater being discharged from the site. Alternatively, if through
engineering analysis such treatment is not possible after the first 1.4" is retained onsite the excess must be treated
in accordance with EDSPM Section 4.
AVproval Standard: EDSPM Section 4.02 states that stormwater system design within a development site shall
include provisions to address water quality concerns, the collection and conveyance of runoff from all public
and private streets and easements, and from the roof, footing, and area drains of single -unit, duplex and multi-
unit residential buildings, and commercial and industrial buildings. Furthermore, the design shall provide for
the future extension of the stormwater system to the entire drainage basin in conformance with current adopted
stormwater master plans or approved modifications to those plans.
AA=roval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(D) states that all rainfall not retained onsite (up to the first 1.4 inches of
rainfall from each rainfall event) must be treated to achieve reduction in mercury, bacteria and heavy metals to
the maximum extent practicable and at least 80% reduction in total suspended solids.
10
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110(E) states that all stormwater system designs must be based on an engineering
analysis that takes into consideration water quality issues, runoff rates, pipe flow capacity, hydraulic grade line,
soil characteristics, pipe strength and potential construction problems.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.110 and SDC Appendix E requires the owner of property subject to any development
application that proposes stormwater structural controls that will be privately owned and operated to enter into an
Operations and Maintenance Agreement with the City.
Finding 36: The proposed subdivision will create or alter approximately 22 acres of mostly undeveloped former
grazing land that is considered a pervious surface for the purpose of this review. The total area subject to
development triggers the requirements of SDC 4.3.110(B) and EDSPM Section 4 for implementation of a
stormwater management system.
Finding 37: The downstream, receiving waters for the property consist of an open channel along the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks which leads to a series of culverts under the railway bed and Jasper Road. The open channel
and culverts drain directly to the nearby Middle Fork Willamette River. The existing drainage system — comprised
of connected open channels and culverts — does not have excess capacity and the proposed development cannot
increase the stormwater discharge to these facilities above historic (i.e. pre -development) flow levels.
Finding 38: The applicant has submitted a stormwater drainage report and plan set showing a proposed stormwater
management system with filtration rain gardens and surrounding detention ponds to meet both water quality
treatment requirements and flow restriction to pre -development levels. The applicant has also submitted a
geotechnical report showing that the on-site soils have very limited infiltration capacity. The proposed filtration
rain gardens are depicted in locations and configurations that will maximize the limited amount of available
infiltration capacity on the site.
Finding 39: To comply with SDC 4.3.110(D), stormwater runoff from the site will be directed into detention ponds
with vegetated filtration rain gardens along the southern edge of the development area. The detention ponds and
filtration rain gardens are to be located in Tracts U, V and W and are depicted on the tentative subdivision plans.
Finding 40: The proposed detention ponds and filtration rain gardens have not been shown with sufficient details
to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3.110 and SDC Appendices D and F. A detailed planting plan will be required
for the stormwater treatment areas in Tracts U, V and W and a condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this
decision. Construction of the stormwater facilities serving the development area will be done through the City's
Public Improvement Project (PIP) process.
Finding 41: The applicant is proposing to dedicate the stormwater management facilities serving the development
area (including Tracts U, V and W) and associated maintenance access easements to the City of Springfield.
Dedication of the tracts to the City must be made through a separate document to be recorded concurrently with
the subdivision plat. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Conditions of Approval:
8. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 5, the applicant must provide a detailed
planting plan for the filtration rain garden and detention pond in Tract U to meet the requirements
of SDC Appendices D and F. The detailed planting plan must be submitted as part of the Public
Improvement Plans for Phase 5.
9. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 6, the applicant must provide a detailed
planting plan for the filtration rain garden and detention pond in Tract V to meet the requirements
of SDC Appendices D and F. The detailed planting plan must be submitted as part of the Public
Improvement Plans for Phase 6.
10. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must provide a detailed
11
planting plan for the filtration rain garden and detention pond in Tract W to meet the requirements
of SDC Appendices D and F. The detailed planting plan must be submitted as part of the Public
Improvement Plans for Phase 7.
11. Concurrently with recording of the subdivision plats for Phases 5, 6 and 7, the applicant must execute
and record a dedication document for Tracts U, V and W, as applicable, transferring the stormwater
facility tract created by the subdivision plat to the City of Springfield.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Utilities
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.120 — 4.3.130 requires each development area to be provided with all utilities at
the developer's expense.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.120 requires each developer to make arrangements with the utility providers to
provide utility lines and facilities to serve the development area. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) provides
water and electrical service to this area of the city.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 4.3.120(B), the applicant is responsible for the cost of design and
installation of utility lines and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision area.
