HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/13/2006
,.il'
,
,
,
sJ~
~~
~
, 11t3/tP
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON)
, ),ss.
County of Lane )
I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: '
1. I state that I am a Clerk III for the Planning Division of the Development Services
Department, City of Springfield" Oregon,
, "
2. I state that in my capacity as Clerk 111,,1 oreoared and ,caused to be mailed copies
Su8zaos-COO30 '. DIUfIi), at4/R.. .. n
of Nr>HU ;;+~4..d &OSUl>< SoB TEIJT" (See attachment A) on
1/13 , 2006 addressed to (se,e Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be
placed in a U.S, mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon.
~~~~
KAREN LaFLEUR I '
,STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ I') , 2006. 'Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Clerk III,
'tjo acknoijledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me:
;r-------O;F;C,;,;~L-----f. . ~Jt! ~-'~-.
( BRENDA JONES I . -
i . NOTARYPUBLlC.OREGON I ,,' . ~ ~ /)..., j
i COMMISSION NO, 379218 i My CommISSIon Ex es:"'. (/ I CTCltJo
L___~:~~~I~N!!~E~~~2.::~o~A !,
. ~ '
:,
c
~~.
",\. -,
"
,
TYPE II TENTATIVE SUBDlVSIONREVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & AMEMDED DECISIQN
Project Name: King Henry's'Court
Project Proposal: Subdivide a residential lot into] 0 residential lots
Case Number: SUB2005"00030
Project Location: 1888 Hayden Bridge Road, 17-03"24-34, TL ] ] 00
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR, Q Street
... :
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: 1/7/05
Application Submitted Date: 6/3/05
Amended Decision Issued Date: January 13, 2006
, Recommendation:, Approvai with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: January 2:\;2006
Natural Features: None
Development Issues: Access
Density: 5.6 units per acre
'Associated Applications: PRE2004-00057, LRP2004"000]5, ZON2004"00012
. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION
I Project Mana,ger
I Transportation Planning Engineer
I Public Works Civil Engineer
I Public Works EIT
I Deputy Fire Marshall
I Community Services Manager
I REVIEW Of'
Planning
Transportation
Utilities
Sanitary & Stornl Sewer
Fire and Life Safety
Building
NAME
Sarah Summers
Gary McKenney
Eric Walter
Matt Stouder
Gilbert Gordon
Dave Puent
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner/Applicant: ,
Walter Drew, G & R Building Concepts
2660 City View
Eugene, OR 97405 .
Engineer:
Weber Elliott Engineering
,PO Box 10]45 '
Eugene. OR 97440
'I
I PHONE 1
726-4611 1
I 726-4585 I
I 736-1034 I
736-1035 I
726-2293 1.
726- 3668 I
. I
King Henry's Court Neighborhood
Site for King Henry's Court
'. ....
'.
2
AMENDED 'DECISION: Tentative Plan approval, with conditions, as of the date of
this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to
each criterion of Subdivision Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the
submitted plans and notes unless soecificallv noted with findinos and conditions
necessarv for comoliance. Public and Private Improvement Plans 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 THIS LETTER: None. Future development will be in
accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements-and agreements, and all
applicable state, local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This ap'plication 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' June 3, 2005. The decision was issued an the 39th day of the
120 days mandated by the state. BecaLlse Lane County will not permit the proposed
access, a new design for the subdivision is proposed. The amended decision is based
on review of the new subdivision design proposed.
. BACKGROUND/SITE INFORMATION
The, applicant is requesting approval of King Henry's Court, a 10-lot subdivision, from '
one existing parcel of about 1,79 acres. The property is located at 1888 Hayden Bridge
Road (Tax Map 17-03-24-34, Tax LoU 100). The property has been annexed into the
City (LRP2004-00015). The site contains a single family residence and two outbLlildings
which will be removed. The 10 lots will be single-family residential lots. The prope1;ly is
zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and is designated LDR in the Metro Plan and Q
Street Refinement Plan. Adjacent properties are zoned LDR/UF-10 and designated LDR.
'The applicant is proposing improvements to include street, sidewalks, street lights, street
trees, utilities, and hydrant. .
WRITTEN COMMENTS
ProcedLlral Finding 1: Applications for'Limited Land Use Decisions require the
notification of property owners/occupants within 100 feet of the proposed development
allowing for a 14 day comment period on the a'pplication (SDC 3.080 and 14.030)., The
applicant and parties subl11itting written comments during the notice period have appeal
rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. .
