HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 6/30/2006
, \.
~
,\
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
, STATE OFOREGON)
)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 Program Technician for the Planning Divisionofthe
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Te~hnician, I'pre~ared lJ,nd caused to be \
mailed copies ofSvd'2Dll(,,-ooo~5 rttf(i..u ({ &t~~ -Pcv.;f ~ 5Tro~
(See attachment "A") on &1 ~ :~006 addressed to (see '
Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
K&.JLUL~
KAREt.! LaFLEUR .
STATE OF OREGON, County of lane'
~lJ.iI1 J ~() I' .2006. Personally appearedthe above named Kar~n laFleur,
Pr g am Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
ac efore me:' "
~(fv/ .
.
My Commission EXPires:<~
'rH ~IJ~
"
l-~-'--'-------------- "
. OFFICIAL SEAL I
BRENDA JONES I
" NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON (
COMMISSION NO. 379218 "
:~~~~~~~s.:I~.:!I':.E~~:..2~~~J
, TYPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW, STAFF j
REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Strochlic Partition
ProjeCt Proposal:, Partit,ionorie residential parcel into two residential parcels
Case Number: SUB2006-00035
Project Location: 5059 D Street
Zoning: Low Density Residential {LDR}
~' '
, Comprehensive Plan Designation: ' LDR (per East Main Refinement Pian)
. - , . '
Pre-Submittal Meetiug Date: April 28, 2006
, Application Submitted Date:' May 26, 2006
.
Decision Issued Date: June)O, 2006
, .
Recommendatiou: Approval with Conditions
Appeal Deadline Date: July 17, 2006
','
-,
Natural Features: None
"
"
Deusity: ApproximatelY 7,7 unit'~ per 'acre
, '.
"
Associated Applicatious: PRE2006:00041
I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
I POSITION REVIEW OF
I Proiect Manager Planning
I Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation
I Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities
I Public Works Civil Engineer I Sanitary & Stonn Sewer
I Deputy Fire Marshal I Fire and Life Safety
I Communitv Services Manager I Building
NAME
David Reesor
Gary McKenney
Jeff Paschall
Jeff Paschall
Gilbert Gordon'
Dave Puent
PHONE
726-3783
726'4585
726-1674
726-]674
I 726-3661 '
I 726-3668'
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
. '
"
Owner! Applicant:
Deborah Strochlic
674 West 24'h Plac~
Eugene.OR9740S',
Engineer:
Michael 1. Kaiser\
Poage Engineerin~ & Surveying, Inc,
Springfield, OR 974Ti .
Surveyor:
Jonathan A, Oakes
Poage Engineering & Surveying,Inc,
Springfield, OR 97477 '
Site Map
100
200
-lOOFeel.
3"
o
."
N
W*E
s
D Tax Lots
[~ SUbJect property
DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date ofthis 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 notesnnle,ss specifically noted With findings and
" conditions necessary for compliance, PUBLIC AND PRIV 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 May 26,
2006, This decision is issued on the 35'h day of the 120 days mandated by the state,',
SITE INFORMATION: The subject parcel is located at 5059 D Street, Tax Map number 17-02-33-23
TL 6100, The lot currently has' an existing single family located on the site, There is an existing graveled
driveway for the home, with a fully improved City'street in front. The proposed rear parcel is currently
vacant, with the exception of an existing shed on site, The existing lot is currently fenced on all sides,
except for along the street. The subject lot has a total square footage of 11,207 square feet. The property is
zoned and designated LDR in the Metro Plan, Adjacent properties are also zoned and designated LDR,
Approval of the proposed partition would create a vacant parcel served by an access easement across
Parcel 1.
2
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 rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration',
. I "
Procedural Finding: ,In accordance with ;SDC 3,080 and 14,030, notice was sent to property
owners/o~cupants :vithin 300 feet of the subject site on May 31, 2006,' No written comments were
received,
CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENT A TIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 34,050 states that the Director shall approve or approve wit~ conditions a Partition Tentative Plan
application upon detennining that criteria (I) through (9) of this Section have been satisfied, If conditions
cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the applic~tion,
(1) The request conforms to the req'olirements of this Code pertaining to parcel size and
dimensions,
"
Finding 1: Pursuant to SDC Section 16,030(1), lots on east-west streets shall have a minimum lot
size of 4,500 square f~et and a minimum frontage of 45 feet. '
Finding 2: Proposed Parcels 1 and 2 meet the minimum:req!,irements for parcel ~ize,
Finding 3: Parcell has 58 feet of frontage which meets the'~inimum standard requirement.