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 4.3.125, all new or existing utility lines serving the development
site must be placed underground.
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.127(A)&(B) requires that electrical utility facilities are available and have
capacity to serve the development site.
Finding 42: There is underground electrical service stubbed to the development area on the western boundary
where Phase 4 is currently under construction. Electrical service is also available near the eastern edge of the
development area at the Holly Street and Pinehurst Street stubs in the Pinehurst subdivision. SUB Electric
advises that completion of Phases 5-8 will allow for system looping between Pinehurst on the cast and the
Westwind subdivision to the west. SUB Electric has indicated that the system looping will provide for
redundancy of service to the Woodland Ridge neighborhood.
Finding 43: The applicant will be required to show the location of underground utilities, including but not
limited to water, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications on the detailed Public Improvement Plans for
the subdivision phases. A sample joint utility trench detail showing a cross-section for combined utility line
installation (natural gas, electricity, cable TV and telecom) is provided on Sheet C-3.3 of the applicant's
submittal.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Water Service and Fire Protection
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.130(A) requires each development area to be provided with a water system
having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and
sufficient access for maintenance. SUB Water coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield
city limits. All new water system facilities and modifications required to serve the proposed subdivision area
must be placed in the public right-of-way and constructed in accordance with SUB Water standards.
Finding 44: SUB Water advises that all water system improvements will need to be designed and constructed
in accordance with SUB Water Division specifications. The developer is advised to contact SUB Water at 541-
726-2396 for assistance with the requirements for design, approval and installation of the water system.
12
Finding 45: SUB Water advises that all residential water services equipped with landscaping irrigation systems
will require an approved Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly (RPBA).
Finding 46: The applicant is proposing to extend an existing 16 -inch water main eastward along Holly Street
from its current terminus in Phase 3. With construction of Phases 5, 6 and 7 the 16 -inch water main will
eventually connect through to the 16 -inch water line in Holly Street that was stubbed out with the Pinehurst
subdivision. The applicant is also proposing to extend a second 8 -inch water line from the Phase 4 subdivision
area southward along South 53rd Place and then eastward along Holly Street. Dual 8 -inch water lines are to
be extended westward into Phase 7 from their current termination points on Pinehurst Street. Upon completion
of the four subdivision phases the neighborhood will have full water system looping with multiple connections
to the 8 -inch and 16 -inch water mains. Additionally, the Phase 8 area will be served by water mains from the
upper-level pressure zone that extends from Pinehurst to the east. The proposed water services meet the
requirements of SDC 4.3.130(A).
Finding 47: The applicant is proposing to install a network of fire hydrants to serve the subdivision area as
depicted on Sheets C -3. 1—C 3.3. Eugene -Springfield Fire has reviewed the locations of the proposed fire
hydrants and indicated that they are adequate to cover the entire four-phase subdivision area.
Conclusion: The proposal satisfies this sub -element of the criterion.
Public Easements
Approval Standard: SDC 4.3.140(A) requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements
with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the
development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for Public Utility Easements
(PUEs) adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other PUEs shall be 7 feet
unless the Development & Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance.
Finding 48: Streetside public utility easements along major collector and arterial streets are typically 10 feet
wide to accommodate a full range of franchise utilities outside of the paved portion of the street. Elsewhere,
streetside public utility easements along minor collector and local streets are typically 7 feet wide.
Finding 49: There are no major collector or arterial streets within the subdivision area so there is no
requirement for any 10 -foot wide streetside PUEs.
Finding 50: The applicant is proposing to dedicate an 8 -foot wide streetside PUE along the frontages of all
lots within Phases 5-8 which meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.140(A).
Finding 51: The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 14 -foot wide public sewer easement centered on the
common property line between Lots 303 and 304 in Phase 7. The public sewer easement will allow for the
sanitary sewer lines serving Phase 7 to connect with the existing manhole for the Jasper trunk sewer line in
Tract W. The proposed public sewer easement meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.140(A).
Finding 52: The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 14 -foot wide public stormwater easement that is inside
and parallel with the eastern boundary of Lot 304 in Phase 7. The public stormwater easement will allow for
the storm sewer lines serving Phase 7 to outfall to the constructed stormwater facility in Tract W to the south.
The proposed public stormwater easement meets the requirements of SDC 4.3.140(A).