Procedural Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.080 and 14,030, 'notice of the new
subdivision design was sent to owner/occupants within 100 feet of the subject site on
12/19/2005, The following written comments were received in response to the Notice of
Surrounding Property qwners: '
Bruce and'Donna Wilson. 1861Yenta Ave, Springfield.97477 dispLlte the planned'
subdivision becaLlse the integrity of the neighborhood will be affected by the lot size and
home size, The planned 10 homes would pLlt a minimum of 10-20 extra cars for traffic
that is barely maintained with the traffic light, and accelerated when guests come. The
neighborhood consists of older well maintained homes. Building ,a low valLie subdivision
would lessen the value of neighboring homes and create a safety hazard.
3
Flovd and Nancv Scott, 2423 19th Street, Springfield 97477 are concerned about
adeqLlate off street parking and curb side garbage pickLlp when 19th Street parking is
occupied. The increased density will create escalating friction among residents not used
to sLlch limiting restrictions and lack of space reducing the;ir quality of life.
STAFF RESPONSE:
1. The sLlbjectproperty has been annexed into the City of Springfield. All of the
proposed lots exceed the minimLlm sizes and frontage requirements of the Springfield
Development Code. Please see Criteria (1)'below. The ELlgene/Springfield Metropolitan
Plan sets the standards for density which for Low Density Residential (LOR) Districts is
Lip throLlgh 10 units per developable acre. The cities are encouraged to achieve higher
densities. The density for the proposed sLlbdivision is 5.6 L1nits pe~,acre. The lots in the
, surrounding county subdivisions which are on septic systems are about 6,675 squa're
feet to 10,000 sqLlare feet. The proposed lots range from 5,941 square feet to 8,899
sqLlare feet. 'The proposed lots are not small, nor is this:a proposed low valLie:
subdivision.
2. All properties in the'area are zoned for single family houses in the city or the county.
3. Both Hayden Bridge Road and 19th Street are county roads. The county determines
access onto these roads and wOLlld not permit access onto 19th Street as previously
proposed. The Lane County has approved this current access design. Please also see
comments under Criterion (4). .
4. All residences in Springfield are required to have at least 2 off-steet parking spaces:
SDC 35.030 Tentative Plan - General
Fin'ding 3: SDC 35.030(3)(c) requires a solid screen be provided along the property line
of a lot or record where the paved accessway for panhandle lots is to be located. .
Condition of Approval:
. 1. Asolid screen in accordance with SDC 31.160 shall be provided along tti~ west and
north sides of the access easement from Hayden Bridge Road (SDC 35.030(3)(c).
SDC 35,040 Subdivision Standards'Tentative Plan Drafting R~quirements
Finding 4: SDC35.040(1 )(e) requires the name and address of the owner and land'
sLlrveyor.
Finding 5: SDC 35.040(1)()states that the dimensions in feet and size of each lot is
required. All lot dimensions are not shown.
Conditions of Approval:
2. As required by SDC 35.040( 1 )(e), the name and address of the owner and land
. surveyor shall be on the plat. .
, '
3. All dimensions in feet of each lot are required to be ,shown on the 'plat.
4
CRITERIA OF SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 35.050 of the Springfield Development Code states that The Director shall approve
or approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application upon determining
that criteria (1) through (8) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be
attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application,
(1) The request as conditioned fully conforms to the requirements of this code
pertaining to lot, size and dimensions.
,
Lot Sizes and Frontage.
Finding 6' Lots on east-west streets must have a minimum ,lot size of 4,500 square feet,
and a minimum frontage of 45 feet (SDC 16,030(1)).
, Finding 7: Lots 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are larger than 4,500 sqLlare feet and have more
frontage than the 45-foot minimum. .
FindingS: Lots on cul-de-sac bLllbs must have a minimum of 35 feet frontage and a
minimum ,lot area of 6,000 square feet (SDC 16.030(3)(e)). .
Finding 9: Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the cLlI-de-sac bulb are greater than the required
6,000 square feet and have more frontage than the required 35 feet.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 1.
(2) The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan Diagram an'd/or applicable'
refinement plan diagrams.
Finding 10: The zoning for this property is Low Density Residential (LOR). It is
designated Low Density Residential in the Metro Plan and the Q Street Refinement Plan.
The Plan and the local zoning designation are consistent indicating no conflict. No
change to the zoning designation or boundaries is proposed.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 2:
(3) Proposed on-site'and off-site public and private improvements are
sufficient to accommodate the proposed developmentas specified in
, Articles 31; 32 the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay district article
and any applicable refinement plan.
General Finding 11: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private
professional civil engineer to design the subdivision improvements in conformance with
City codes, this decision and the current Engineering Design Standards ManLlal. The
private civil engineer shall also be required to providf? construction inspection services.