Finding 4: SDC 16,030(6)(b)6,b, allows the Director to waive the requirement that buildable
lots/parcels have frontage on a public street when access, has been guaranteed via an irrevocable
join~ use/access easement and the front parcel contains an existing building, '
Finding 5: SDC l6,030(6)(b)6,b.i, requires that irrevocable access easement widths be not less th~m
14 feet in ,,:idth for a single panhandle lot. '
Finding 6: Proposed Parcel 2 has an access easement measuring 20 feet in width, 1l1is exceeds the
requirement for access widths as required in the SDC, and meets the minimum standard as set forth
in the Intemational Fire Code (IFe),
Finding 7; Parcel I has an existing house that would preclude room for a panhandle lot.
Conclusion: This pr~posal satisfies Criteri~n1,
(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 (LDR) by the Metro Plan
diagram and the East SpringfielctRefinement Plan, The zoning of the property'is LDR, consistent
with the Metro Plan and adopted Refinement' Plan, and n~ change to the zoning desih'1lation or
boundaries is proposed, " ' ,
, . '
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 2,
3
(3) Capacity requirements of public improvemeuts, includiug but not limited to water and
electricity; sauitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; aud 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 ,!r a utility provider shall determine
capacity issues.
General Finding 9: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain 'a private professional
civil engineer to desii,'Il the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision,
and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manua/ (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
partition, City staff's review comments have been incoTporated in findings and conditions
contained herein, '
General Finding II: 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 conclusions, The sub-ele(}lents and code
standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to:
Public improvements in accordance with SDC 31 and 32
o Public Streets and Related Improvements (SDC 32,020-32,090)
" Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 32,100)
o Stonll Water Management (SDC 32,110, 31.240)
o Water and Electric Improvements (SDC 32,]20(1))
o Fire and Life Safety Improvements (SDC 32,120(3))
, 0' Public and Private Easements (SDC 32,120( I ),and (5))
Condition of Approval:
1. For all 'public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to
design the partition improvements in conformance, with City codes, this' decision, and the
current EnJ,,>ineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), The private civil
engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services,
Public Streets and Related Improvements
Finding 12: 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
unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage shall be improved
to City specifications, Exception (a) notes that in 'cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement
Ag;eement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements
until such time that a City street improvement project is initiated,
Finding 13: Abutting the subject site, 'D' Street is a fully in;proved 33~foot wide two-lane local
street with curb, gutter, sidewalk or street light i~'provements, Average daily traffic on 'D' Street'
is estimated to be less than 500 vehicle trips per day, '
Finding 14: Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family, Detached Housing) full
development of the one additional parcel with single-family residential,uses would generate 10
4
additional vehicle trips per day and 1 PM peak-hour vehicle tiip onto the 'surrounding street
system, In addition, assumed de\Celopment may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips, According
to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, ] 2,6 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 15: Existing transportation facilities are adequate to accommodate additional vehicular
and pedestrian traffic generated by development on the proposed new parcel in a safe and
efficient manner.
. , j.
Finding 16: The existing hous~ does not have street trees adjacent to the sidewalk,
Finding 17: Section 32,050 et seq, oftIie SDC requires installation of street trees on City Streets,
.'
Finding 18: As shown on the Tentative Partition Map, the applicant is proposing to install 2 street
trees as to comply with Section 32,050 et seq, of the SDC.' ,
,
, ,
Finding 19: The Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) as adopted in
)006requires a 12 foot throat width for driveways:
Finding 20: Existing access to the property is via a'lO-foot':wide(throat width)'driveway onto 'D'
Street at the northern boundary of the site,
Con'ditions of Approval.:
2, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install two street trees as shown on the
Tentative Partition Plan from the City's approved list within the frontage of Parcel 1,
, .
3, Prior to Final Plat approval, the, applicant shall . exec\1te and record the
access/utility/maintenance easement needed to provide':access ~o Parcel 2 as prop~sed,
A, The applicant and/or property owner for parcel 2 shall provide and maintain adequate vision
clearance triangles at the comers of all site driveways per SDC 32,070,
. ' f. . ,0.\ ,
5, Priqr to issuance of a,building pern1it for Parcel 2, the applicant and/or property owner for
Parcel' 2 shall reconstru~t the existing 'IO-foot wide driveway to a'n\iriiinuin ?f a 12-foot
throat width consistent with the Engineering Desig)l Staildards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM) as adopted in 2006 and depicted in the City of Springfield Standard Drawing 3-19,
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Finding 21: 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 f~r maintenance activities,
" .