Finding 53: The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 10 -foot wide water line easement to SUB that is centered
on the common property line between Lots 317 and 318 in Phase 7. The water line easement will allow for
extension of a 16 -inch water main to a point on the northern edge of Mt Vernon Road where it can be extended
to future development areas to the south. The proposed water line easement meets the requirements of SDC
4.3.140(A).
13
Finding 54: The applicant is proposing to vacate an existing public access and maintenance easement the
originates on Mt Vernon Road and runs northward and then westward to existing manholes on the Jasper
trunk sewer line. The manholes are located within proposed Tract W of Phase 7. With the dedication and
construction of public streets and maintenance access driveways to Tract W the public access and
maintenance easement won't be required anymore. The access easement can be vacated through a separate
Type 2 land use action prior to recording of the Phase 7 subdivision or done in conjunction with recording
the Phase 7 subdivision plat.
Finding 55: Staff finds the proposed private and public easements are adequate to accommodate the utility
systems and appurtenances required to serve the subdivision area.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion C.
D. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
General Finding 56: Criterion D contains two elements with sub -elements and applicable Code standards.
The subdivision application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub -element unless
otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements, sub -elements and Code standards of
Criterion D include but are not limited to:
D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2.200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.1.100 (Infrastructure
Standards), SDC 4.4. 100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6. 100 (Vehicle Parking,
Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17. 100 (Site Plan Review)
Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3.2.215)
Height Standards (SDC 3.2.215)
Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4.105)
Fence Standards (SDC 4.4.115)
On -Site Lighting Standards (SDC 4.5100)
• Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6. 100)
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
• The extreme southeast corner of the subdivision area is within the mapped 20 Year Time of Travel
Zone (TOTZ) for the Willamette drinking water wellheads.
• A very small portion of the development area is not currently annexed and falls within the Urbanizable
Fringe Overlay (UF -10) district
• The site is not within an adopted neighborhood Refinement Plan area.
D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2.200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.1.100 (Infrastructure
Standards), SDC 4.4.100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6.100 (Vehicle Parking,
Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17.100 (Site Plan Review)
Lot Coverage and Setbacks
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 3.2.225, the maximum impervious surface coverage for R-1
subdivision lots less than 4,500 ft2 is 6 0 %, including the building rooftop, driveway, walkways, porches and
regulated accessory structures such as carports, garages and sheds.
Approval Standard: SDC Table 3.2.215 requires dwelling unit densities of at least 6 units per net acre for
single -unit, duplex, tri-plex, four-plex and townhome dwellings in the R-1 Residential district.
Finding 57: According to the applicant's tentative subdivision plan there are 139 lots within Phases 5-8 that
are less than 4,500 Win area. Therefore, the maximum impervious surface coverage for each of these <4,500
ft' lots is 65%. The applicant has contemplated the impervious surface coverage for each lot in the stormwater
14
report.
Finding 58: According to the applicant's tentative subdivision plan there are 80 lots within Phases 5-8 that are
larger than 4,500 ft' in area. These lots exceeding 4,500 ft' are subject to the 45% maximum lot coverage
provisions of SDC 3.2.225.
Finding 59: The proposed 219 -lot subdivision area is approximately 22.6 acres, which yields a net dwelling
unit density of about 10.2 units per acre. This assumes that each of the 219 lots contains a single -unit dwelling.
The proposed dwelling unit density meets the requirements of SDC Table 3.2.215. At least 95 additional
dwelling units in the form of duplex dwellings, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) or other allowable housing
forms such as tri-plexes and fourplexes could be added to Phases 5-8 without exceeding the R-1 density
provisions. Regardless, if duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes are developed on any of the proposed lots, those
housing types are not subject to the maximum density standard.
Height Standards
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC 3.2.230, the maximum building height in the R-1 District is 35
feet. This building height allows for at least two full stories of building to be constructed above finished grade.
Finding 60: The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with building height restrictions at the time of
building permit submittals.
Landscaping Standards
Finding 61: The applicant has provided stormwater calculations that anticipate impervious surfaces within the
subdivision area, including public streets, building rooftops and paved driveways. Elsewhere on the site, pervious
portions of each lot are expected to be planted with landscaping to mitigate against excess runoff and allow for
stormwater infiltration. In accordance with SDC 4.4.105, site landscaping consists of trees, shrubs, groundcover
plants and turf grass, or a combination thereof. Site landscaping does not consist of only gravel or bark
mulch ground cover, unless the latter is used as a growing medium for planted trees and shrubs.