, '
General Finding 12: 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. "
5
General Finding' 13: Criterion 3 contains three' different elements with sub-elements and
applicable code standards, The subdivision application as sLlbmitted complies with the
code standards listed under each sub-elemeni unless otherWise noted with specific
findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and code standards of Criterion 3,
include but are not limited to:
3a Public and Private Improvements in Accordance with SDC 31 and 32
o PLlblic Streets and Related Improvements (SDC 32.020-32.090)
o. Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 32.100) .
o Storm 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 PLlblic and Private Easements'(SDC 32.120(1) and (5))
3b 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 Stan'dards (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)
3c Overlay Districts and Applicable RefinementPlan Requirements
o Q Street Refinement Plan '
o The site lies within the combined 10/20lZone of Contribution TOTZ ' '
of the Maia Wellhead.
3a Public. and Private Improvements in Accordance with SDC 31 and 32 .
Finding 14:The Development Review'Committee reviewed the proposed 10-lot
subdivision and the surrounding public services. Except for the following, the proposed
public and private improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed parcels.
$treet Name'
'Finding 15: The proposed street name was reviewed by the Lane County Street Naming
Committee. The committee recommended the following change for consistency and
safety: King Henry's Court needs to be named King Henry Court. No apostrophes are'
permitted in street names. '
,Condition of Approval:
"."
4. On the final' plat, the street shall be named King Henry Court in conformance
with City street naming, 911 and the Lane County Street Naming Com,mittee.
Street Liahts "
Please see Criteria 4 below.
Utilities
6
" '
Finding 16: SDC 32.120(5)(a)states that an applicant proposing a development shall
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 minimLlm width for PUEs adjacent to street rights of way shall be 7 feet. The
minimLlm width for all other PUEs shall be 14 feet.
Finding 17: The subdivision will receive water service from .the Springfield Utility Board.
Please see the letter from SUB dated June 27, 2005. '
Finding 18: Plans submitted show aT PUE abutting the property line's along all street
frontages, a 16'-wide private maintenance and access easement along the east and
northerly property lines of Lots 8 and 9. Private drainage easements are shown for lots
8and9. '
, Finding 19: The Springfield Utility Board has not had the opportunity to review the
amended plat.
Conditions of Apllroval:'
5. The applicant shall determine with SUB Water and Electric the necessary
easements prior to submission of the final plat. ' .
6. Prior to final. plat approval, the applicant shall submit easement descriptions
for the private and public utility easements in the location and width '
necessary to accommodate the development proposal..
7. Prior to final plat approval,"the applicant shall record ail private and public'
easements as approved by the City.
Note: Ed Head at SUB electric can be contacted at 726-23'95.
Fire and Life Safetv
Finding 20: Parking on the neck of the cul-de-sac is permitted on one side only.
(SFC 503.2.1). . .
. Finding 21: Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 Ib imposed load:
. (SFC 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D1 02.1) ,
Conditions of Approval:
8. ,"No Parking" signage shall be posted per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix
D1 03.6 on one side of the "neck" of the cul-de-sac.
, .
9. King Henry CLshall support an 80,000 Ib imposed load. .
, Sanitarv Sewer
Finding 22: 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.
, '
7
Finding 23: The applicant has proposed extending an 8 inch public sanitary sewer line
from 19th Street to service all lots in the proposed subdivisicln. The sewer line is
proposed to extend to lot 7, and then split and run north and south. The northerly line
will lie in King Henry Court, while the southerly line will serve lots 8-10 via a back lot
easement. A large portion of the public line is proposed to be located behind the
sidewalk in a 7 foot PLlblic Utility Easement.
Finding 24: Section 2.02.1 of the City's Engineering Design. Standards and Procedures
Manual (EDSpM) states that when land outside a new development will logically direct
flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers shall be public sewers a'nd
shall normally ,extend to one or,more of the property boundaries, .
Finding 25: The City's EDSPM states in Section 2.02.8 that sewers shall be located in
the right-of-way at street centerline or within 5 feet of centerline of the street. Sewers in
easements shall only be allowed after all reasonable attempts to place the mains in the
rights-of-way have been exhausted.
Finding 26: The proposeq sewer lines will have to be relocated to satisfy EDSPM "
standards 2.02.1 and 2.02.8,
Finding 27: An extra-territorial extension will be rieededdue to construction/connection
of the new sewer lines ,in 19th Street and Hayden Bridge Road, Hayden Bridge Road
and 19th Street are County streets, thus the requirement for extra-territorial extension
through the Lane County Boundary Commission.
Conditions of Approval:
10. Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Project, the applicant shall revise'
, the public sanitary sewer system to align in'the street right-of-way within 5 .
feet of centerline. The sewer line servicing lots 1-7 shall be relocated. The
, sanitary sewer system servicing lots 8-10 shall be constructed in Hayden
Bridge Road, as required in Section 2.02.8 of the City's EDSPM.
