The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence PLANNER 6/26/2008 Page 1 of1 L1MBIRD Andrew From L1MBIRD Andrew Sent Thursday, June 26,2008411 PM To ~-fergusonpls@comcast net' Subject Fire Dept Comment Joe I forgot to mention the Fire Department comments at the conclusion of our meetmg ear1rer today The Fire Marshal's office advises the eXisting and proposed bUildings would be wlthm 150 feet of a fire apparatus access (public road) The Fire Marshal requests that the Site Assessment Plan submitted for a partition application should show the location of the nearest fire hydrant or describe the distance from the hydrant to the nearest property corner Please let me know If you have any questions Thanks Andy Llmblrd City of Spnngfield 6/2612008 Qet€) !l@t;]@lv@ci:_ 6/,,(6/,;100 f I3laRiief AL 'I -7 . .. ZON2008-00026 Development Issues Meeting - Geoff Cossen Proposed 2 Lot Partition 2660 G Street (Map 17-03-36-11, TL 9100) Q1 What will Springfield require for rlw dedication In G Street" A Transportation Engineering to provide comment Section 42-105 G of the City'S Development Code describes the circumstances where additional rlght-ot-way and street Improvements may be required Addlllonally, It IS past City pracllce to ensure development setbacks are measured from the edge of the future public right-of-way Section 4 2-105 of the City's Development Code requires that public streets are dedicated through the platting process and developed to full urban standards, which Includes curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and street lights At present, there are no sidewalks or street trees along the property frontage on G Street The minimum right-of-way width for local streets IS 50 feet, currently, the G Street right-of-way IS only 40 feet wide along the property frontage 02 Must the applicant Include an applicatIon for a minor variance for street frontage on 26th Street with the partition application? A Yes For comer lots, the minimum requirement for frontage on a north-south street IS 60 feet In accordance with SDC 3 2-215 The applicant's proposed Parcel 1 has a 45-foot frontage on 26th Street, which requires a 25% variance (15 feet) A minor variance IS a Type" land use application that requires public notlficallon The variance request would be processed concurrently with the partition appllcallon 03 If the full 6,000 sf area IS achieved for the new corner parcel, can a duplex be constructed there" A A duplex could be potentially constructed on proposed Parcel 1, but the parcel would remain under one ownership The parcel configuration would have to accommodate the dwelling Units along with bUilding setbacks, on-site parking and landscaping 04 If a duplex cannot be constructed on the corner lot, can we apply (successfully) for a minor variance to create a 5,400 sf corner parcel (a 10% reduction)" A A minor variance for lot size could be requested along with the minor variance for frontage on a north-south street Because the variances are for two separate dimenSions (frontage vs area), and two different proportions (25% vs 10%), they would each require a minor variance application See note below about a third required variance for reduced front yard setback under thIS scenario Approval of the variance would be subject to confirmation that the proposal meets the criteria of approval listed In SDC 521-100 ThiS IS a Type" application and - like all land use actions - there IS no absolute guarantee of success The decIsion IS appealable Q5 Engineering Services requirements for CIVil services" How do we obtain the necessary waiver and exemption to engineering services? Or limit the scope/complexity of those A Public Works Engineering to comment There IS some baseline information available from as- bUilt diagrams and City utility plans However, It IS unlikely that thiS proposal IS so unique or extraordinary that It warrants speCial conslderallon and exemption from standard engineering requirements of the Development Code There may be an opportunity to waive the stormwater scoplng sheet reqUirement, but that's about It Plans shOWing the tentallve partition area, and particularly the utility servicing scheme, Will need to be stamped and signed by a profeSSional engineer and surveyor Date Received Planner AL t, IJ.G/;?w! / I Heads-up Issues . Both driveways