Fence Standards
Approval Standard: In accordance with SDC Table 4.4.1, the maximum height of a fence in the front yard
setback is 4 feet high for chain link or wrought iron, and 3 feet high for a slatted chain link or sight obscuring
fence (such as solid wood panel fences). Outside of required setbacks, the maximum height of a fence is 6 feet
for residential districts.
Finding 62: The Springfield Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts.
The applicant has not indicated on the submitted plans whether new and/or replacement fencing will be installed
on the site. There is no specific requirement for fencing between new or existing R-1 properties. The
discontinuous fence line along the eastern boundary of the property where it borders the Pinehurst subdivision
must be retained.
On -Site Lighting Standards
Finding 63: It is expected that the applicant will be installing residential building lighting on the future
dwellings within the subdivision. Wall -mounted lighting fixtures for residential dwellings are typically
designed to provide illumination in the immediate vicinity and not to project light horizontally or onto
neighboring properties. It is not expected that residential accent lighting for the buildings will cause glare or
light trespass onto adjacent residential properties.
Finding 64: In accordance with SDC 4.5.110(B), lighting for properties backing onto natural areas is to be
downcast and contained within the property. For this reason, the applicant will need to restrict the height
15
placement and style of any exterior lighting on the rear of homes on Lots 381- 401 of Phase 8.
Condition of Approval:
12. In accordance with SDC 4.5.110(B), exterior lighting for the rear of houses on Lots 381-401 of Phase
8 must be shielded and downcast to prevent light trespass into the adjacent natural area in Tract Q
and Tax Lot 1800 (Tract B of Pinehurst Phase 1). A note to this effect must be added to the
subdivision plat.
Vehicle Parking Standards
Finding 65: There are no requirements for on-site vehicle parking for residential uses in the R-1 district.
According to the lot layout plan (Sheet C-1.1), the applicant is proposing to install a private driveway to allow
for vehicles to be parked on each individual lot.
Finding 66: In accordance with SDC Table 4.6.3 there are no requirements for on-site bicycle parking
facilities for single -unit dwellings in the R-1 district.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D.1.
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
Finding 67: Development Review staff has reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water
Protection (DWP) Overlay District and comprehensive plan requirements. The extreme southeast corner of the
development area is within the mapped 20 Year Time of Travel Zone for the Willamette drinking water
wellheads. Residential land uses do not typically introduce significant risks to groundwater and the wellhead
aquifer. For this reason there are no specific DWP measures required for this proposed residential project
under SDC 3.3.235.
Finding 68: The subject subdivision area contains a linear panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307 that is not
currently annexed. Because it is still unincorporated territory, the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District (UF -10)
applies to an approximately 18 -foot wide by 1,192 -foot long portion along the eastern boundary of Phases 7
and 8. Annexation of the bulk of the Woodland Ridge Phases 5-8 area was completed in early 2024 with
Council adoption of Ordinance 6474. However, at that time the applicant did not own the panhandle extension
area of Tax Lot 307. The applicant has since acquired ownership of Tax Lot 307 (including the linear
panhandle) and is pursuing annexation of this remainder. The unincorporated area is proposed to be
consolidated with adjacent property and comprises parts of Tracts R, S and T as depicted on the tentative
subdivision plan. Approximately 18 -foot long by 56 -foot wide segments of Holly Street and Pinehurst Street
are also to be dedicated from the linear parcel pursuant to the land exchange agreement between the City and
the applicant. Staff finds that the City's Development Code (specifically, SDC 3.3.815 and SDC
5.12.105(D)(2)) does not contemplate approval of a residential subdivision that incorporates unannexed
territory into the subdivision boundary. Although the linear parcel could be divided into three parcels and
provide for public street dedications for Holly Street and Pinehurst Street without being annexed, removal of
the OF -10 district is necessary and desirable because it would eliminate multiple jurisdictional interests
affecting a narrow, linear area within the Woodland Ridge neighborhood.
Finding 69: Staff finds that approval of the tentative subdivision plan for Woodland Ridge Phases 5-8 can be
conditioned upon removing (for the time being) the linear panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307 from the
proposed subdivision area, especially because this area is identified on the applicant's tentative subdivision plan
as a future development phase for year 2027. The OF -10 overlay must be removed from the subject area prior
to subdivision of the adjoining phases (in this case, Phases 7 and 8). In the event that dedication of Holly Street
and/or Pinehurst Street is required prior to platting of Phases 7 and 8 (for example, due to traffic balancing or
secondary emergency access considerations), the panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307 can be annexed before
road right-of-way dedication occurs. The applicant is preparing annexation submittal materials for the
16
panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307. However, the earliest opportunity for annexation to occur would be later
in the Fall of 2024. In the interest of advancing the Phases 5-8 tentative subdivision plan prior to annexation
of the linear panhandle extension occurring a condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Finding 70: The subject area is not within an adopted neighborhood Refinement Plan area. As such, the
applicable comprehensive plan is the adopted Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Finding 71: The subject site is zoned and designated for R-1 residential use, which is consistent with the
provisions of the adopted Springfield Comprehensive Plan for development of vacant properties to meet current
dwelling unit density objectives. The applicant is proposing to add 219 single -unit dwellings over four
subdivision phases which meets this requirement.
