Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 6/5/2006 / .\ ,.-,?' .."f;...," --.<~ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose an,d say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program ~echnici~~ I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of5uA2QOt.-t1002..+ j.J1t;.t""l~ p~~, ~ ~ f, "J, ''I (See attachment ' "A") on tJ;/ '=> . 2006 addressed.to (see . . Attachment B"), by causing said . letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. '. y aAuL-').I ~ J.~N LaFLEUR L/ t J STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~IJ If( .. 2006.'Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, 'tr gram Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary a .. Before me:. . . . MYCO~miSsionExPires:~ n. :JtJPi -~, "'''''''- - -....~ "--- OFFICIAL SEAL , BRENDA JONES _ I .... NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON ~""., _ MY coJ~~~~J~~~O 379218 ~~..>c.>o--._ ", .."._ _. , ES MAY27 2008 ---......~- ~ , TYPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Dukes & Dukes Construction Partition ProjectProposal: Partition one residential parcel into three residential parcels Case Number: SUB2006-00024 Project Location: 350 54th Street Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: April 18,2006 Application Submitted Date: April 19, 2006. Decision Issued Date: June 5, 2006 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: June 20, 2006 Natural Features: None Density: Approximately 6.9 unitsper acre Associated Applications: PRE2006-00036 I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION REVIEW OF I Project Manager Planning I Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation I Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities I Public Works Civil Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety I Community Services Manager Building NAME Andy Limbird Gary McKenney Jeff Paschall Jeff Paschall Gilbert Gordon' Dave Puent PHONE 726-3784 726-4585 726-1674 726-1674 726-3661 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner/Applicant: Dukes & Dukes Construction PO Box 71095 Eugene, OR 97401 Engineer: Larry Olson Olson & Morris 380 Q Street, Suite 200 Springfield. OR 97477 DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as ofthe date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Partition 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 PRlV ATE 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. OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 3.080 and the partition criteria of approval, SDC 34.050. This application was accepted as complete on April. 19, 2006. This decision is issued on the 47'h day of the 120 days mandated by the state. SITE INFORMATION: The subject parcel is a nearly rectangular-shaped lot located just north of B Sheet on the west side of 54'h Street. The west boundary. of the site is Irregular due to approximately an 18-foot difference in lenh>th between the north and south property lines. The subject property comprises approximately 0.44 acres (19,037 square feet) and contains an existing honse, carport and accessory building (shed). The property is zoned and designated LDR in the Metro Plan and the East Main Refinement Plan. Adjacent properties are also zoned and designated LDR. The Assessor's description for the subjectproperty is Map 17-02-33-31, TL #300. Approval of the proposed partition would create a vacant parcel fronting onto 54'h Sireet and two panhandle parcels: one containing the existing house, and a vacant panhandle parcel to the rear of the existing house. WRITTEN COMMENTS: '. Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions reqnire the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application (SDC 3.080 and] 4.030). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and aremailedaco.py of this decision for consideration. , . Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.080 and 14.030, notice was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on April 24, .2006. Three written comments were received. . Comment #1: Theresa S. nuitcher, 355 541h Street provided the following comments: "The above mentioned property is zoned low density residential. I live directly across the sil'eet from the said property and I strongly oppose the partitioning of the property. The intention o( the owner is to build additional homes on the lot. This would greatly impact my quality o( li(e. It would create more noise. more foot traffic, and car traffic in an already over burdened area. I . believe it would be detrimental to allow the division of th~ property. The lot c0l1(orms with the neighborhood having large lots and should remain in the one lot parcel as it was intended I believe that adding more homes on tightly compacted areas, hurts neighborhoods. home values and makes for more vandalism, the{i and civil disputes. It was not my intention when I bought my home to live in a condensed style neighborhood I also own theforesaid home in joint ownership and also feel that it would be detrimental to our home's value. Many times when something like this request comes up, only the tax value is considered Thank you for hearing my concerns /" 2 STAFF RESPONSE #1:. Staff advise that the proposed partition meets the requirements of the Springfield Development Code for parcel size, frontage and allowable density under the Low Density Residential District. Therefore, it is not possible for