The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRecommendation Sheet PLANNER 11/9/2006 TYPE II TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Hoerauf Subdivision Project Proposal: 6 lot subdivision of2 existing lots Case Number: SUB2006-000057 Project Location: 1290 1306, and 1324 "F" Street, Tax Map 17-03-36-22 TL #'s 6000 and 600 I ,-, 1 .. ' .. .-..... - .. .' I , I j --1 --.-. .-VC .:. - , Zoning: Low Density Residential (LOR) ----------, iii I >1,,,: I L. I ',. (SUbject I Ip. , I property .' I 1. I' I' -' - . I I :1 - t ,- " ~! I .., . Li __________ Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LOR) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: September 1 ",2006 Application Submitted Date: September 21, 2006 Decision Issued Date: November 9th, 2006 Decision: Approval with Conditions ~-...M~ Appeal Deadline Date: Friday, November 24th, 2006 (by 5:00 pm) Natural Features: None noted. Density: Approximately 8 units per acre Associated Applications: PRJ2006-00055, ZON2006-00031, PRE2006-000n I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I rO~I1]ON W;X~)V OF I f>rolect Mana~er jiranmng I T'\I'l~portatjon Planninl1 Engineer Transportatior I Public Works Civil J;n~meer Utilities; Samtary & Stonn Sewer I Deputy Fire Marshal Fir~ ~rd Life Safety I Community Services Mana~er Buildm~ NAME David Reesor Gary McKenney Malt Stouder Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent PH9~ 726-3783 726-4585 736,1035 726-2293 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner/Applicant: Gordon Hoerauf 938 McKenzie Crest Dr. Springfield, OR 97477 Engineer: Ananda Sherwood Branch Engineering, Inc. 310 5th Street Springfield, OR. 97477 f ~~ . '- ...:.:.. .' DECISION: Tentative Approval, witb 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 TIlE 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 carefnlly. OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY TIlE 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 subdivision criteria of approval, SDC 35.050. This application was accepted as complete on September 21, 2006. This decision is. issued on the 49th day of the 120 days mandated by the state. SITE INFORMATION & BACKGROUND: The subject development site is located on "F" Street between 13th and 14th Street. It is relatively flat, with three existing single family homes on,site. The Assessor's description is Map 17-03-36,22 TL #'s 6000 and 6001. The proposed subdivision comprises a total of .73 acre of land which is designated as Low Density Residential (LOR) on the Metro Plan and zoned LDR by Springfield. The subject property is surrounded by existing single family dwellings on all sides. A 14 foot wide Public Utility Easement is located along the rear portion of the property, The adjacent lots are all zoned LOR. The proposed subdivision will have 6 LOR parcels. Access to subject lots will be from existing "F" Street. Lots 1 and 4 will access "F" street via panhandle driveways. Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6 will all have direct access and frontage onto "F" Street. 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 3,080 and 14.030). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the . notice period have appeal righ.ts and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.080 and 14.030,.notice was sent to owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on September 28th, 2006. Written response letters/petitions were received from the following Springfield residents arid/or representatives: . Erik and Wanda Berglund 1311 "G" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Eleanor, Joseph, and Tammy Reopelle 1280 "F" Street Springfield, OR 97477 Karen and Verlin Getchil1 1263 "F" Street Springfield, OR 97477 Judy.and James Marr 1321. "G" Street Springfield, OR 97477 Tom and Betty Berry 131'l "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Tammy Reopelle 1280 N. "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Shirley and Richard Putzier 1254 "F" Street Sprin~field, OR. 97477 Lee Arnold 1251 "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Wendy'and Everett Beaubien 1269 "F" Street Springfield, OR 97477 James Lamb 1334 "F" Street Springfield, OR 97477 2 '- Joseph Dixon 1291' "G?"Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Phil Anne Meile 130 I "G" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Jason Wofford 1270 "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Jo Lynn Burdett 1365 "F" Street Springfield, OR 97477 Charles Pinkerton 1309 "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Francis and Earl Taber I 33 1 "G:' Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Jenny Lawson 1270 "F" Street Springfield, OR 97477 Melinda and Darrell Langdon 1238 "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Aaron Lopez 1235 "F" Street Sprin~field, OR 97477 Phil Anne Meile 1301 "G" Street Springfield, OR 97477 I Written comments are summarized in italics below: 1. . The existing homes on the subject lots were illegally built; even by 1940:s standards. Staff ResDonse: City records for building permits do not extend as far back as the 1940's, A recent drive- by survey verified that the buildings appeared to have perimeter foundations. Many of the homes built in , .. that era without penn its did not have adequate foundations. We have no way of detennining whether the buildings in question were built to the code standards that were in effect at that time: 2. The existing homes dq not meet current Code standards, and present hazard~ to families and neighbors, and should be condemned and torn down. . Staff, Response: Existing homes are not required by the Oregon Residential Specialty Code or Oregon Revised Statutes to meet current code standards. The Springfield Housing Code provides a means to . detennine whether a residential structure presents a health or safety, hazard, There would have 'to be significant deficiencies to the structure or. to the plumbing and/or electrical systems in the building before it could be posted to be vacated and demolished, The Housing Code standards are considerably less stringent than the Building Codes. 3. Over the years, ~wners' of the existing houses have aMy done cosmetic repairs such as new paint, but have' not done other repairs.' Staff Response: Although the Springfield Housing Code does require property owners. to maintain their property, including plumbing and electrical systems as well as structural repairs, the submitted comment does not identifY what ';other" repairs may be needed. A report from a licensed design professional (architect or engineer) or a professional housing inspector would be needed to identify defects that present a significant potential fire or health hazard to the building occupants or the public, 4. New home owners will not maintain the new dwellings, similar to the existing houses. Staff Response: The City of Springfield 'has existing nuisance ordinances that all property owners are required to comply with. There is no factual basis at this point in time to indicate that the future home owners and/or renters will not maintain the new dwellings, ' . 3 5, The home located 1290 "P" Street is located 0.4 feet from the property line. The proposal for the new subdivision to the lot that would .accommodate the "new home" wOuld be, built awlry from . the property litie. In doing so for the "new home," it also inadvertently implies that 1290 would also be moved farther awlry from the property line as well, Staff Response: All new homes on the' subject lots are required to comply with the Springfield Development Code (SDC), including all required setbacks, The City is not requiring the existing house at 1290 FStreet to be relocated, as it is a pre-existing condition, 6, There is concern that the home located at 1306 has asbestos tiled siding that is in poor condition. This dilapidated siding is falling off and causing harm to neighbors, including children and pets. Staff Resoohse: . quality issues. Lane Regional Air Protection Authority should be consulted regarding asbestos air 7, Home owners and tenants living on "P" Street and "G",Street have low water pressure because of existing trees penetrating the main waste water line and are entangled within it. Adding three additional homes will cause even less pressure for existing homes. Staff Resoonse: The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the City of Springfield Public Works Department engineering and Springfield Utility Board staff, and there is sufficient water/ sanitary sewer capacity for the new development. The City of Springfield Maintenance Department has been contacted by Planning and Public Works Dept. Staffregarding the stated concern, The maintenance crew inspected the sanitary sewer line the week' of November 6th, 2006, and no sewer line obstructions were found. Maintenance staff noted that the existing 8 inch sewer line was replaced in themid-1990's. 8, There is currently limited parking for existing homes on the street, Additional homes will cause parking and traffic conditions to worsen, as well as create a safety hazard to the children living in the neighborhood. Staff Resoonse: The Springfield Development Code requires each single family. home to have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces. As proposed, the new developm~nt meets this requirement. 9. Neighbors are concerned that the proximity of the new homes will negatively affect backyard privacy for existing homes.' .. Staff Response: The newly constructed homes will all be required to meet' applicable setbacks from lot lines, As per Article 16 of the SDC, residential homes are allowed to be constructed no higher than 30 feet, and must comply with all solar access requirements, The applicant has not yet submitted site plans for each individual home. However, each lot meets lot size requirements as required in the Springfield Development Code, . 