Condition of Approval:
13. The Phases 5-8 final subdivision plan must remove the unannexed, linear panhandle extension of
Tax Lot 307 from the subdivision plan boundary.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.2.
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions;
areas with susceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on
the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock
outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in
Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this
Code or in State or Federal law.
Finding 72: There is a wooded, steeply -sloping hillside that borders the northern edge of existing Phases 3 and
4 and proposed Phase 8. The wooded hillside has been contained within private open space tracts depicted as
Tracts P and Q on the subdivision plan. No changes are proposed to the wooded hillside areas.
Finding 73: There is a linear cluster of mature trees that borders the eastern edge of the development area. The
applicant has shown the location and species of trees on Sheet C-4.2. About 51 mature trees are proposed to
be retained with Tract S. However, approximately 48 trees are proposed for removal from the Phase 7 area.
Prior to any tree cutting activity occurring, the applicant must obtain a Tree Felling Permit for the removal of
more than five qualifying trees from the property over any 12 month period.
Finding 74: There is a cluster of trees including numerous Oregon oaks in the southeast corner of the property
near the intersection of Mt Vernon Road and Jasper Road. The subject trees are depicted as a shaded area on
Sheet C-4.2 of the applicant's submittal but have not been individually surveyed and assessed. Most - if not all
- of these non -surveyed trees are within areas shown for installation of major utility lines, maintenance access
roads and buildable R-1 lots. The applicant must obtain a Tree Felling Permit for the removal of more than five
qualifying trees prior to any tree removal activity occurring. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of
this decision. Staff recommends preserving any viable Oregon oak trees within public or private property to
the maximum extent possible.
Finding 75: There are no wetlands shown on the City's natural resources inventory within the proposed
development area. A wetland delineation survey has not been submitted to the City. However, the applicant
has identified potential wetland areas on the subdivision plan and these features are to be designated as common
open space within Tract J. Construction of Phases 6 and 7 is anticipated to result in impacts to the edges of the
wetland areas as depicted on Sheet C-1.1. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining any state or federal
permits for wetland fill/removal prior to initiating construction of Phases 6 and 7, as applicable. A condition
to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Finding 76: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated
17
Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Map and the list of Historic
Landmark sites have been consulted and there are no other natural features requiring special permitting or
protection on this site. If any artifacts are found during construction, there are state laws that could apply; ORS
97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class "C"
felony to proceed under ORS 97.740.
Conditions of Approval:
14. Prior to the start of construction in Phase 7 or Tracts J or W the applicant must obtain a Tree Felling
Permit for the removal of more than five qualifying trees over any 12 -month period. Preservation
of viable Oregon oak trees located in the southwest corner of Phase 7 on Tracts J and W or proposed
private lots is recommended.
15. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision plat for Phases 5, 6 or 7 the applicant must submit to
the City a valid wetland delineation survey approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands.
16. Prior to the start of construction in Phases 6, 7 and/or Tract J the applicant must obtain wetland
fill/removal permits from state or federal agencies and provide evidence thereof to the City.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion E.
F. Parking areas and ingress -egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle
and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and
public areas; minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other
applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways.
Finding 77: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed four-phase, 219 -lot subdivision
plans at a meeting on May 28, 2024. The applicant is proposing to construct new or extended public streets to
serve the lots shown on the subdivision plans. Individual lots are shown with driveway approaches as generally
depicted on the submitted plans.
Transportation System Impacts
Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.105(B) requires a traffic impact study (TIS) when a proposed development
creates more than 1,000 additional daily trips or 100 peak hour trips according to the latest edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11"' Ed.).
Finding 78: The proposed multi -phase subdivision will create 219 new lots for residential dwellings.
