HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence 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
---........~