the City to refuse the partition application on these grounds. Perceptions that the partition will adversely affect Iqcal property values and potentially increase crime and civil disputes are not planning issues, and are speculative. The concerns pertaining to increased vehicle and fool traffic wi]] be addressed through an improvement agreement recorded against the properties for curb and gutter, sidewalks and street lighting on 54'h Street. The improvement agreements will obligate future property owners of the partitioned lots to participate in a Local Improvement District for 54'h Street. Comment #2: Barbara]. LePine, 355 54'h Street provided the following comments: "The above mentioned property is zoned low density residential. I live directly across the street .fi'om the said propen~' and I strongly oppose the partitioning o.fthe property. The intention of the owner is to build additional homes on the lot. This would greatly impact my' quality of life. It would create more noise, more foot traffic. aild car traffic in an already over burdened area. I believe it would be'detrimental to allow the division of the property. The lot cOI!forins with the neighborhood having large lots and should remain in the one lot parcel as it was intended. I believe that adding more homes on tightly compacted areas, hurts neighborhoods. home values and makes for more vandalism, thefl and civil disputes. It was not my intention whel/ I bought my home to live in a condensed style neighborhood. Thank youfor hearing my concems!" STAFF RESPONSE #2: Similar to the comment above, staff advise that the proposed partition meets the requirements of the Springfield Development Code for parcel size, frontage and allowable density under the Low Density Residential District: Therefore, it is not possible for the City to refuse the partition application on these grounds. Perceptions that the partition will adversely affect local property values'and potentially increase crime and civil disputes are not planning issues, and are speculative. TIle concerns pertaining to increased vehicle and foot traffic will be addressed through an inlprovement agreement' recorded against the properties for curb and gutter, sidewalks and street lighting on 54'h Street. The improvement agreements will obligate future property owners of the partitioned lots to participate in a Local Improvement District for 54th Street. Comment #3: Charles M. Kimball, 343 53'" Place, provided the following comments: "In response to Dukes & Dukes Construction partition of property at 350 54'" Street. It is clear that with such small parcels the homes will be rental properties. Tenants do not maintain property as well as home owners. Rental properties have people moving in and out consistently and although there might be decent tenants there will be many hard to deal with tenants also. The houses could eventua/~v be sold, most likely they will be bought as rentals. so instead o.f being single family residential, in reality commercial investment property is what we're talking about here. Not a qig deal to anyone but the immediate surrounding homes. My other concern is water drainagp.from roo.! lines. The back lot shares my property line and because the house will be just a few feet .fi'om my property line, where's the water going to drain? This won't be a typical situation where it's drained to the curb, if it just runs .fi'om the house it runs onto my property. I think if this partition is succes.yful, at the very least the surrounding fence should be upgraded with privacy slats in the existing fencing. Thank you for your consideration in this matter." . ' STAFF RESPONSE #3: Similar to the comments above, staff advise that the proposed partition meets the requirements of the Springfield Development Code for parcel size, frontage and allowable density under the Low Densi!y Residential District. In a free market economy, the City does not regulate which properties become owner-occupied and which become rentals. The coricerns about water drainage are 3 planning issues, and staff advise the proposed parcel abutting Mr. Kimball's property will manage rooftop drainage on-site by way of an appropriately designed stornlwater management system. The two parcels closer to 54th Street will have piped drainage directed to the roadside ditch and culvert system. Staff will forward Mr. Kimball's concerns about privacy fencing to the applicant for their consideration. Although fence heights are regulated by the Springfield Development Code, the style ~f fencing is a civil matter to be addressed by adjacent property owners. CRITERIA OF P ARTlTlON TENT A TJVE APPROVAL: SDC 34.050 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Partition Tentative Plan application upon 'determining that criteria (1) through (9) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director'shall deny the application. (1) .. The request conforms. to the requirements of this Code pertaining to parcel size and dimensions. Finding 1: Pursuant to SDC Section 16.030(2); 'Iots on north-south streets shall have a minimum lot size 00,000 square feet and a minimum frotltage of 60 feet. Finding 2: Proposed Parcel 3 exceeds the minimum requirements for parcel s'ize and frontage on north-south streets. Finding 3: SDC 16.030(6)(a) requires panhandle parcels to be 4,500 square feet in the pan portion with 26 feet offrontage for multiple panhandles. . Finding 4: Proposed Parcels I and 2 exceed the minimum requirement for panhandle parcel size and ineet the minimum requirement for multiple panhandle frontage. Co~clusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I. (2) The zoning -is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 5: The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diagram and the East Sp,ingfield R(?finement Plan. The zoning of the property is LDR, consistent with the Metro Plan and adopted Refinement Plan, and no change to the zoning designation or boundaries is proposed. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 2. (3) Capacity requirements of public improvements, including but not limited to water and electricity; sanitary' sewer and storm water 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 Public Works Director or a ntility provider shall determine capacity issues. . General Finding 6: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain. a private professional civil engineer to desih'll the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private . civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services. 4 General Finding 7: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed partition. City staff s . review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein. . General Finding 8: Criterion 3 contains sub-elements and applicable code standards. TIle partition application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusion's. The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: Public improvements in accordance with SDC 31 and 32 0, Public Streets and Related Improvements (SDC 32.020-32.090) o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SbC 32.100) . o StOffil Water Management (SDC 32.] 10, 31.240) o Water and Electric Improvements (SDC 32.120(1)) o Fire and Life Safety Improvements (SDC 32.120(3)) o Public and Private Easements (SDC 32.120(1) and (5)) Public Streets and Related Improvements Finding 9: Section 32.020(7)(b) of the SDC requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any uninlproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage shall be i'mproved to City specifications. Exception (a) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time that a City street improvement project is initiated. Finding 10: Abutting the subject site,54'h Street is a 20-fo~t wide paved local street in a 60-foot wide right-of-way. There are no curb, gutter, sidewalk or street'lighting improvements on this segment of 54'h Street. The applicant is not proposing street improvements at this tinle; therefore, an Improvement Agreement will be required. Finding II: Four existing trees on the property are proposed for removal, including two within the alignment of the. proposed panhandle driveway. Two trees within the frontage of proposed Parcel 3 are proposed for removal and the 'applicant will be installing two replacement street trees in accordance with SDC 32.050 and the City's EDSPM. The street trees are proposed to be installed within private property; therefore, long-term maintenance of the trees will remain the responsibility of the property owner. .. . ConditiOlls of Approval: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement for 54th Street. for curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. . . 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install two street trees from the City's. approved list within the frontage of proposed Parcel 3. . Sanitary Sewer Improvements Finding 12: Section 32.100 of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each' new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. 5 Finding 13: ll1er~ is an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer line located on the eastem side of 54'h . Street. The existing house.is already served with a 4-inch sanitary sewer line as depicted on the site assessment plan. Finding 14: The applicant has proposed cutting back the existing 4-inchsanitary sewer lateral to serve Parcel 3, and installing a ,new 4-inch sanitary sewer lateral with a'Y' connection to serve Parcels 1 and 2. However, the sanitary sewer 'Y' connection is shown stubbed just into the panhandle frontage 'of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 beneath the driveway. The applicant has not proposed extension of the lateral from the 'V' connection to serve the existing house on Parcel 2. Additionally, when a house is constructed on Parcel I, extension of the sewer lateral from the 'Y' connection would require trenching across the paved driveway area. To avoid this situation, and in accordance with SDC 34.030(7) and 34.070(12), and the EDSPM, the sanitary sewer laterals shall be extended to the building envelope area of proposed Parcell, and shall connect to the existing house on Parcel 2. Conditions of Approval: 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the sanitary sewer lateral to serve Parcel I shall be extended approximately 125 feet to the future building envelope ("pan") area located beyond the limit of required driveway paving in accordance with SDC 34.070( 12). 