Finding 22: There is an existing private sewer line (the size is not noted on the plans) which serves
the exiting house which is located on the parcel I, The applicant has proposed to keep the existing
house connected to this sanitary sewer line, " ,
Finding 23: The applicant has proposed a new' 4" private sanitary sewer lateral to serve parcel 2 of
the partition, The connection to the existing 8 inch public sanitary sewer is in D Street.
5
Conditions of Approval:
6, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall stub 'the proposed sanitary sewer 'service
lateral for parcel 2 to th, e property line 'of the panhandle lot (northern boundary of the access
easem'ent to Parcel 2), ',' ,
7, Prior to approval of the 'Final Plat, the applicant, shall notate 'on the plan's the size of the existing
sanitary sewer lateral that serves the existing house on, parcel one,
Storm water Management
Finding 24: Section 32,110 (2) of the SDC reqUIres that the Approval Authoritx shall grant
development approval only where adequate public and/or private stonnwater managel11ent systems
provisions have been made as deternlined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the
Engineering Des(gn Standards and Proce,ltires Manual (EDSPM),
Finding 25: SeCtion 32:110 (4) of the SDC requires that run-off from a development shall be
directed to an approved stonnwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the
, '
discharge,
Finding 26: Section 32,110 (5) of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) requires new
developments to employ drainage management practices, which minim'ize the amourit and rate of
, surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote water quality,
Finding 27' To comply with Sections,32,II0 (4) & (5), the applicant proposes that the rooftop
runoff rrom parcel 2 shall be directed to a weep hole along the DStreet frontage via a 3 inch pipe
along the east property line and through the proposed access and utility easement.
Finding 28: There has been no provision provided for the stonnwater runoff created by the required
i\npervious pavement to access parcel,2,
Finding 29: The applicant has proposed grading the new driveway access to Parcel 1 such that
stonnwater runoff will be directed to D Street: '
Conditions of Approval:
'. ,
8: Prior'to issuance of a Building Pernlit for Parcel 2, the~applicant and/or property owner for
Parc~12, to comply Sections 32,110 (4) & (5), shall direct the rumifffrom the parcel 2 driveway
access to an approved stonnwater managem,ent system with sufficient capacity to accept the
discharge, -
Water and Electric System Improvements
Finding 30: 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
deveiopment and sufficient access for maintenance, Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates
,the design of the water system within Springfield city limits, The current plan proposal shows a
future Y. inch water pipe and water, meter within the proposed 20 foot wide access and utility
easement to service Parcel 2, '
Finding ,31: SDC 32,'120(2) states, "Wherever possible, l\tility lines shall be placed
underground, "
6
Finding 32: The proposed Tentative Partition Map does,:not show new electric lines going to
Parcel 2,
"
Conditions of Approval:
"
9, Prior t~ approv~i ofthe Final Plat, the partition plans ~hall be revised to show electric servi~e
extended to the building envelope area of Parcel I, '
10, Prior to issuance of a Building Pemlit, the appli~ant and/or owner of Parcel 2 shall install all
necessary underground electrical lines and other utility lines to service Parcel 2 'in accordance
with the'SDC 32,120(2), '
Fire and Life Safety Improvements
'Finding 33:,' The Int~mational Fire Code (IFC) requires a minimum 20 foot wide unobstructed
pathway to buildings/properties,
Finding 34: The proposed access easernent is 20 feet in width, which complies with the IFC,
. ... . I .
Finding 35: TIle 2004 Springfield Fire Code 503.2,3 and SFC Appendix Dl02,1 require that
Fire apparatus access ~oads shall support an 80;000 Ib, impo~ed load, ' , '
: " , .