. '
11. The applicant shall apply for an extra-territorial extension for new sewer
construction in 191h Street and Hayden Bridge Road.
NOTE: Sanitary sewer plans and proposed systems must be reViewed by and
are subject to approval by the City Engineer.
, Stormwater Manaaement
Finding 28: Section 32.110 (2) of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall
grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater
management systems 'provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works
Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM).
Finding 29: Section 32.110 (3) of the SDC, states that a storniwater management system
'. shall accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether
inside or outside of the development. '
"
8
..
'. .
. . ' \ .
Finding 32: The applicant has shown construction notes on ,the utilities plan sheet
indicating storm pipe will be constructed of ADS pipe material. . Current City policy does
not'allow the use of ADS pipe to be constructed within the right-of-way.
Finding 33: Stoimwater rLlnoff from the rooftops will be directed into onsite drywells,
while runoff from the joint-use driveway will be directed into small vegetated infiltration
trenches located adjacent to the driveway. The applicant has proposed dedication of
.two 8-foot private drainage easements along the south portion of the proposed driveway
to accommodate the infiltration trenches. A private drainage easement along the
easterly portion of the driveway has not been proposed to accommodate an infiltration
tren<:;h.
Conditions of Approval:
12. Prior tei approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall dedicate a private
drainage easement, of sufficient width, along the easterly boundary-of the
proposed joint-use driveway on lot 8 to accommodate runoff from the driveway,
13. Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plans (PIP), the applicant shall
, design the storm drainage system (within the public right-of-way) with a pipe
material approved for use in the right-of-way.
Water Qualitv
Finding 34: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered
Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the
City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm
'Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate
efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable
(MEP). '
Finding 35: Fed,eral and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules
require the City's'MS4 plan address six "Minimum Control Measures." Minimum,Control
Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and
Redevelopment," applies to the proposed development.
Finding 36: Minimum Control Measure 5requires the City of Springfield to develop,
implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater
runoff to the MEP. The City must also develop and implement strategies that include a
combination of structLlral or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
, appropriated for the community.
9
Finding 37: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield use an
ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post construction runoff from new
and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory
mechanisms used by the City include the Springfield Development Code (SDC), the
City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future
Storm water Facilities Master Plan (SFMP).
, '
Finding 38: As required in Section 31.050 (5) of theSDC, "a development shall be
required to employ drainage management practices 2lpprov,ed by the Public Works
Director and consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual."
Finding 39: Section 3,03,C of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures,
Manual (EDSPM) requires that all public and private developments employ a system of
one or more post-developed Best Management Practices (BMPs) that in combination
are designed to achieve at least a 70% reduction in the TSS in the runoff generated by
that development.
Finding 40: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield
Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant h.as proposed vegetated
infiltration trenches to control stormwater runoff from the joint-Lise driveway.
, Finding 41: A detail drawing for the vegetated infiltration trenches has not been
submitted with the plan set. A vegetative seed mix, consistent with the City of Portland's
Stormwater Management Manual, has also not been proposed for use with the
vegetative infiltration trenches.
. Conditions of Approval:
14. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the.applicant shall provide a typical detail
drawing for the proposed vegetative infiltration trenches, consistent with the
City of Portland's Stormwater ManagementManual, showing appropriate
dimensions such as width, depth, etc.
..: .
, .
15, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a typical seed
mix and application rate for the proposed vegetative infiltration trenches. The
seed mix shall be consistent with the City of Portland's':Stormwater
, Man?gement Manual. . .
3b Conformance with standards of SDC 31, Site.Plan Review, and Article 16,
. Residential Zoning' .
Finding 42: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 10-lot '
sLlbdivisionand the existing and proposed improvements. .
Finding 43: As previously conditioned, the proposal is in conformance with SDC Articles
31 and 16. ,.
Conclusion: This, sub"element of the criterion is satisfied.
',10
3cOverlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
Finding 44: The develop'ment is within the Drinking Water Protection Overlay
District because it is in the 10/20/Zone of Contribution TOTZ of th~ Maia Wellhead.
Finding 45: As previously conditioned, the policies of the Drinking Water Protection
Overlay District are satisfied. ,
,-
Conclusion: This sub-element of the criterion is satisfied.
(4) Parking areas,and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate
vehiculartratfic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide
connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas,
transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial
and public areas; minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets as
specified in Article 31, 32, the appropriate zoning and/or zoning overlay
district article and any applicable refinement plan; and comply with the
ODOT access management standards for state highways, .,
Finding 46: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposedsLlbdivision. '
Except for the fOllowing, the proposed parking, driveways and access points are
sufficient to serve the proposed parcels., '
Subdivision Access and Circulation
Finding 47: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict
'points. The greater number 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
, '
permits 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 i!
public street."