10. It is urifair that the applicant will not be living in the'new homes or the neighborhood, and will not have to put up with the additional crowding of neighbOrs. Staff Resoonse: The City of Springfield does not have any Ordinance that requires subdivision applicant's t~ live in the new homes they are building, The application meets the lot size and frontage requirements, The Metropolitan Area General supports infill on larger lots and density up through 10 units per acre. 4 - II, There will be additional rowdiness, loud music, parities, and additional theft and burglary. St"ff Resnnnse' Each new home owner or tenant is required to abide by City of Springfield laws regarding the above mentioned concerns, There is no factual basis to confinn that the new home ownerslrenters will cause additional rowdiness; play loud music; have loud .parties; or will attract additional theft and burglary, 12. The existing homes located at 1290 and 1324 look like "dumping grounds. " " Staff ResDonse: As previously mentioned, existing and new home owners/tenants are required to comply with all nuisance ordinances. After receiving the stated concern, City staff visited the site, Site visit photos are shown below. There. did not appear to be any conditions on the exterior .of the homes that warranted a citation at this time. Photos from a site visit on November 6th, 2006 are shown below. As shown in the photos, there was no visible junk or debris at either house located at 1290 and 1324 "F" Street. 13. Not enough time has been given for neighbors to address the application. Staff ResDonse: The proposed residential subdivision application has complied with all notification requirements set forth in the Springfield Development Code. Article 3,Section 3.080 indicates that the City shall notifY residents within 300-feet of the proposed development, and allow a 14-day comment period, The City mailed out notice on September 28th 2006, which is confinned by an Affidavit of Service, The City complied with the 14-day comment period as required by City Code. 14. New homes will attract more renters, who collect junk and do not maintain their property. Staff ResDonse: The City of Springfield does not have an ordinance prohibiting homes from being rented. Again, all home owners/tenants are required to comply with all nuisance ordinances. 15. Neighbors are opposed to "multi-homes" on single family lots. StaffResnonse: The proposal is for a six lot subdivision, One single family dwelling on each separate lot is permitted in the LOR zone, ' 16. The existing space is too smallfor 6 single family lots. Staff Resoonse:' The' subject lots are located in the Low Density Residential (LOR) Zone, As noted in Article 16 of the SDC, the LOR Zone allows up through 10 units per acre. The proposed subdivision rneet~ this standard. Each lot also meets the minimum standards for lot size requirements, 17. City Building Inspectors should inspect existing house that neighbors think should be torn down, Staff Resoonse: Due to our limited staff, we do not inspect existing buildings for potential hazards except in the most extreme situations, We have no authority, by law, to enter premises' without the express permission of the owner of the property, the building occupant or a warrant obtained by due process, which would require sufficient cause. We have none at this time, 18. The proposed subdivision will negatively affect the aesthetics of the existing neighborhood .~ , , . 5 Staff Resoonse: As previously noted, the proposed. subdivision is for the"division of land. The City does not have any regulations regarding the aesthetic design of single family homes. 19. Placement of the new lots are based 'upon location of existing structures. Staff Resoonse: Each new lot is surveyed by a licensed surveyor and is based, upon property ,boundaries, The existing structures will each be on individuallotsin the subdivision, 20. There is a property line dispute over where the existing home is located at 1290 "F" Street in relation to the fence. Neighbors are disputing' over who should maintain the 4 foot strip of grass, trees and bushes, Staff Response: The dispute over who shouid maintain the 4 foot strip of grass is a civil matter, and should be worked about between the two parties. There will be a surveyed line with property pins set that may resolve the problem, . 21. Concern over building more than one single family home per lot, Staff Resoonse: The p'roposed subdivision is located in the Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone, This zone does not allow.. more than one single family honie per lot. Each new lot will have one single family home per lot. 22. The additional homes will create vision clearance hazards at each driveway. Staff Response: The placement of each new home ,.is required to comply with all applicable setback standards, Additionally, all new and existing lots must comply with the vision clearance requirements set f6rth in Section 32,070 et seq, of the SOC. This requires home owners/tenants to maintain a minimum 10 foot c1ear'triangle at the corners of each driveway, 23. Concern that homes built on the panhandle lots will collect garbage, junk and create overgrowth. . Staff Response: As previously mentioned, each home owner and/or tenant is responsible for complying with all applicable nuisance ordinances. 