will have to be paved from the curbllne to a pOint at least 18 feet Into the property . At least 4 off-street parking spaces would have to be provided for the proposed duplex lot The duplex dwellings would probably share the eXisting dnveway on G Street, as only one dnveway IS typically approved per legal lot The eXisting curb cut and dnveway would have to be widened and Improved to meet City standards . The proposed parcel configuration creates a "dead pocket" In the northeast corner of the property - the only real purpose of this 16' X 37' area IS to meet the minimum area requirements of the LOR Dlstnct Only a very small proportion of this rectangular corner IS bUildable area It would be preferable to remove the shop and have the parcel boundary run straight back to the north property line . Utilities for the eXisting house will have to be placed underground pnor to plat Overhead power serving the house runs diagonally across the bUildable area of proposed Parcel 1 from the southeast corner of the property to the southeast corner of the house . Street trees will be required for both the G Street and 26th Street frontages . Improvement Agreements will be reqUired for both G Street and 26th Street . Stormwater will have to be managed Independently on both proposed parcels . Proposed dedication of 5 feet of 26th Street ROW creates a non-conforming front yard setback for the eXisting house A vanance to the front yard setback of approximately 20% (2 feet) will be required to allow for an 8-foot front yard setback . 7-foot wide Public UlIhty Easements (PUEs) will be reqUired along the property frontages on both streets There may be other eXisting utility easements as detailed In a title report, or required through the proposed utility servicing scheme for the property . A hard surface walkway will be required from the front door of the eXisting house out to the curbllne on 26th Street . The eXisting house will have to be re-addressed from 26'h Street . No vehicle parking will be permitted between the west wall of the eXisting house and 26'h Street Date!:J.ecel'led 6/;;.{,/;2oot Planner Al I / MEMORANDUM Cltv ofSonngfield DATE June 24, 2008 TO Andy LlmblTd, Urban Planner FROM Enc 'Walter, CIvil Engmeer SUBJECT ZON2008-00026, Cossen PartItion Development Issues Meetmg PublIc Works Engineermg Comments The subject applIcatIOn mvolves tax lot 9100, located at 2660 "G" Street The applIcant has submitted plans to discuss partItlOnmg one lot mto two parcels ApplIcant's QuestIOns: 1. What wIll Spnngfield requIre for nght-of-way dedication m "G" Street? ApplIcant IS wIllIng to dedIcate 5' of addItIOnal nght-of-way on both 26th Street and "G" Street If requIred. ExactIOn of more than 5' would severely Impact the abIlIty to develop the new front parcel and would be problematIc from a proportIOnalIty standpomt related to a resIdentIal partItion. Is there a Development Code reqUIrement for specIal setbacks for future expansIOn of the nght-of-way? Plannmg, TransportatIOn, and PublIc Works Department Will respond to this questIon The nght-of-way for "G" Street appears to be 40' and presently there IS no sIdewalk bUIlt along "G" Street The proposed 5' nght-way dedlcahon along "G" Street appears to be acceptable for accommodatmg this future sIdewalk Smce the eXlstmg nght-of-way along 26th Street IS only 30', the proposed nght-of-way dedicatIOn of 5' Will be acceptable Unless a greater nght-of-way width will be reqUIred by the TransportatIOn DIvIsIOn, the proposed 5' nght-of-way Width mcreases for both street frontages appear acceptable as shown on plans submitted for this Development Issues Meetmg 2. Must the applIcant !Delude an applIcation for a IDmor vanance for street frontage on 26th Street with the partItIOn applIcatIon? Planrung Deparhnent will respond to tlus questIOn 3. If the full 6000sf area IS achIeved for the new corner parcel, can a duplex be constructed there? Plannmg Department Will respond to this questIOn 4. If a duplex cannot be constructed on the corner lot, can we apply (successfully) for a mlDor vanance to create a 5400sf corner parcel (a 10% reductIOn)? Plannmg Deparhnent will respond to this questIOn Date Received ~hl?rJ! Planner' AL 5 Enginecnng Services: How do we obtam the necessary waiver an exemptIOn to reqDlrements for civil engineenng services? Or lImit the scope/complexity ofthose services? Development Code reqDlres the services of a civIl engmeer for a site assessment drawmg (5.12-120B) and storm water management plan 5.12-120C). Site Assessment. There are 8IX Issues to address on the Site Assessment. Three of them are uot applIcable (B. I.