Finding 48: Existing access to. the property is via a 14-foot wide driveway onto Hayden
Bridge Road, which would be closed. The applicant proposes a 16-foot wide joint-use.
access easement to serve Lots 8, 9 and 10 via a driveway onto Hayden Bridge Road at
the western boundary of the property. No lotswould take direct access to either 19th
Street or Hayden Bridge Road.
,FindingA9: 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.
, Conditions of Approval:
.16. Provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of all
, site, driveways per SDC 32.070.
11
. ,
17. A joint'use access/maintenance and utility easement for Lots 8, 9and 10 is
required to be submitted with the final plat.
Transportation System Impacts and Improvements
Finding 50: Abutting the subject site, both Hayden Bridge 'Road ,and 19th Street are two-
lane major collector streets, and are under Lane County jurisdiction. The streets are
improved with paving, 'curb/gutter, bicycle lanes, street lights and sidewalks, which ,
support multi-modal travel. Traffic volumes on Hayden Bridge Road and 19th Street are
approximately 8,400 vehicles per day and 3700 vehicles per day respectively. L TD
Ro'ute #12 provides regular transit bus service to the site along Hayden' Bridge Road and
connects to the greater transit system via Springfield Station. At the intersection bf
Hayden Bridge Road/19th Street dedicated left-turn lanes are provided and traffic is
controlled by a multi-phase traffic signal.
.'
Finding: Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) trip
generation from the 10 dwelling units allowed by this subdivision wOLlld be as. follows:
. Average Weekday = 10 dwelling units x 9.57 trips per dwelling unit= 100
trips .
. PM Peak Hou~ = 10 dwelling L1nits x 1.0ttrips per dwellingunit " 10 trips
In addition, the assumed development would generate pedestrian and bicycle trips.
Accoraing to the "f-:lousehold" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 1'2.6 percent.of household
. trips are made by bicycle or walking and ,1.8 percent are by transit bLls. These. trips may
have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this Lise. Pedestrian
and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks,
bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. '
Finding 51: Street lighting is installed along Hayden Bridge Road and 19th Street abutting
the development site. No street lighting is proposed within'the King Henry's Court cul-
de~sac. To provide for safe pedestrian and vehicular access, street lighting is needed.
that will adequately illuminate the street and sidewalk areas adjacent to the development
site. The city's street lighting standards, which are based on the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES) American National Standard Pr~ctice for Roadway Lighting
RP-8, specify the lighting type and requireiJ lighting levels for street and pedestrian
areas. '
. Finding 52: As conditioned below, existing and planned transportation facilities would be
aiJequate to accommodate additional trips that would be generated by the proposed
development in a safe and efficient manner.
Coridition of Approval:
. .18. The public improvement plans for the King' Henry's Court cLlI-de-sac shall
,include, street lighting in conformance with current City design standards. "
,
Note: Construction activities within the abutting Hayd",n Bridge Road and 19th
Street rights-of-waywill reqLlire permits from Lane County.
Conclusion:.As conditioned, this criterion is satisfied.
..<
"
12
" ,
(5) Physical features, including but not limited to significant clusters of trees
and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map arid their associated
riparian areas, wetlands, rock O,utcroppings and historic features have
been evaluated'and protected as required by the Code. -
(6) .
f
Natural and Historic Features
, Finding 53: The Metro Plan, the draft NatLlral Resources Special Study, the National
Wetland Inventory Map and the Hydric Soils Map, the Washburne Historic District and
the list of Historic Landmark Sites, have been consulted. There are no invel}toried
natural resoLlrces on the development site. '
Finding 54: There are no inventoried historic features or archeological sites located on
the development site. If any artifacts are encountered dLlring 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" feloriy to proceed under
ORS 97.740. .
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 5.
o . .. .
The proposed development and associated site alterations have been
designed and located in a manner that demonstrates that they will protect
the state and federally designated beneficial uses of and standards for
. groundwater and surface water quality on and/or adjacent to the site and
will ensure that state anti-degradation requirements are met,
Finding 55: The site is within the 10/20/Z0C TOTZ of the Maia Wellhead.
Finding 56: SDC 32.110(5) requires a development to employ drainage management
practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent with Metro Plan
policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures ManLlal.
Finding 57: The applicant has submitted storm water management and quality pians that
have been reviewed and approved as conditioned by PLlblic Works.