24. Additional newhdmes will cre~te too many traffic problems. Staff Response: The proposed development has been reviewed by the, City's Traffic Engineer, The City's' review of traffic generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 210, Findings 13 and 14 in this report discuss the traffic generation and required street improvements for the proposed subdivision in more detail. ' 25. The new subdivision will attract more dr/.fg dealers, thefts and other crime. Staff Resoonse: The proposed s,!bdivision will accommodate room for three additional single family homes, consistent with what already exists within the neighborhood. There is no factual basis to indicate that three new single family homes built on'new lots will attract more drug dealers, thefts and other cri[l1e, 26. The new lotslhou~es ivill obstruct the sewer easements near the back yards, prohibiting access to the sewer lines. . Staff Response: The proposed subdivision has been reviewed to assure that proper easements are in place prior to signing of the Final Plat Map, City Code, prohibits any structures to be placed,over Public. Utility 6 Easements, The Building review process for each new single family home will assure that no new home is constructed over any Public Utility Easement. 27, More than one family has moved into the existing homes in the past exceeding the allowable number of people per house, and the new homes will create the same situation. Staff Resoonse: The codes in the past have allowed up to five individuals unrelated by blood or marriage to occupy a single family dwelling. When the limit is exceeded, the dwelling becomes a lodging or boarding house or a congregate residence, which mayor may not be pennilted on the property, The submitted comment does not specify the number of occupants or their relationships to each other that were occupying the residences in the past. 28, The new homes will forever be rentals, Staff Resoonse: As previously mentioned, there is no ordinance in Springfield that prohibits or limits homes as rentals, The applicant is subdividing the existing lots to create 6 individual lots, for six individual single family homes, It is at the discretion of each individual property owner to decide if he/she wants to sell the homes or rent them out. 29. The existing neighborhood should be left as it is - single homes on single large lots. Staff Resoonse: The existing zone for the subject property is Low Density Residential (LOR), This zone in codified in the City's Development Ordinance, which was adopted by City Council. The LDR zone allows up to 10 dwellings per acre. Property owners in Springfield are allowed to subdivide their property provided they comply with the SDC and adequately complete the review process, 30. Existing sidewalks in front of lax lot 6000 violales properly line parameters, and are in need of repair, Staff Resoonse: According the survey of the subject property, the existing sidewalks are located within the public right-of-way, and do not violate p,vp~'~i line parameters. The developer will be required to fix any problems with the existing sidewalk as part of the new development. In addition to Article 32 Public Improvement requirements, Section 3.306 of the Springfield Municipal Code requires property owners to maintain sidewalks abutting the property. 31, The age of the existing buildings and Ihe placement of new homes on lols will increase Ihejire hazard in the neighborhood Staff Resoonse: The proposed development has been reviewed by the Deputy Fire Marshal for compliance with International Fire Code (IFC) regulations. All Fire Code requirements are addressed in this report, All new development is required to meet Fire Code. November 6'", 2006 - Site Visit Photos Photo #1: ] Existing House at , 1324 "F" Street. 7 Photo #2: Existing House at 1306 "F" Street Photo #3: l Existing House at 1290 "F" Street. Photo #4: Existing conditions between houses at 1306 "F" Street and 1324"F" Street 11 ~~.. . ,I,; ., ,__' l" I' . ..-" ,>"~,~}j1~~,,.~, ""'.. .d\:~~ 1'\ J .rf6ff ":' :~,~,,,",,,_,)I~<If - ~ 'ff':' ..;,;;~:::?it~~~;:pla ,~,~~';!{t', '~~ 1 '5S,:'~i~~; ..: .' .;,. " ....irlft.~~ '.H:: I 1iJJt.," . "..,,' , '" ' . 'ht~:'''''-''' ~ . .""! . ,:~_..".. ~:~~~:0'.~j .,.".,!f/ffiif,;t!l;pfb'P ,.,'F"'^" ~:,! ~ . ..~., ,~' ,.' ,l/::;tf~:;:.:,' 1~:~;~~;~;~f:,;}:~\n~;{1~1~~l~ 8 '. CRITERIA OF SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE APPROVAL: SDC 35.050 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application upon detennining that criteria (1) through (9) of this Section have been satisfied, If conditions calmot be attached to satisfY the criteria, the Director shall deny the application, (I) The request conforms to the requirements of this Code pertaining to parcel size and, dimensions. Finding I: Pursuant to SDC Section 16,030(1), lots on east/west streets shall have a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and a minimum frontage of 45 feet. ' Finding 2: All of the proposed lots are will have access onto an east/west street. Lots 1 and 4 are proposed to have access onto F Street via joint use access easementS/driveways. Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6 all front onto F Street. Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6 all meet the minimum lot size and lot frontage requirements for east/west streets. Lots 1 and 4 meet lot size and frontage requirements for lots . . accessed via ajoint use access easement/driveway, as required in SDC 16.030(6)(a). Finding 5: Proposed Parcels 1 and 2 have a joint use access easement measuring 20 feet in width, This meets the requirement for access width as. required in the SDC, and meets the minimum 'standard as set forth in the International Fire Code (IFC). Finding 6: Proposed Parcels 3, 4 and 5 have a joint use access easement measuring 21 feet in width. This meets the requirement for access width as required in the SDC, and meets the minimum standard as set forth in the International Fire Code (IFC). Finding 7: Parcels I, 3 and 6 have existing single family homes that would preclude room for panhandle lots, Thus; in order to have Lots 1 and 4 in back, joint use access easements 'are necessary. Condition of Approval: '(" 1. ,The applicant shall record an irrevocable joint use access easements for-Lots 1,2,3,4 and 5 prior to Final Plat approval. Co~c1usion: The proposal complies with Criterion I as conditioned. (2) The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 8: The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LOR) by the Metro Plan. The zoning of the property is LOR, consistent with the Metro Plan 'designation. 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 storniwater 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 utility provider shall determine capacity issues. General Finding' 9: For all public improvements, the ,applicant shall retain a private professional . civil engineer to design the subdivision improvements in confonnance 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. General Finding '10: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed subdivision. City staff's review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein', General Finding 11: Criterion 3 contains sub-elements and applicable code standards. The subdivision application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub- element unless otherwise n9ted with specific findings and conclusions, The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: r Public improvements in Accordance with SDC 31 and 32 o Public Streets and Related Improvements (SDC 32.020-32.080) o Bikeways, Pedestrian Trails and Accessways (SDC 32,090) o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 32.100) o Stonn Water Management (SDC 32,110,31,240) 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)) . !,ublic Streets & Related Improvements Finding 12: The development site has 240 feet of frontage on 'F' Street, and contains three existing single'family residential buildings, which would remain on proposed Lots 2, 3 and 6. , , 'F' Street abutting the site frontage is a 36-foot wide two-lane local street within ,a 60-foot wide right-of-way, and is fully improved with asphalt paving, curb/gutter, sidewalks and street lighting, which support multi-modal travel. Parking is pennitted on both side ofthe,~treet. The estimated traffic volume on 'F' Street is approximafely 500, vehicles per day, Finding 13:'Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) increased trip generation from development ofthree additional lots on the property would be as follows: . Average Weekday = 3 dwelling units x 9,57 trips per dwelling units = 29 trips . PM Peak Hour = 3 dwelling units x 1.0 I trips per dwelling u~its = 3 trips In addition, the assumed development would 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 anQ 1.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this use. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes, '10 Finding 14: To provide for safe pedestrian and vehicular access, street lighting is needed that will adequately illuminate the public travel ways street areas adjacent to the development site, The city's street lighting standards, which are based on the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8, specifY the lighting type and required lighting levels for street and pedestrian areas. On 36-foot wide residential streets such as 'F' Street, current city standards specifY I OO-watt high pressure sodium (HPS) street lights spaced at 21O-foot interviils, The development site extends along 'F' Street for 240 feel, and additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic created by the proposed development would contribute to the need for improving street lighting on 'F' Street to current city standards. Construction by the appl icant of street lighting improvements in proportion to the need created by the proposed site development is not technically or economically feasible at this time, Execution of an Improvement Agreement for street lighting improvements is an appropriate means of addressing this obligation. Condition of Approval: 2. Execute and record an Improveinent Agreement for street lighting on 'F' Street prior.to Final Plat approval. Bikeways, Pedestrian Trails and Accessways Finding 15: In accordance with SDC Section 32.090(3)(a), pedestrian accessways are used to facilitate connection between residential areas and neighborhood parks and open space. The proposed Subdivision fronts onto an existing City street with improved sidewalks, Finding 16: A recent siteyisit indicated that a small portion of the existing sidewalk is in need of repair, This portion of the existing sidewalk is raised above the adjacent portion of sidewalk, presenting a tripping hazard, In order to facilitate pedestrian access to the site, this sidewalk is in need of repair. Section 32,020(7)(b)(2) of the SDC requires all new subdivisions to fully improve all abutting streets. A "fully improved street" includes a functional sidewalk, Condition of Approval: 3. The applicant shall repair the damaged portion of the existing sidewalk prior to Final Plat approval. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Finding 17: 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. Finding 18: An existing 8 inch public sewer line is .located within the adjacimt rear property 14' Public Utility Easement (PUE), The applicant proposes extending sewer laterals offthis line to serve lots 1 ~6. . Stormw,iter Management: Finding 19: Section 32.110 (2) of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stonnwater management systems provisions have been made as detennined by the Public Works Dire~tor, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). 11 / Finding 20: Section 32.110 (4) of the SDC requires that run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stonnwater management syste~ with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Section 32,110 (5) of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) requires n'ew developments to employ drainage management practices, which minimize the amount al)d rate of surface water run-off into receiving,streams, and which promote water quality. ." Finding 21: To..c.omply with Sections 32.110 (4) & (5) of the SDC, stonnwater runoff from the driveways will be directed to the curb and gutter or valley gutter system and directed to the curb and 'gutter located in "F" Street for lots 1-6. Roof drains on lots 1 and 4 will be piped to weep holes in the curb .of the fronting joint access drive, Lots 5 and 6 will weep hole through the : fronting curb of "F"Street. Utilities, easements and rights of way Finding 22: Section 32,120 (3) of the Springfield Development Code 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 coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits, The current plan proposal shows water service to each lot. , " ' Finding 23: Sectiori 32:120 (5) of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments 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 adjacent to street rights of way ~hall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 14 feet. Finding, 24: The Springfield Utility Board (SUB) is the electrical and water provider for the subject lot. SUB is requiring a 7 foot Public Utility Easement illong the "F" Street frontage of the lots and a blanket easement over the subject lots. The applicant shall coordinate with SUB to meet all necessary easement requirements to serve the'development. Finding 25: As required in Article 32 ofSDC, Section 32,120 et seq" all utilities shall be placed underground, Condition of Approval: 4, All electrical lines shall be placed underground for both new and existing homes on-site., Fire and Life Safety Improvements Finding 26: The Fire Code criteria for this development shall be based on the International Fire Code ([Fe). Finding 27: The required width for a joint use driveway/access'way is minimum 20 feet. The proposed widths for the joint use access easements servicing Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 are consistent with requirements set forth in the 2004 Springfield Fire Code 503,2.1. Finding 28: In order to maintain a clear passage way for emergency' access, "No Parkirig-Fire Lane signage" is required to, be posted on both sides of the access road for Lots I, 2, 3 and 4 per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D1 03,6, The Tentative Subdivision Map shows these required signs on the map as required. 12 / Finding 29: The 2004 Springfield Fire Code '503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1 require fire apparatus access 'roads to support an 80,000 lb. imposed load. The Tentative Subdivision Map notes that this requirement will be met. . Conditions'of Approval: 5. Maintain 20 feet clear widths on the panhandle driveway per 2004 Springfield Fire Code 503.2. L 6, Prior to signing of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install "No Parking-Fire Lane signage" posted on both sides of the proposed joint access driveways for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 0103.6. 7. Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 Ib, imposed load per 2004 Springfield Fire Code 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix Dl02.1. ' Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3, (4) The proposed development sh~II,comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. , General Finding 30: Criterion 4 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 4 include but are not limited to: 4a Confonnance 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 3 L 170-230) o Fence Standards (SDC 16.090) o Infonnation Requirements (SDC 31.050) 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 is outside the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District o The site is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area . Off Street Parking Standards Finding' 31: SDC 16,070(5)(d) requires'2 off-street parking spaces for each single-family dwelling. The future lots will have driveways that provide at least two off'street parking spaces. It is likely that future dwellings also will have single or double garages/carports providing additional off-street parking spaces. Conclusion: As proposed, this proposal satisfies Criterion 4a, 13 ~. 