According to ITE I I' Edition Trip Generation Manual, the PM peak rate for single -unit detached dwelling
units is about 0.9 trips/dwelling unit resulting in approximately 197 new peak hour trips from the site at
buildout. The daily trip rate for single -unit detached dwellings is approximately 9.4 trips per day which results
in about 2,059 new vehicle trips at buildout. For these reasons, a TIS was required for the proposed subdivision
phases.
Finding 79: As previously stated herein, the applicant will be responsible for a proportionate share of off-site
intersection improvements at the Daisy Street and Bob Straub Parkway intersection. The methodology and
calculated amount of cost is detailed in the Annexation Agreement for the subject area.
Finding 780: Construction of the public street improvements necessary to serve the subdivision area will be
done through the City's PIP process.
Finding 81: The proposed development will likely generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the
"Travel Barriers and Benefits" survey done by Davis, Hibbits, and Midghall, Inc. (DHM Research) for Lane
18
Council of Governments (LCOG) in 2014, 16% of household trips are made by bicycle, 36% are by walking,
and 14% are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including
this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks,
bicycle parking and bicycle lanes.
Finding 82: The proposed subdivision area is more than one-half mile away from the nearest regular transit
service which is provided by LTD Route #11 (Thurston) operating along Main Street.
Finding 83: Existing and proposed transportation facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional
volume of traffic generated by the proposed development. With the provision for on-site and off-site
transportation improvements as described and depicted in the applicant's submittal, the proposed subdivision
will 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 land uses in conformance with the above criterion.
Site Access and Circulation
_Approval Standard: SDC 4.2.120(B) states that driveways must take access from lower classification streets
when development sites abut more than one street and the streets are of differing classification as identified in
the Springfield Transportation System Plan.
Approval Standard: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. A
greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. In accordance with SDC
4.2.120(C), driveways must be designed to allow safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in
Tables 4.2.2 through 4.2.5, the City's EDSPM and the Development & Public Works Standard Construction
Specifications.
Finding 84: The applicant is proposing to install individual driveways for each lot within the four-phase
subdivision area. No shared driveways are proposed.
Finding 85: There is an existing private driveway on proposed Tract T that serves property owned by the
applicant as well as the adjoining property to the east (5422 Mt Vernon Road, herein referred to as "Tax Lot
1800"). Because Tax Lot 1800 derives physical access from the existing driveway the applicant must provide
a private access easement across Tract T for the use and benefit of Tax Lot 1800. The private easement is
important for two reasons: first, the easement will allow for continued use of the existing driveway by Tax Lot
1800; and, second, the easement will allow for future driveway reconfiguration to eliminate the existing
driveway approach onto Mt Vernon Road and to have Tax Lot 1800 derive physical access from a driveway
approach onto Pinehurst Street. Tax Lot 1800 is not annexed to Springfield but it has further development
potential due to the size of the parcel (-0.55 acres) so any land division would trigger a requirement to
reconfigure the access driveway to the property. Additional discussion about site access and driveways is found
in Subsection F below.
Condition of Approval:
17. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must
execute and record a private access easement across Tract T for the use and benefit of Tax Lot 1800
which is currently addressed as 5422 Mt Vernon Road.
Finding 86: The applicant is proposing to incorporate the southernmost portion of the panhandle extension of
Tax Lot 307 into adjacent Tract T. However, the property immediately to the east (Tax Lot 1800) derives
physical access from the existing driveway approach onto Mt Vernon Road. It is not clear whether any type of
joint access easement is recorded against Tax Lot 307 for the use and benefit of Tax Lot 1800. Until Tax Lot
1800 redevelops, the applicant must keep the existing driveway access open to meet the above criteria to avoid
congestion and minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets. Individual driveway approaches onto Mt
19
Vernon Road west of the intersection with South 54' Street are not desirable because of the nearby railway
crossing and intersection at Jasper Road. As adjoining properties develop, the driveway approaches will be
consolidated or removed wherever possible. For these reasons it is likely the driveway approach serving Tax
Lots 307 and 1800 will be closed at some point in the future. Tax Lot 1800 can continue to derive access from
the driveway on Tract T but from Pinehurst Street instead of Mt Vernon Road. To achieve these interim and
ultimate driveway configurations, the applicant must record a joint use access easement across the 18 -foot wide
portion of Tract T that is used as a driveway by Tax Lot 1800. The easement must extend from Mt Vernon
Road through to the intersection with Pinehurst Street. This will ensure that Tax Lot 1800 can derive legal and
physical access from Mt Vernon Road until such time as the driveway is realigned and Tax Lot 1800 derives
legal and physical access from Pinehurst Street. A condition to this effect is hereby made a part of this decision.