4. Prior to approval of the. Final Plat, the sanitary sewer lateral to serve Parcel 2 shall be connected in order to maintain sewer service for the existing house in accordance with SDC 34.070(12). Storm water Management (Qnantity) Finding 15: Section 32.110(2) of the SDC requires that. the Approval Authority shall !,'Tant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management system provisions have been' made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. Finding 16: Section 32.110(4) of the SDC requires that runofffrom a development shall be directed to an approved stornlwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 17: Section 32.110(5) of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, ahd that promote water quality. Finding 18: To comply with SDC 32.100(4) & (5), Sheet 2, Note 17 ofthe tentative plan states that stormwater runoff from the 19x130 foot panhandle driveway is proposed to be directed into a vegetated filter strip between the southern property line and the paved driveway. The applicant has proposed a seed mixture for the filter strip that meets the requirements of the City's EDSPM. Sheet 2, Note 17 of the tentative plan also indicates that the rooftop runoff from Parcel 2 is to be directed to the roadside ditch via a 4-inch pipe. Finding 19:. Sheet 2, Note 17 of the tentative plan states the rooftop runoff from Parcel 3 is to be directed to the roadside ditch; however, th~ mechanism by'which this drainage will be handled is not clearly indicated on the tentative plan. Additionally, the existing contour lines indicate there is a topographic low point in the southeast comer of Parcel 3 that wonld prevent overland drainage from reaching the roadside drainage ditch. The applicant has not 'proposed any cut or fill within the development site that would address this issue. 6 Finding 20: Sheet 2, Note 1.7 of the tentative plan proposes that rooftop runoff from Parcel] is to be directed to a drywell located in the northeast comer of Parcel ]. The applicant has provided a preliminary drywell feasibility report which asserts that a drywell is viable for Parcel I. However, upon further revicw of the soil.conditions existing on'site (Coburg-Urban Land Complex in the SCS Soil Survey for Lane County), the high seasonal water table would preclude effective use of a . d~elJ in this area. Therefore, an alternative drainage system will be required for Parcel I. . Conditions of Approval: 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show how rooftop runoff from a dwelling sited on Parcel 3 is to be conveyed to the roadside drainage ditch. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show how Parcel 3 is to be b'faded to allow proper drainage to the roadside ditch. . 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install a suitably-sized culvert (at least 10- inch diameter) to convey the flow from the roadside ditch under the joint use driveway serving Parcels I and 2, and under the driveway that serves Parcel 3. 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show how rooftop . runoff from a dwelling sited on Parcel 1 is to be conveyed to an approved stornlwater management system (other than a drywell). In accordance with SDC 32.110(4) & (5), the . proposedstornlwater management system shall have sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Water and Electric System Improvements Finding 21: Section 32.120(3) of the SDC 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. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design o(the water system within Springfield city limits. The current plan proposal does not show sizes of water lines to serve the three parcels. . Finding 22: The current plan proposal depicts extension of private water lines from the 8-inch main in 54'h Street to serve Parcels I and 2.. However, the plans do not depict water service being extended to the existing house in' Parcel 2. Water service must be maintained for the existing dwelling. . Finding 23: The tentative plan shows an existing water meter currently serving the house on Parcel 2, but the water line is not shown on the plans. The applicant has not indicated whether the water line is to be cut back to serve the future house on Parcel 3. The applicant also should confirm that the proposed street tree location shown on the tentative plan will not conflict with the existing water line. . Finding 24: The tentative plan shows an existing water meter along' the 54'" Street frontage to serve Parcel 3, and two proposed water meters to serv~ Parcels 1 and 2. Finding 25: SDC 32.120(2) states, "Wherever possible, utility lines shall be placed underground. " Finding 26: The applicant has provided a project narrative on how underground electric service wi]) be provided to Parcels I and 3. However, proposed routing of the electric lines are not shown on the tentative plan. In order to meet the requirements of SDC 34.030(7) and 34.070(12), 7 all underground utilities to serve Parcel are required to be extended to the building envelope area prior to paving of the driveway. Finding 27' The existing underground electric line will be retained to serve the house on Parcel 2, and will be accommodated by the proposed joint access and utility easement across the panhandle driveway. Finding 2S: The future house on Parcel.3 will have electric service provided via the proposed 7- . foot wide Public Utility Easement along 54'" Street. Conditions of Approval: .. 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the. partition plans shall be revised to show a water line extension to maintain service to the existing house on Parcel 2. 10. Prior to. approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised as necessary to ensure there wi11 not be 'any conflict between the future water line to serve Parcel 3 and the proposed street tree. ] ]. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show the water line serving the existing house, and the existing water line appropriately cut back to serve the future dwelling on Parcel 3. . 12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show electric service extended to the building envelope area of Parcel 1. . 13. In accordance with the SDC 32.120(2) and the applicant's tentative plan submittal, all utility lines serving the development site shall be placed underground. . Fire and Life Safety Improvements . Finding 29: Springfield Fire and Life Safety advises that water flows are available to serve the proposed partition area. The nearest fire hydrant is located approximately 74 feet south of the subject property. Finding 30: The Fire and Life Safety Department advises that sufficient fIre access shall be provided for proposed Parcels I and 2. The proposed paved access driveway shall be capable of supporting an SO,OOO lb. imposed load in accordance' with Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix Dl 02.1. Finding 31: No parking is to be allowed on either side of the panhandle driveway in accordance with SFC 503.2.1. Conditions of Approval: 14. The paved' access driveway for Parcels 1 and 2 shall be capable of supporting an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with SFC 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D102.1. 15. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the driveway to serve proposed Parcels 1 and 2 shall be posted on both sides with "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage in accordance with SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 103.6. 8 ) Public and Private Easements Finding 32: Section 32.120(5) of the SDC 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 (PUBs) adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 14 feet unless otherwise specified. Finding 33: In accordance with SDC 32.120(5), the applicant has proposed a 7-foot wide PUE along the' 54'h Street frontage of the development site. Finding 34: The applicant has proposed a 26-foot wide joint access and utility easement across the panhandle portions of Parcels I and 2. The proposed joint access and utility easement will accommodate the paved driveway, underground utility lines, and a vegetated filter strip to accommodate stonnwater runoff from the driveway. Conditions of Approval: , 16. Prior to approval of the Final 'Plat, the 26-foot wide joint access and ntility easement benefiting Parcels I and 2 shall be executed and recorded, and evidence thereof provided to the City. 17. The 7-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the 54'h Street frontage shall be recorded on the Final Plat. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3. (4)' The proposed development shall comply with all applicable pnblic and private design and c.onstrncnon standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. General Finding 35: Criterion 4 contains two elenients with sub"elements and applicable Code standards. The partition 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 4 include but are not limited to: 4a Conformance with standards of SDC 31,' Site Plan Review, and Article 16, Residential Zoning o Lot Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 16.040 -16.050) o Height Standards (SDC 16.060) o Off-Street Parking Standards (SDC 16.070 and 31.170-230) o Fence Standards (SDC 16.090) o Landscaping Standards (SDC 31.130-150) o Screening and Lighting (SDC 31.160) 4b Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements o The site lies within the Zone of Contribution for the Weyerhaeuser well. o The site is within the East Main R~fznell1ent Plan area. 9 4a Conformance with standards of SDC 31, Site Plan Review, and'SDC 16, Residential Zoning. / Off Street Parking Standards Finding 36: SDC 16.070(5)(d) requires 2 off-street parking spaces for each single-family dwelling. The existing house on proposed Parcel 2 will have access provided by a new driveway along the south side of the property, and the existing carport is to be removed. In accordance. with SDC 16.070(5)(d), a minimum of two off-street parking spaces is required to accommodate the parking requirement for Parcel 2. Finding 37: The applicant has proposed to retain a portion of the existing gravel driveway to serve a future house on Parcel 3. However, the driveway must be paved to meet the off-street parking and driveway requirements for Parcel 3 in accordance with SDC 16.070(5)(d) and Table 32-2. Finding 3S: The applicant has shown a 19-foot wide by I30"foot long paved driveway to serve Parcels I and 2. The proposed driveway extends from 54'h Street to the pan portion of Parcel I in accordance with S'DC 16.030(6)(b)5.a. At least two off-street parking spaces will be provided by way of a garage, cafport and/or parking pad when construction of a future house occurs on Parcel 1. Conditions of Approval: . . IS. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, .the applicant shall satisfy the parking.requirements for the existing house on Parcel 2 by installing a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. 19. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the 19x 130, foot driveway serving Parcels I and 2 shall be .paved from the edge of pavement for 54'h Street to the pan area of Parcel 1 in accordance with SDC 16.030(6)(b)5.b. 20. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the driveway serving Parcel 3 shall be paved from the edge of pavement for 54th Street to. a point' at least IS feet inside the property line. FenceStandards . Finding 39: In accordance with SDC 16.090 fences located behind the front yard setback for the proposed lots shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Chain link fences located in the front yard setback area may be four feet in height, while a slatted chain-link fence or screening fence shall not exceed three feet in height withi'1 the front yard setback. Finding 40: The applicant is responsible for installing any desired fencing within the developrnent area. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4a. 10 4b Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 41: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and Refinement Plan requirements. No policies of the DWP Overlay District or EastMain Refinement Plan apply to the partition.. . , Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 4b. (5) Parking areas 'and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the dcvelopment area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas;. minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations, a'nd comply with the ODOT access management standards for state highways. . Finding 42:' The Development Review Committee 'reviewed the proposed 3-lot partition at a meeting on May 23, 2006. Except for the following, the proposed parking, driveways and access points are sufficient to serve the proposed parcels. Transportation System Impacts ( Finding 43: Abutting the subject site, 54'h Street is a 20-fo~t wide, asphalt-paved, two-lane local street in a 60-foot right-of-way. There are no curb, gutter, sidewalk or street light improvements on this se),'111ent of 54'h Street. Average daily traffic on 54'h Street is estimated to be less than 1000 vehicle trips per day. - Finding 44: Based on ITE Land Use Code '210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) the proposed partition and development of Parcel 2 with a single-family residential use would generate 10 additional vehicle trips per day and I PM peak-hour vehicle trip onto the surrounding street system. In addition, assumed development may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. . According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent 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 45: Additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic created by development of the subject property contribute 'to .the need for paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk,' and street lighting improvements on 54'h Street. The absence of these improvements abutting the property makes construction of improvements on the property frontage both economically and technically impractical at this time. Execution of an Improvement Agreement for these improvements is warranted in accordance with provisions of SDC 32.020(10), and' this has been previously addressed by Condition I (above). Finding 46: The nearest regular transit bus service is provided by LTD Route #11 (Thurston) operating along Main Street. There is a bus stop located approximately 420 feet west of the intersection of Main Street and 54'h Street. . Site Access and Circulation Finding 47: 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. SDC 32.080(l)(a) stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to;! public street." ll} Filiding 48: Existing access to the property is via a U-sliaped driveway with culvert connections to 54'h Street near the northern and southern property boundaries. The applicant proposes access to Parcels I and 2 via a 26-foot wide donble panhandle lot configuration and 20-foot wide joint- use driveway along the south side of Parcel 3. Access to Parcel 3 would be provided via the remaining half of the existing U-shaped .driveway near the northern property boundary. As conditioned previously, the driveway will have to be paved to satisfy the requirements of SDC 16.070(5)(d) for off-street parking. Finding 49: In accordance with the tentative plan submitted, the applicant .is proposing to construct a 19-foot wide by 130-foot long paved driveway from 54'h Street to serve Parcels 1 and 2. The proposed panhandle driveway meets the requirements ofSDC 16.030(6)(b)5.a. Finding 50: As conditioned herein and in previous sections, ingress-egress points will be planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on public streets.as specified in SDC Articles 31 and 32, applicable zoning and overlay district Articles, and applicable refinement plans. Condition of Approval: 21. Adequate vision clearance triangles shall be provided at the corners of all site driveways in accordance with SDC 32.070. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Crit.erion 5. (6) Physical features, including, but not limited to significant c1nsters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Qnality Limited Waterconrse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and' historic features have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations. Finding 51: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated 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 features needing to be protected or preserved on this site. There are four existing trees proposed for removal at this time. If any artifacts are found dnring 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. - Conclusion: Tills proposal satisfies Criterion 6. (7) Development of any remainder of the propcrty under the same ownership can be , acconiplished in accordance with the provisions of this Code. . Finding 52: .There is no other property under the same ownership that can be further developed. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 7. (8) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development in accordance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Co'de. . Finding 53: Adjacent land is currently developed with residential dwellings and has access to public streets. . 12 Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 8. (9) When no concnrrent annexation application submitted with a Partition Tentative Plan on property that is ontside of the city'limits bnt within the City's urbanizable area, the standards specified below shall also apply. Finding 54: The property involved in this proposal is located inside the City Limits. Therefore, Criterion 9 is not applicable. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 9. .. ' CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as snbmitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria ]-9 of SDC 34.050. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 34.]00. What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to one vear from the date of this letter to meet any of the attached conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Partition Plat. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THE FINAL PLAT MUST BE ]N SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE TENTATIVE PLANS AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Final Plat is required go through a pre-submittal process. After the Final Plat application is complete, it must be submitted to the Springfield Development Services Department. A separate applicatiori and fees will be required. Upon signature .by the City Surveyor and the Planning Manager, the Plat may be' submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until the plat is recorded and three (3) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development Services Department by the applicant. Conditions of Approval: I. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement for 54'h Street for curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting. 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install two street trees from the City's approved list within the frontage of proposed Parcel 3. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the sanitary sewer lateral to' serve Parcel I shall be extended approximately 125 feet to the future building envelope ("pan") area located beyond the limit of reqnired driveway paving in accordance with SDC 34.070(12). 4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the sanitary sewer lateral to serve Parcel 2 shall be connected in order to maintain sewer service for the existing house in accordance with SDC 34.070(12). 5. Prior to approval ofthe Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show how rooftop runoff from a dwelling sited on Parcel 3 is to be conveyed to the roadside drainage ditch. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall.be revised to show how Parcel 3 is to'be graded to allow proper drainage to the roadside ditch. 13 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shaH install a suitably-sized culvert (at least IO-inch diameter) to convey the flow /Tom the roadside ditch under the joint use driveway serving Parcels I and 2, and under the driveway that serve~ Parcel 3. ' 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shall be revised to show how rooftop runoff from a dwelling sited on Parcel I is to be conveyed to an approved storm water management system (other than a drywell). In accordance with SDC 32.110(4) & (5), the proposed storrnwater management system shall have sufficient capacity to accept the discharge, 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shaH be revised to show a'water line extension to maintain service to the existing house on Parcel 2. 10. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shaH be revised as necessary to ensure there will not be any conflict between the future water line to serve Parcel 3 and the proposed street tree. 11. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shaH be revised to show the water line serving the existing house, and the existing water line appropriately cut back to serve the future dweHing on Parcel 3. ' . ] 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the partition plans shaH be revised to show electric service extended to the building envelope area of Parcell.' 13. In accordance with the SDC 32.120(2) and the applicant's tentative plan submittal, aH utility lines serving the development site shaH be placed underground. 14. The paved access driveway for Parcels I and 2 shaH be capable o(supporting an 80,000 lb. imposed load in'accordance with SFC 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix Dl 02.1. ] 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the driveway to serve proposed Parcels I and 2 shaH be posted on both sides with "No Parking.- Fire Lane" signage'in accordance with SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 103~6. 16. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the 26-foot wide joint access and utility easement benefiting Parcels I and 2 shaH be executed and recorded, and evidence thereof provided to the City. 17. The 7-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the 54th Street frontage shaH be recorded on the Final Plat. 18. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall satisfy the parking requirements for the existing , house on Parcel 2 by instaHing a minimum oftwo off-street parking spaces. 19. Prior to approval of-the Final Plat, the 19x130-foot driveway .serving Parcels I and 2 shall be paved from the edge of pavement for 54'" Street to the pan area of Parcel I in accordance with SDC 16.030( 6)(b)5 .b. . 20. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the driveway serving Parcel 3 shall be paved from the edge of pavement for 54'" Street to a' point at least 18 feet inside the property line. 21. Adeqnate vision clearance triangles shall be provided at the comers of aH site driveways In accordance with SDC 32.070. 14 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 Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. . Appeal: This Type II Tentative Partition decision is considered a decision of the Director and as suth may be appealed to the Planning 'Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Article 15, 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 Planning Commission approves the appeal application. . In accordance with SDC 15,020 which provides for a 15-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 June 20, 2006. Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 if you have any questions regarding this process. Prepared By: .r;,/ 15 , Please be advised th'at the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the subdivision decision. FEES AND PERMITS. . Svstems Develooment 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 Gro)"lb 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 II). 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 npon the rates in effect at the time of pemlit submittal 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 at time of building permit issuance for future houses on Parcels 1 and 3, and would be 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 $1,000 for each new single-family dwelling. . Sanitarv 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 bave not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to detennine if In- Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable. lOrd. 5584] Public Infrastructure Fees: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the property. Other Citv Permits: .. Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Pemlit - Required for working within a right-of-way or public easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjnsting a manhole. The current rate is $130 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. . Land &. Drainage Alteration Pemlit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for new home construction. Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements. . . Additional nermits/annrovals that n'av be necessarv: . Plumbing Permit to re-connect the existing house to water and sewer, and to connect new stormwater drain pipes . Division of State Lands (storm water discharge, wetlands) . Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands) . US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands) 16 Dukes & Dukes Construction PO Box 71095 Eugene, OR 97401 "~-.- ~'~),~1-SFtti:lll:r4~1l'';t#?'$~'~l:j;:;.'t~~,::..~~~~g~~;,~~f.mf~i7t:~g:- Barbara LePine 355 54th Street Springfield, OR 97478 ~::L::hq\;~:J;;f;:~;';\>~~;:;'>:;;,,: .' "~;;.~J ~ ~".::~:,5~:::~x;;f0] ", ~ :,,~'. .~,... .,~ITY':9FSPRINGF,IELD <' Jt",~. ~"'."l", '. .:,. ....;,.-if.'J':'.., ~fl,.. " ........ ,>...' C,' .;'> " .,;','.c ".. . .'"'. '; '. . .. .... ".]' '" ;\'''''>'''.'' ,~,~~ <I ::'I~:i"',;~'iQSY~l;.0~~E~! SJ=~YI~tS q:EPA~!t;'1~NT~;:,:"it;'..!,. . r 'If. ",,,,(I'f' '''', "'4 '~'''u 225'5Ih'ST"'" C" ~ " \." " . '. ,.., "u {\::~;.!~;t:t{~;{;~~~f\~9F'~Cb:;~~,~; ~'~!'D~: 1~:T;~'!;i~; il@~~~L!i!~'!J.i~;tt~-;g&~~~~~~~~W,Sf;.J%k~il1f::;,,~'t'~;r~:: 1~~:(~~~t~tl};:!e;l~~;,~'~;'?::~;?,iit\'~~8~jl;.:t~~~f;;;%~5l~~~~ '~iS."';!1':f~';:':\:: ;{9tTY:9~;~,el3.!N9F!EIiPr;:'~':?\\;:"i';' !i"::"'~~:1 ..~ -;' :':!~,;SDEVS,4(!)Rfv1~,~J~S~~YISE?tJ~PARtM~~~:.;,'i ',';c' ,.',;'i 1~~~:~it~t;;;~~>;'~;:~~~R;.~@~'~~~'6~;~lJ7:;";::.'. ~;;''''!~')'>'I {;j,;t.\ Li"t\~:;?:::.,' ,/_' ":,'3':i ,.',':ith \< ;.;.:'j~,",:",~t . '.;C.bar~es' Kimball ':~H5~rsl PI~ce ~J'I:LF~gf ield, . OR 97478 - ~ ;:~ :;:~:.":;":~~';\;,t:~,',(~~: :te:;'i~,;~:.~' :~/;,',~ '~', . ~~:.~'..r','~~~'>,~' ':: . ,;:~;t?~~.~~:l':~~~.;J~i::~Jl~ 'j~Yr . ,'! .!,,\'c,;,' ." .:.; ;crrY:OF.SPRINGFIEL:D'-'''~';',,,,,;,,'' I!':." .~!:, ,i':':";-'-":'.:':' ,'..ih:' 1) ., ~,,~. ".to,: ".."'" .;., ' '." ".' ,. ~~." p~' "', ,~~"n:"..; .;> "'j :;,' I'.',:.': DEVELOP;M F,NTSERYICESDEflAF-i:rMENi[,,;.,r:'::: '~;;;;, ,'~""~.~i~~€'~;:>':~ ':::~-~~~,~: "r: ~'::<.~:~, ;'c~~;~/?~~, 5(~ "S,f~.::~ ,'. ,;_"'. ~<f" :~::~~~;:}:;~\~~:i~.::;?.':' .; "1':' .t2";:,,:\\";~PRIN<3I;!EL[),gJR.9,7 477:,>,. .t;",if;r: ,,"\ ,f;;, L.:~ "~\';~.'{: ~,':: :1~~,;.~:;;,;'~~' . '" ,:~~~' ;,' ""./ ,~.:; . ,'I ";c ," ,.)~"~,,,:;::~t;i:'!~;< '.':.':', : ;, '.i;~ ".~~? .,~~~~ ':--::i:l["'~~"';;;:'A':'l;~'!'k~'~~5"~.ff'>;;'~"~1b~Z~\'~L~;::. ~<i .-;~',:r' .}i~ "::'~~ '';f}~f . ''Ii , :~/~'~ :~6 "1,+ i.J ~;~ Larry Olson Olson & }'orris 380 Q Street, Suite 200 Springfield, OR' '97477 - 't;..~..