4b Overlay ri'istricts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements. Finding 32: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and Refinement Plan requirements. . Finding 33: The proposed subdivision is within the 20 year Time of Travel Zone, and is part of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District Given the fact that the proposed use is for single family residential use; no large storage of chemicals will take place on the site, Finding 34: This site is outside any adopted Refinement Plan boundaries. As previously mentioned in this report, the Metro Plan designation for the subject property is LOR, The proposed residential subdivision of approximately 8 units per acre is compliant with the applicable Metro Plan designation. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 4b, (5) Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedesfrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential ar"'.'S, 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, arid comiJly with the ODOT access management standards for state highways. Finding 35: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 6 lot subdivision on September 1 ", 2006. Except for other related Findings and Conditions of Approval in this report, the proposed parking, driveways and access points are sufficient to serve the proposed parcels. Subdivision Access and Circulation ? Finding 36: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict poirits, The greater nurnber of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. Effective ways to reduce the probability of traffic crashes include: reducing the number of driveways, increasing distances between intersections and driveways, and establishing adequate vision clearance where driveways intersect streets. Each of these techniques penn its a longer, less cluttered sight distance for the motorist, reduces the number and difficulty of decisions drivers must make, and contributes to increased traffic safety, SDC 32.080(1) (a) stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to l! public street." Section 32.070 et seq. ofthe SDC requires all new lots to maintain vision clearance areas on lot corners and driveway~.. .Finding 37: Proposed access to Lots 1 and 2 will be via a shared 18-12_foot wide driveway on Lot 2. Lots 3, 4 and 5 will share an 18,16 foot wide driveway on Lot 3, Lot 6 will have an exclusive 12-foot wide driveway. The driveway for Lot 6 is currently graveled. Finding 38: As, conditioned below 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 or overlay district Articles, and applicable refinement plans: , Condition of Approval: 8, Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall execute and record joint-use access easements as proposed to support shared driveway accesses. 14 --- 9, The applicant shall pave the existing graveled driveway serving Lot 6 prior to approval of Final Plat. 10. Provide 'and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles'at the corners of all lot driveways per SDC 32,070, 11. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proposed joint use 'access easements shall be paved, Conclusion: 'As'.conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 5, (6) Physical features, including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated ,riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features have been evaluated and protected as specified ion this Code or other applicable regulations. Finding 39: As noted on the Tentative Subdivision Plan and according to the SCS Soil Survey of Lane County, soils on,the proposed site are entirely Malabon-Urban Land Complex (76), , , Finding 40: Any fill and grading for road improvements and/or building c;onstruction will require a Land Development Alteration Permit (LDAP) from the City of Springfield prior, to undertaking such activities on site. . Finding 41': There are nostate-recogniied significant wetlands within the subdivision area. Finding 42: 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, 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, Finding 43: The subject property has more than 5 trees with 5 inch dbh. Section 38.015 requires the applicant to apply for a tree felling penn it with the City of Springfield prior to tree felling of more than 5 trees on the site with a 5 inch dbh, The applicant is proposing to remove four trees in excess of 5,inch dbh as shown on the Tentative Subdivision Map. Conditions of Approval: 12, The applicant shall apply for an LDAP from the, City of Springfield prior to undertaking any fill and/or grading for road improvements anOlor building construction on site. 13. The applicant shall apply for a tree felling permit prior to felling more than 5 trees on the site with 5 inch dbh or greater (within a consecutive 12-month period} Conclusio,:,: As conditioned, the propos"d subdivision satisfies C~iterion 6, (7) Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this Code. . 15 Finding 44: All of the proposed lots within the subdivision are considered buildable lots, given the square footage and !,ccess to each lot. Lots 2, 3 and 6 currentlx have existing single family hornes already built. '. Fi~ding 45: All of the property is proposed for development. 