Finding 58: The proposal as conditioned complies with storm water quality standards set
forth in the SDC and Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
, ,
Conclusion: This proposal as conditioned satisfies Criterion 6. '
(7), Development of any 'remainder of the property under the same ownership
. can be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this code.
"
Finding 59: The entire property is proposed to be divided for low density residential use.
None of the lots is large enough to be further divided. All lots in the proposed subdivision
can be developed for LDR use. '
Finding 60: This criterion does not apply because the applicant proposes to develop all
of.the property under the same ownership. "
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 7.
13
(8) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided. access thatwill allow its
development in accordance with the provisions ofthis code.
Finding 61: Surrounding properties are outside the City Limits and contain existing
county subdivisions.
Finding 62: This criterion,has been met because all adjacent land can be developed or
provided access to pLlblic streets.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 8.
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Subdivision, as submitted and conditioned,
complies with Criteria 1-8 of SDC 35.050, No portions of the proposal approved as
submitted may be substantively changed during the public improvement or
platting processes as stated inSDC 35.100, '
What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to two vears from the date of this letter to
fDeet all of the attached'conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a
Final Subdivision Plat. If the PLlblic Improvement Plans and/or the Final Plat are not in
substantial conformity to the tentative plans, the applicant must submit an application for a
modification.
The Final Plat is 'required to go through a pre-submittal process. After the Final Plat application
is complete, it must be submitted as a Type I application to the Springfield Development
Services Department. A separate application and fee will be required. Upon signature by the
City Surveyor and the Planning Manager, the Plat may be submitted to Lane COLlnty Surveyor
. for' signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until the plat is
recorded and five (5) copies of the filed subdivision are returned to the Development
Services Department by the applicant. .
CONDITIONS OF APPROvAL:
The Director has determined the Tentative Subdivision Plan as conditioned satisfies the
requirements of the Springfield Development Code. The following conditions are
necessary to satisfy the intent of this Code: . , ' ' , , '
1. A solid screen in accordance with SDC '31.160 shall be provided along the west and
north sides of the access easement from Hayden Bridge Road (SDC 35.030(3)(c),
2, As required by SDC 35.040( 1)( e), the name and address of the owner and land
, surveyor shall be on the plat.
3. All dimensions in feet of each lot are requiredto be shown on the plat.
4. On the final plat, the street shall be named King Henry Court in conformance with
City street naming, 911 and the Lane County Street Naming C'ommittee.
. 5. The applicant shall determine with SUB Water and Electric the necessary easements
prior to subr:nission of the final plat.
"
14
6. 'Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit easement descriptions for the'
private and public L1tility easements in the location and width necessary to
accommodate the developm'ent proposal.
7. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall record all private and public easements
as approved by the City.
8. "No Parking" signage shall be posted per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D103.6 on
one side of the "neck" of the cul-de-sac.
9. King Henry Ct. shall SLlppOrt an 80,000 Ib imposed load.
10. Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Project, the applicant shall revise the
public sanitary sewer system to align in the street right-ofcway within 5 feet of
centerline. The sewer line servicing lots 1-7 shall be relocated" The sanitary sewer
system servicing lots 8-10 shall be constructed in Hayden Bridge Road, as r~quired
in Section 2.02.8 of the City's EDSPM.
11. The applicant shall apply for an extra-territorial'extension for n~wsewer con'structicin
in 19th Street and Hayden Bridge Road. '
,
12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall dedicate a private drainage
easement, of sufficient width, along the easterly boundary of the proposed joint-use
, ,
driveway on .lot 8 to accommodate runoff from the driveway. . ,
13. Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plans (PIP), the applicant shall design the,
storm drainage system (within the public right-of-way) with a pipe material approved
for Lise in the right-of-way.' ~"
14. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a typical detail drawing
for the proposed vegetative infiltration trenches, consistent with the City of Portland:s
Stormwater Management Manual, showing appropriate dimensions such as: width,
, I
depth, etc, I
15. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a typical seed mix' and
application rate for the proposed vegetative infiltration trenches. The seed mix shall'
be consistent with the City of Portland's Stormwater Management Manual. "
16. Provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of all site
driveways per SDC 32.070.
17. A joint-use access/maintenance and utility easement for Lots 8, 9 and 10 is required to be
submitted with the final plat.
18. The pLlblic improvement plans for the King Henry's COLlrt cul-de-sac shall include
street lighting in conformance with current City design standards. '
Permits R'equired:
. . All new se';"er taps will r~quire permits from the Public" Works Department prior to
, connection.