Condition of Approval:
18. Prior to or concurrently with approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must
execute and record an 18 -foot wide by approximately 340 -foot long joint use access easement across
proposed Tract T for the use and benefit of Tax Lot 1800 (5422 Mt Vernon Road).
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F.
G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as specified
in this Code.
Finding 87: The entire property under the applicant's ownership is proposed to be developed with the four-phase,
219 -lot subdivision. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion G.
H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this
Code.
Finding 88: The subject site is currently undeveloped and will serve as a bridge between the Westwind
subdivision to the west and the Pinehurst subdivision to the east. The proposed subdivision extends public
streets and sidewalks to tie in with existing connection points to the east and west. Other properties in the
vicinity of the subdivision area are already developed with residential dwellings and have existing access to
public streets and utilities. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H.
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.
Finding 89: The subject application is for a subdivision rather than a partition, therefore this criterion is not
applicable.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I.
CONCLUSION: The tentative subdivision, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A -I of SDC
5.12.125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during platting
without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12.145.
What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to two years from the date of this letter to meet the applicable
conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Subdivision Plat. Please refer to SDC
5.12.135 & 5.12.140 for more information. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE
FINAL PLAT MUST BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE TENTATIVE PLANS AND THE
20
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
The Final Plat is required to go through a completeness review process. After the Final Plat application is complete,
it must be submitted to the Springfield Development & Public Works Department. A separate application and fees
will be required. Upon signature by the City Surveyor and the Planning Department, the Plat may be submitted to
Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual parcels may be transferred until the plat
is recorded and five (5) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development & Public Works
Department by the applicant.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7 the minor variance initiated by File 811-24-
000127-TYP2 must be approved for Lots 295-300, 309-312, 326 and 327 as depicted on the applicant's
tentative subdivision plan. The minor variance must approve an approximately 10% reduction in lot area
for the 12 lots (Lots 295-300, 309-312, 326 & 327) allowing for 2,695 to 2,700 ft' lot areas where 3,000 ftz is
the minimum area required in the R-1 District.
2. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phases 5, 6, 7 or 8, the applicant must identify at least
two acres of park tract(s) for development of public park space within the balance of the Woodland Ridge
subdivision area (i.e. Phases 5-8). The neighborhood park tract(s) must be unencumbered by steep slopes
or wetlands and transferred to Willamalane as public open space prior to or concurrent with the final plat
approval/recording of the phase of the subdivision that the identified park parcel is located within. The
public open space tract(s) must be depicted as such on the affected subdivision plats.
3. Following annexation of the panhandle extension of Tax Lot 307 to the City of Springfield and prior to or
concurrently with platting of Phase 7, the applicant must dedicate (by separate document) the road rights-
of-way for Holly Street and Pinehurst Street from Tax Lot 307.
4. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7 the applicant must provide for installation of
public street improvements on Mt Vernon Road along the frontage of Lots 316, 317 and Tract T to meet
the requirements of SDC 4.2.105(G)(2)(b). The public street improvements include but are not limited to
extra width of paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees. The required Mt Vernon Road
improvements must be depicted on the Public Improvement Project (PIP) plans for Phase 7.
5. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 5, the applicant must obtain approval for a unique
street name for "Street X" which runs generally east -west between the elbow at South 52"d Street and a T -
intersection at "Street Y" in Phase 7.
6. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must obtain approval for a unique
street name for "Street Y" which runs generally north -south from a cul-de-sac at the southeast corner of
Phase 7 northward to a T -intersection with Cedar View Drive in Phase 8.
7. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plats for Phases 5-8 inclusive, the applicant must revise the street
tree plans (Sheets C -4.0—C-4.3) to provide for street tree planting at —30 -foot intervals as required by SDC
4.2.140(A) and Section 6.02(A) of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Where street
trees cannot be provided in the public right-of-way, the street trees must be provided on private property
in accordance with SDC 4.2.140.
8. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 5, the applicant must provide a detailed planting
plan for the filtration rain garden and detention pond in Tract U to meet the requirements of SDC
Appendices D and F. The detailed planting plan must be submitted as part of the Public Improvement
Plans for Phase 5.
21
9. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 6, the applicant must provide a detailed planting
plan for the filtration rain garden and detention pond in Tract V to meet the requirements of SDC
Appendices D and F. The detailed planting plan must be submitted as part of the Public Improvement
Plans for Phase 6.
10. Prior to approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must provide a detailed planting
plan for the filtration rain garden and detention pond in Tract W to meet the requirements of SDC
Appendices D and F. The detailed planting plan must be submitted as part of the Public Improvement
Plans for Phase 7.