Conditions of Approval:
11. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an' unobstrucied vertical freight of not less than 13 feet 6
inches, No parkiilg within the 20 foot wide easement for the 'fire apparatus access road (2004
Springfield Fire Code 503.2, i),
12, Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000,lb, imposed load per 2004 Springfield Fire
Code 503.2,3 and SFC AppendixDlO2, 1. ' '
, '
" \
13, "No Parking-Fire Lane" signage shall be posted on both sides of the 20 foot wide easement per
SFC 503,3 and SFC Appendix DlO3,6,
, 'Public and Private Easements
Finding 36: Section 32,120(5) of the SDC requires 'appli~ants proposing devdopments to make
arrangem~nts' with the City and each utility provider f6r the' dedication of utility easeme~ts
necessary to fully service the development' or'land beyonq, the development area, The minimum
width for public utility easements (PUEs) adjacent to' street rights-ot~way shall be 7 feet. The
minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 14 feet unless otherwise specified,
Finding 37:, In accoidance'With SDC 32,120(5), the applicant has proposed a 7-foot wide PUE
along the 0 Street frontage of the development site, ' '
Finding 38: The applicant has proposed a 20-foot wide access and utility easement across the
existing Parcell to service Parcel 2, The proposed access and utility easement will accommodate
'the paved driveway, underground utility iiiles,and a yegetated filter' strip to accommodate
, stonnwater runoff from the driveway:' '
7
Conditions of Approval:
14, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the 20-foot wide access/maintenance/utility easement
benefiting Parcel 2 shall be executed and recorded, and evidence thereof provided to the
City,
15, The, 7-foot wide Public Utility,Easement along the D Street frontage shall be recorded on
the Final Pial. ' :
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3,
, '
(4) The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
General Finding 39: Criterion 4 contains two elements 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 conciusimis, TIle elements,
sub-elements and Code standards of Criterion 4 include but are not limitecl 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 (SDt 16,060)
o Off-Street Parking Standards (SDC 16,070 and 31,170-230)
o Fence Standards (SDC 16,090)
o Landscaping Standards (SDC 31.130c 150)
o Scr~ening and Lighting (SDC 31.160) ,
4b Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements
o The site lies within the 10-20 Year Time of Travel Zone,
o The site,is within the East Main Refinement Plan ar"",,
.4a Conformance witlistandards of SDC 31, Site Plan Review, and SDC 16, R~sidential
Zoning
Off Street Parkiug Standards
Finding 40: SDC 16,070(5)(d) requires 2 off-street parking spaces for each single-family
dwelling, The existing house on proposed Parcel (will have access provided by a new driveway
along the northwest side .of the property, whiC;h the applicant is proposing to pave, In accordance
with SD~ l6,070(5)(d), a miniillum of two off-street parking spaces is required to accommodate
the parking, requirement for each parcel. ' , ,
Finding 41: The proposed newly paved driveway serving Parcel
16,070(5)(d) of the SDC.
complies with Section
Finding 42: The applicant has proposed to leave the existing driveway graveled, which will serve
Parc,,1 2 until a Building Penn it is applied Jor regarding Parcel,2, Because the apjJlicant is
creating a newly paved driveway for the ~xisting house on Parcel I, and Parcel 2 is not a multiple
panluindle lot, the access road serving Parcel 2' may be paved at the time a Building Pemlit is
submitted for Parcel 2, No driving or parking shall be allowed on the existing graveled surface
(the proposed access easement) until paving is complete,
8
, Conditions of Approval:
16, Prior,to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall satisfy the parkingrequirements for
the existing house on Parcel 1 by installing a minimum of two paved off-street parking
spaces (as shown on the Tentative Partition Map) to specifications as set forth in the
SDC,
17, Prior to approval of a Building Permit for Par~eI2,,,the proposed access easement shall be
paved fro'1' the edge of pavement on D Street to the pan area of Parcel 2' in accordance
with SDC 16:03()(6)(b)5,b, Pavement width shall ,be a minimum 12 feet in width as set
fOlih in SDC 16,030(6)(b)5,a,
, '
, '
18, No driving' or parking shall be allowed on the existing graveled surface (the proposed
access easement) until paving is complete,
Fence Standards
Finding 43: In accordance with SDC 16,()90'fences located behind the front yardsetback'for the
'proposed lots.shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Chain link fences located in the ffont 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 within the front yard setback,
Finding 44: The applicant IS responsible for installing any desired fencing within the
development area,
Conclusion: As cond~tioned' herein, this prop'osal satisfies Criterion 4a,
, . '
4b Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan ~~quiremei:tts
, '
Finding 45: Development Review staff nave reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking
Water Protection Overiay District arid Refinement Plan requirements, TIle proposed partition is
located withih the 10-20 TOtZ, Resid,ential uses are not required to apply for a DWP, No policies
of the East Main'R~finement Plan apply to the partition,
,Co;'clusion: This ~roposal satisfies Criterion4h, "
I ' .;,.