, ' '
15
. Sidewalks and driveway cLlrb CLlts and closures require permits from the Public
Works Department. . '
. An LDAP permit is required for all grading, filling and excavating being done. The
location and depth of fill placed on the lots mLlst be documented. It is
recommended by the BLlilding Department that fill not be placed on building pads
unless it is properly compacted and documented by an engineer or testing
laboratory. ' '
. A Lane County Facility Permit is required for construction activities within the
abutting Hayden Bridge Road and 19th Street rights-of-way;
. A Lane County Facility Permit is required for any construction within the right-of-
way of roads Linder County jurisdiction.
Additional Information: The application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and the applicable criteria of approval are available for a free inspection and
copies will be available for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Tentative Subdivision decision is considered a decision of the
Director'and as such may be appealed to the Planning Commission, The appeal maybe
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
sLlbmitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the
Planning Commissionapproves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for a 10-day appeal period and Oregon
Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 1 O( c) for service of notice by mail, ,the appeal period for
this decision,expiresat 3:00p.m, on January 24,2006,
Questions: Please call the Sarah Summers in the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department at (541 )726-4611 if you have any questions regarding this process.
PREPARED BY
O~~
Sarah Summers
Planner
, 16
I' ,,' YOLANDA PARK
'---, "17'~'''03-24-34',,
~l ; TL 36 ;TG FENC~ 89' {2' 35' E 234,38
~-----~)';XT~F.D- -"-"-
, '. :/:/:/ /l TO 8E REMOVED
~ EXTG '
n 36"WALNUl
Jr--- 0
C'J~
, \,n
I'
n..Jl
O~
1
r---
g
w
I Qj,
OJ
l I
I .~~
RtLO All ~ 1.0
" .~~~rl I ~g
~~~" .~. 22'8~
. ~', ", EXTG 5 SlDEWALK 'T I 1"-
ALNUT; ~,-me VI- :...J.r:.;~; '" n - J'-.....~,.-
'C'~' ~Dw~n.tWLE 0'"",1 ' O~r-~-
'u) -~ -<;y < '_r'" ,r;v;","'~- ,.1 \.0 .
HENRY \' EX!G -,' I 1;~~tIC/ ~! h69' 'I~
, \ . ~;Z,-,-,~~NKEY . VAULT '"' 1~1-1' wi W
@ I EXTG 14" MAGNOLIA \' I ~rr':~1{ ,~ I~ ~ II
COURT ~ - RllOCAlUl'<; F ~EXTG II(E
~ ~ \.-w.- ~ .. ~>~ ~~ I ~ I
/.4~ W IS I ~""l, 1 8
, '\" ~t J /
~ ~ "iXTG Q TI\HEA~ EXTL~ ", ;x 'p WATtR [MElEY ,
, W POWi:R .lNt IPOWER POLE') i,,' - Lv,' ',~
'TO 8E' RI MO'lED b ' I 7' .' - ,I--. , '*
~ ' \ L T 7, , '
LOT 6 6.069 SF W ' '
6,298 S EXTG F :NCE I' EXTG -i' , I--
\ ' TO 8E REM( VED--j1-S' STREET TI; ..---b1..-
I EXTG TRAmt I,.. ------:~ --
SrGr~AL. VAUL : ~ .
, EXT,G ISS1R:tT ~ (j)
_ _ --2REE~ '"''
.r-'I 1 \ r--. . I ~~-C
~~ ., '~~~~~ '//' '1/ ~;~
~,VMt~..w~ 0, ~' '" 1 EXTGSPEED SIGN--- l~ Vl z
~ EX~J''-'' /W;JtXTGIS S~fE~~EE~ ~ ~~ ;,;
~ LOT 8 26 F~R_~} LOT 9 EXTG /'~;iRS~TU8-k ;~ ~
~ 8.899 SF 6,977 SF . & WATER METER [ ~ ~ _" w
~ EXTG EXTG ORiVEWA" FlELOC, TED EXTG 1.5" STREET TREE~~ ~
~ IS STREET2EES NO BE'REAOVEl STREE' , ;) ~
, 00" ,~=_ ' ~3.0', ~,. g~",~ ?%!;' EXTG ~
-.. - "" < - ,I;- I ^ -II ~~.=y .I() ADA ,AMP
qa~TE/)' =- I ,I I \ = ~
s.~.fn H S9"J6 jJ W llotiti[ \ XfG-
TREE ~ EXTG DRll'EYlAY CURB c,lh 'TO 8~LOSED \ PEDESTRIANI
_"'~ ~ eXTG""'-- _ \.. SIGNAL
, EXTG 16 WATER MAIN SPEED' SIGN 35' EXTG
UTILiTY 80X
,"
~
z
o
-'
I-
o
O. ~
~.;
I n", ~
l- CD I ?>
X~7 :5
_nC'J ..
(f) .1, b
, ..In z
.~o
'~I
0::: r---
~
........