11. Concurrently with recording of the subdivision plats for Phases 5, 6 and 7, the applicant must execute and
record a dedication document for Tracts U, V and W, as applicable, transferring the stormwater facility
tract created by the subdivision plat to the City of Springfield.
12. In accordance with SDC 4.5.110(B), exterior lighting for the rear of houses on Lots 381-401 of Phase 8 must
be shielded and downcast to prevent light trespass into the adjacent natural area in Tract Q and Tax Lot
1800 (Tract B of Pinehurst Phase 1). A note to this effect must be added to the subdivision plat.
13. The Phases 5-8 final subdivision plan must remove the unannexed, linear panhandle extension of Tax Lot
307 from the subdivision plan boundary.
14. Prior to the start of construction in Phase 7 or Tracts J or W the applicant must obtain a Tree Felling
Permit for the removal of more than five qualifying trees over any 12 -month period. Preservation of viable
Oregon oak trees located in the southwest corner of Phase 7 on Tracts J and W or proposed private lots is
recommended.
15. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision plat for Phases 5, 6 or 7 the applicant must submit to the City
a valid wetland delineation survey approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands.
16. Prior to the start of construction in Phases 6, 7 and/or Tract J the applicant must obtain wetland
fill/removal permits from state or federal agencies and provide evidence thereof to the City.
17. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must execute
and record a private access easement across Tract T for the use and benefit of Tax Lot 1800 which is
currently addressed as 5422 Mt Vernon Road.
18. Prior to or concurrently with approval of the final subdivision plat for Phase 7, the applicant must execute
and record an 18 -foot wide by approximately 340 -foot long joint use access easement across proposed
Tract T for the use and benefit of Tax Lot 1800 (5422 Mt Vernon Road).
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the
applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development
& Public Works Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
Appeal: This Type 2 Tentative Subdivision decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be
appealed to the Springfield Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development & Public Works
Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.1.800, Appeals. An Appeals
application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the
Springfield Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.1.810(B) which
provides for a 12 -day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail,
the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on July 30, 2024.
22
Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Development & Public Works Department at (541) 726-3784 or email
alimbird@springfield-or.gov if you have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared By:
Andy Limbird
Senior Planner
Encl: Exhibit A - Tentative Subdivision Plan
23
1W141II:10W,
mot V —�—
tl 8 d R r
R
{. r ��..
a r' f
✓� .r � 1 _ _ e i � f '� � L' 'gip, ��..
' �J4J
, A � � td �_ � ��➢ N f
�. a Pi y, P. P � " � Prop
TRACT s
a LMW� I It
a ! ¢ d t " w.S4:nUYVt1�? 1•",S,.lu,i+,:7 r^� a ! t, i �.+
Atm �' P
+MF 54
R� 5�g ��� �� $�°�"��i�� �•ra i � v � *i a a d
'JAI��
II 1
. 3m5�
Phaaes3.8Layout AaDEegoaeemgGlt.
Phases 5 8 of Zo�"+totm°ea'Onwiwao-
Ridge Szcbdivis-ion
MnEr
~ SprY>tgfield Lon. County D—g.a m.o v .mss
24
Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the
subdivision decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Systems Development Charges:
The applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when building permits are issued for developments
within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates to the amount of
increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield Code Chapter
II, Article 11). Some exceptions apply to Springfield Urban Growth areas.
Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements
within the subject site. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings
or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected based on the SDC policy in
effect at that time. Willamalane Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recreation
improvements is presently $5,140 for each new single detached dwelling and $2,570 for each ADU.
Sanitary Sewer In -Lieu -Of -Assessment:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer In -Lieu -Of -Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property or
portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the
cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In -Lieu -Of -Assessment charge
is applicable. [Ord. 5584]
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the
property. An approved Public Improvement Plan will be required for construction of the public street
improvements and installation of public utility infrastructure (storm and sanitary sewer, etc.).
Other City Permits:
• Building Permits — Permits may be required for construction of accessory structures such as garages or
carports, and installation of utilities necessary to serve the development site.
Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit — Required for working within a right-of-way or public
easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The rate, plus
applicable fees and deposits, will be calculated at the time of submittal.
Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) — An LDAP will be required for site grading and construction.
Contact the Springfield Development & Public Works Department at 541-726-5849 for appropriate application
requirements.
Additional) ermits/approvals that may be necessary:
• Structural Permits
• Plumbing Permits
• Electrical Permits
25