-No water courses; B.4.-No slgDlficant physical features; and B.6.-No NR protections areas). The soIl types as mapped by NRCS are bascd on data from documents already m the City'S possessIOn and use Stormwater Manaeement: This proposal creates a smgle new buIld-able parcel which IS already served by Improved streets and publIc storm water system. The mlllimUIll subrruttal reqUIrements for proposed future partition applIcatIOn would need to comply wIth the same subrruttal reqUIrements specIfied under the Spnngfield Development Code as applIcable for a partitIOn The CIty staff would apply all applIcable submIttal requirements m order to be faIr and consIstent WIth all applIcations There IS not an establIshed process for obtanung a WaJver to rrurumum submIttal reqUIrements, however, the applIcant can subrrut wntten comments for management consIderatIOn If the applIcant does not agree WIth a gIVen Spnngfield Development Code sectIOn or wIth any CIty staff process The proposed partItion applIcatIOn would need to meet the CIVIl engmeenng servIces requIrement for the SIte Assessment Plan and Storm Water Management plan If there are any mllllInUIll submIttal reqUIrements or speCIfic Items that does not apply to the subject partItIOn, the plans would demonstrate eIther complIance or would show that an speCIfic Item IS not applIcable to development /--fu;..ls-vtt:* ~\ ~\JS VU--ckv\ r1--IJ .s~--r--+(G"l~)~_ 't j)t~jZ- ~') t- h. Mo...l'j,d-~ -ft.VVV\. oJ,J~ pf'YV--+r- lU-vi-"'-o'"\- t)bJ;:-ex;~-/-. ),,,,;,.!tC). . , Page 1 of I L1MBIRD Andrew From GORDON Gilbert Sent Thursday, June 26, 2008 10 19 AM To L1MBIRD Andrew Cc GERARD Alan, FECHTEL Melissa Subject Development Issues Meeting ZON2008-00026 Geoff Cossen Andy, I will not be able to attend the Development Issues Meeting scheduled for today due to Inspections and testing at the hospital project this afternoon In reviewing the proposal, It appears that access requirements will be met since eXisting access IS provided by 26th Street and G Street Also, It appears that any new bUilding footpnnt for the proposed Parcel 1 will be within 150 feet of a fire apparatus access road If the applicant should continue and submit an application for completeness reView, the submittal will need to show the location of the nearest fire hydrant or descnbe the distance to the nearest fire hydrant from a corner property line so that I can venfy that the distance from the back of a proposed bUilding or lot Will be 600 feet or less for a one or two family dwelling (2007 Spnngfield Fire Code 508 5 1, Exception 1) Gilbert R Gordon Deputy Fire Marshal Spnngfield Fire and Life Safety 225 Fifth Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 Phone 541-726-2293 E-Mail g.Qordon@cl sonngfield or us Date Received 6!26/!2a7!: I ' Planner' AL 6/26/2008 Page 1 of 1 L1MBIRD Andrew From Sent To Subject Attachments WALTER Enc Tuesday, June 24, 20082 59 PM L1MBIRD Andrew ZON2008-00026 Cossen Partition ZON2008-00026 Cossen Partition PW DOC Andy, Please find attached the Public Works comments for the Cossen Partition for our Development Issues Meeting this Thursday Please feel free to contact me If you have any questions In advance of our meeting Thank you, Enc Enc A Walter, P E CIvil Engineer City of Spnngfield Public Works Department 225 Fifth Street Spnngfield, OR 97477 Telephone (541) 736-1034 Facsimile (541) 736-1021 Emall ewalter@cl sonnofield or us Web www CI sonnofield or us 6/24/2008 J<.I[\.11 ("oolved ~",( pLJO f Planner: AL MEMORANDUM CIty of Sonngfield DATE June 24, 2008 TO Andy Lrmbud, Urban Planner FROM Enc Walter, CIvIl Engmeer SUBJECT ZON2008-00026, Cossen PartItIOn Development Issues Meetmg PublIc Works Engmeermg Comments The subject applIcatIon mvolves tax lot 9100, located at 2660 "G" Street The applIcant has subrrutted plans to dISCUSS partItlODlng one lot mto two parcels ApplIcant's Questions: 1 What will Sprmgfield reqUIre for nght-of-way dedIcatIOn m "G" Street? ApplIcant IS willing to dedIcate 5' of addItional nght-of-way on both 26th Street and "G" Street If reqUIred. ExactIOn of more than 5' would severely Impact the abilIty to develop the new front parcel and would be problematic from a proportIOnalIty standpomt related to a resIdentIal partItion. Is there a Development Code reqUIrement for specIal setbacks for future expanSIOn of the nght-of-way? Plannmg, TransportatIOn, and PublIc Works Department wIll respond to thIs questIOn The nght-of-way for "G" Street appears to be 40' and prcsently there IS no sIdewalk bUIlt along "G" Street The proposed 5' nght-way dedIcatIOn along "G" Street appears to be acceptable for accommodatmg tills future sIdewalk Smce the eXlstmg nght-of-way along 26th Street IS only 30', the proposed nght-of-way dedIcatIOn of 5' wIll be acceptable Unless a greater nght-of-way WIdth wIll be reqUIred by the TransportatIon DIVISIOn, the proposed 5' nght-of-way wIdth mcreases for both street frontages appear acceptable as shown on plans submItted for tlus Development Issues Meetmg -2. Must the applIcant mclude an applIcatIOn for a mmor vanance for street frontage on 26th Street WIth the partItion applIcatIOn? Plannmg Department WIll respond to tills questIOn 3. If the full 6000sf area IS achIeved for the new corner parcel, can a duplex be constructed there? Plannmg Department wIll respond to tills questIOn 4 If a duplex cannot be constructed on the corner lot, can we apply (successfully) for a mmor vanance to create a S400sf corner parcel (a 10% reductIOn)? Planrnng Department wIll respond to thIS questIOn ('..,1-, "'l",~C'IVGd t,1';L/lhoo! Planner AL 7 v 5. Engmeermg ServIces: How do we obtam the necessary waiver an exemptIOn to requirements for CIvIl engmeenng services? Or lImIt the scope/compleXIty ofthose servIces? Development Code reqUIres the servIces of a CIvil engmeer for a sIte assessment drawmg (5.12-120B) and storm water management plan 5.12-120C). SIte Assessment: There are SIX issues to address on the SIte Assessment. Three of them are not applIcable (B.1.-No water courses; BA.-No sIgnIficant physical features; and B.6 -No NR protectIons areas). The soIl types as mapped by NRCS are based on data from documents already m the CIty'S possessIOn and use Stormwater Manal!ement: ThIs proposal creates a smgle new buIld-able parcel whIch IS already served by Improved streets and publIc storm water system. The mlrumum subnuttal reqUIrements for proposed future partItIOn apphcatlOn would need to comply WIth the same subnuttal reqUIrements speCified under the Spnngfield Development Code as apphcable for a partItion The City staff would apply all apphcable subnuttal requIrements ill order to be falf and consistent with all apphcatIons There IS not an estabhshed process for obtamillg a WaIver to mmllnum submittal reqUIrements, however, the apphcant can submit wntten comments for management consideratIOn If the apphcant does not agree with a given Spnngfield Development Code sectIOn or WIth any City staff process The proposed partItIOn apphcatlOn would need to meet the CIvil engmeenng services reqUIrement for the Site Assessment Plan and Storm Water Management plan If there are any mlrumum submittal reqUIrements or speCific Items that does not apply to the subject partItIOn, the plans would demonstrate either comphance or would show that an speCific Item IS not apphcable to development I .-- ! I .I --- JOURNAL NUMBER Jouro.,ALiiliPORT ~ ~ ZDN'2CJO f{- O(){)2-0. /1- D3-3fo-ll TAX LOT # 9/DO TAX ASSESSOR MAP # OWNER NAME DWE~ I, ESTIMATED POPULATION ACRES APPLICANT NAME (I~ . , 'I "G ,r . \'-"""A. ...L.. PROPERTY LOCATION <:>f... G;, (p 0 '-.l).J L.<LQ.....L- CITY LIM1TS(YIN) UGB (YIN) KEY LOT(YIN) ASSOCIATED LOTS DATE SUBMITTED '- c:)- 30 -OK i I i ~ DATE ACCEPTED STAFF CONTACT ~C1~:"d...- ~~ATEsJuAW 'U ~f. (6d> /: '?f)' 2: 10!)1n ~(fo I , SPRINGFIELD ZONING METRO PLAN DESIGNATION REFINEMENT PLAN DESIGNATION REFINEMENT PLAN NAME STAFF DECISION(LTR), DATE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DATE HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION DATE (only ifUGB) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DECISION DATE (only ifUGB) CITY COUNCIL DECISION DATE APPLICATIONIREQUEST APPROVED (Y1Nl (Zone change, Metro Plan) EFFECTIVE DATE EXPIRATION DATE OTHER ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS CONDITIONS COMMENTS (~ I I i LAST UPDATE ---........~