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 Code. . Finding 46: Adjacent land on all sides is already developed and all have access to existing roads. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 8, (9) Where the Subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the following approval. criteria shall apply: (see subsections (a)-(g) in SDC). ' Finding 47~ The applicant is not proposing to create a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park with this subdivision, Conclusion: Criterion 9 does not apply to this subdivision. CONCLUSION: The tentative subdivision, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria 1- 9 ofSDC 35.050. Portions. of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed . during platt.ing. ' What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to 2 vears from the date of this letter to meet any of the attached conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to have a Final Subdivision Plat pre-submittal meeting. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE FINAL PLAT MUST BE IN 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 within 180 days of the pre- submittal meeting, A separate application 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 trausferred until the plat is recorded and five (5) copics of the filed subdivision are returned to the Development Services Department by the applicant. Conditions of Approval: 1, The applicant shall record an irrevocable joint use access easements for Lots 1,2; 3, 4 and 5 prior to Final Plat'approval. 2, Execute and record an Improvement Agreement for street lighting on 'F' Strcet. 3, The applicant shall repair the damaged portion of the existing sidewalk prior to Final Plat approval. 16 ~. .. 4, All electrical lines shall be placed underground for both new and existing homes on-site 5, Maintain 20 feet clear widths on the panhandle driveway per 2004 Springfield Fire Code 503,2,1, 6. Prior' to signing of the Final Plat, the applicani shall ,install "No Parking-Fire Lane signage" posted on both sides of the proposed joint access driveways for Lots 1,2,3 and 4 per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 0103.6. -7, Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 lb, imposed load per 2004 Springfield Fire Code 503.2.3 andSFC Appendix 0102.1. , 8. Prior to Final Plat approval, the applicant shall execute and record joint-use access' easements as proposed to support shared driveway accesses, 9. The applicant shall pave the existing graveled driveway serving Lot 6 prior to approval of Final . Plat. 10, Provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of all lot driveways per SDC 32.070. 11, Prior to Final Plat approval, the proposed joint use access easements shall be paved. 12, The applicant shall apply for an LDAP from the City of Springfield prior to undertaking any fill and/or grading for road improvements and/or building construction on site, 13. The applicant shall apply for a tree felling penn it prior to felling more than 5 trees on the site with 5 inch dbh or greater (within a consecutive 12,month period). ' 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 Developme~t Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Appeal: This Type II Tentative Subdivision decision is considered a decision of the Directo'r and as such 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 lO(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 24th, 2006. Questions: Please call David Reesor in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541 ).726-3783 if you have any questions regarding this process, Prepared By: ~~ David R, Reesor Planner II 17 Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a ~omponent of the subdivision decision. FEES AND PERMITS Svstems Develooment Charges: , o The applicant must pay Systems Development Charges when the building penn its are issued for developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates to the amoun(of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield Code Chapter 11, Article 11), Some exceptions' apply to Springfield Urban Growth areas, ' Systems Development Charges 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 penn it 'submittal for b?ildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. Sanitarv Sewer In"Lieu-of-Assessrnent Charge: o ' The developer must'paya 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 detennine ifln-Lieu-of-Assessment charge is applicable (Ord. 5584). P.ublic Infrastructure Fees: o It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure, Additional oennits/apProvals that mav be necessarv: o Tree Felling Permit o. Public Improvement PI~n o Encroachment Penn it or Sewer Hookup Pennit - 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 current rate is $130 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. No activities requiring an Encroachment Permit are shown on the plan's" o Plumbing Pennit , , oLand & Drainage Alteration Penn it (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required in conjunction with'the Public Improvement Plan for each for new home construction. Contact the Springfiela Public Works Department at 726-5849 fo" appropriate application 'requirements~