0....
<:(
o
z
<(
-1
o
>-
7
n
10
~O
C'JC'J
I~
n..J
O~
I
r---
~
. ' I
SEVENTH' ADDITI(j)N
17-03-24~34
TL1 000 EXT: TRAFFIC SIG~
, '/"EXTG FENCE ' , (/E: TG 2" WATER
-'- - ~Iv 1'1
',11/ .'
EXT~,1.'5. STREET TR~ ~ J.
, LOT 1 I
5,941 5F
,;
,.2h
17-03-':24-34
TL #1100
..
'OD
LOT 2
6,630 SF
LOT 3
7,591 SF
,
[rEXTG
LOT 4
, 6.729' SF
EXTG <;;)
2- 10. TREE<r-<;;)
LOT 5
7.616 SF
{.;
EXTG
26" MONKEY
PUZZLE'
r:? _
, ~'
. J eJ
..l!.+~~t- ,'T
t
EXTG 18" SO PIPE
H A YD EN
BRIDGE ROAD
I
EXTG so MH
RIM 458,6Q
,.1..
EXTG
/"
". I
z
"
""
"
<
,
,
-
x
w
in (
z
C) "
,f0-
x "
w (/)
0:
'c)
C)
f0-
X
W
y--
00 ,...
" ,...
'M '"
'" ,...
'" '"
~
'" ~
<J '" 0
" :>
'" -0:: .
,",' '"
'" "',..;
rl -l-J QJ'
U jj"M
,"4-<
'" ~ 00
"
jj "",...-1
~ ~ ~.
'" CO P.
~,..;'"
~
- . "" ~
I
i
j'
I;
[ ~
I
Heather Tucker
,2499 17th Place
'Springfield, OR 97477
George Brow
1862 Yenta Ave
Springfield, OR '97477
Rosetta Jenkins
1816 Yenta Avenue
Springfield, OR 97477
r--
"tJr--
O::::.....::t
r--
,,0-,
bO
"tJ'
OM ~
'-'0
'"
.
l-f'~' ~ "'0
()J l-i C1.I""""{
.w t'lj "'0 tJ)
rl oW >>'M
'\J CIJ CUl4-!
"' ;I: bO
>, "
!:::...c:,......( ....-1
C\l .u 0\-""
QJ cd CO P-.
I-:lU..-lCIJ
~
r--
r--
"""
r--
0-,
,,~ '
<J 0
'"
...; .
0.."tJ
...;,
Ul"" "
.,...,.j.,J .r-!
? r-- ""'
'" ~ bO
"" "
0-, 'M
;,4 ~ '-'
'"''''
~"'Ul
~
" . '. '- '.,
]
1
,
, i
, .
Don Miles
',1837 Hayden Bridge Rd'
Springfield, OR 97477
,.tr;:--'....."7""',,...'.-r.~.-'C,..,_-- .-: ;......,""~..t,.7"""..,-'""'::.-_T:,,,......-""'-"".....---.~.~',--~...,-.~
._-....-._~.
f '0"
f'
Glenn & Sonya Ganer
2431 19th Street
Springfield,' OR 97477
.'
Laurance & Betty Gingery
1868, Yenta' '
Springfield, OR 97477
~
,
Jeanette McNamee'
2439 19th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
.....
+-' .....
+J. '-S
0......
c.J '"
Ul
+-'
>,~~
c.J ~ 0
" "
'" +-' -
ZUl'"
.-<
"'d...c: \ll
~ .u ...-1
"''''''''
~ CD
." "
>-.C"i ..-1
'0 N ~
.-<<to.
~Nu)
~
Ul .....
".".....
(l) 0:::."'"
+-' .....
.-<~'"
'" CD
,:3: ~ 0:::
~ ,,0
" 0<1
~ "
.-< "."
.....~.-<
;3:"'~
>, 'M
.,,"'''''
"'" CD
'" "
0.....
;::.-.,\.0 l-i
o <Xl 0.
U~Ul
~
'I
i
I
i
, i
I
i
,Weber Elliott Engineering
PO' Box 10145
Eugene, OR, 97440
'~'- "-'~'---~-:--""'-;-~'-':-~_C''7'"'''''O': -~~"",--:;;;:.>.,::c,
Henry and Bea Blair
. 2660 City :View'
. Eugene, OR 97405
i-.
Rhonda McKichan
2419 17th Place
,.Springfield, OR 97477
/
,
Bruce and Donna Wilson
1861 Yenta,Ave
Springfield, OR 97477
.'
.'.
..\
"
I
Building Concepts
Walte, Drew,G & R
2660 City View
Eugene',OR 97405
.l'
.