, , '
(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
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 this Code or other applicable regulations, and comply with the
ODOT ac~ess mana~ement standards for state h.ighways. '
Finding 46: The Development Review Committee, reviewed the proposed2_lot partition at a
Development Review Committee meetirig on J,une 13, 2006, The proposed parking, driveways
and access points are sufficient to serve the proposed par<~ds,except.as otherwise conditioned in
this document. '
"
9
~
Transportation System Impacts
Finding 47: For Transportation System Impacts Findings, please refer to Findings 11,12 & 13 in
this rep~rt,' ' ,
Site Access and Circulation
Finding 48: Installation of dnveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points,
The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes..' SDC 32,080(1)
(a) stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access tOJ! public str~et."
Finding 49: Existing access to the property is via a 10-foot wide driveway onto 'D' Street at the
eastern boundary of the site, The applicant proposes access to Parcel 2 via this driveway and a
20-wide access easement over'Parcell,
, Finding 50: The Tentative Partition Plan illustrates two sheds existing on the site, one of which
crosses over the proposed access easement.
Finding,~I: The Tentative Partition Plan indicates that both sheds will be removed from the site.
Condition of ~pprovaI:
19, In order'to assure proper site access and circulation, both sheds on site shall be removed by
the applicant prior to approval of the Final Plat.
Conclusion: As conditioned in this report, the proposai complies with 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 outcrop pings and historic features have been evaluated and
protected as specified in this Code oj- other applicable regulations, ,
Finding 52: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State
Designated Wetlands Map, Hydri~ Soils Map, WeJlhead 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, no ,existing trees in exc'ess of 5 inch dbh proposed
for removal at this time (as per tree felling dtandards set forth in Article 38), 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 discove;;'d during construction; it'is a 'Class "c" felony 'to
proceeo under ORS 97,740,
,Conclusion: This proposal 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 53: There is no other propertyunder the sam~ ownership that can b,e 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 Code.
10'
'Finding 54: Adjacent land is' currently developed with residential dwelling's and has access to
, public streets,' ,
Conclusion: This proposal satisfiesCriierion 8,
(9)
When no concilrrent annexatioii application submitted with a Partition Tentative Plan on
. property that is outside of the city limits but within the City's urbanizable area, the standards
specified below shall also apply.
Finding 55: The property'involved in this proposal is located inside the City Limits, Therefore,
Criterion 9 is not applicable,
Conclusion: This proposafsatisfies Criteriori 9,
, ,
CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as submitted and co~ditioned, complies with Criteria 1-9
of SDC 34,050. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively ,changed
during platting without an approved modification application i~ accordance with SDC 34.100.
, ' I,
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 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. 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
transferre,d 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:
"
P,
I, For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional 6ivil engineer to
design 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 sh~li be reqtlired to provide construction llspection services, ' ,
, ,
2, Prior to approval ofthe Final Plat, the applicant shall install two street trees as shown on the
Tentative Partition ,PlanJrom the City's approved list v.:ithin the frontage of Parcel I.
3, The applicant shall provide and m'aintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of
,all site driveways per SDC 32,070, '
4, Prior 'to issuance of a building permit for Parcel 2,the applicarit and/or property owner for
Parcel 2 shall reconstruct the existing 10- foot wide 'driveway toa minimum of a 12- fo()t
throat width consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM) as adopted in 2006 and depicted in the City of Springfield Standard Drawing 3-19,
5:, Prior to approval ofthe Final Plat, the'applicant shaH stub the proposed sanitary sewer service
lateral for parcel 2 to the northern boundary of the access easement to Parcel 2,
11
6, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall stub the proposed sanitary sewer service
lateral for parcel 2 to the property ,line of the panhandle lot (northern boundary of the access
easement to Parcel 2), '
7, 'Prior to issuance of a Building Penn it for Parcel 2, 'the ~pplicant and/or property owner for
Parcel 2, to comply Sections 32,110 (4) &(5), shall direct the runoff from the parcel 2 driveway
access to an approved stornl water management system with sufficient capacity to accept the
discharge, '
8, 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 I,
9, Prior to issuance ofa Building Pennit, the applicant and/or owner of Parcel 2 shall install all
necessary underground electrical lines and other utility lines to service Parcel 2 in accordance
with the SDC 32,120(2),
10, Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical height of not less than 13 feet 6
inches, No parking within the 20 foot wide easement for' the fire apparatus access road (2004
Springfield Fire Code 503.2,1),
II, Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 Ib, imposed 10aCl per 2004 Springfield Fire
Code 503,2,3 and SFC Appendix D102,l.
12, "No Parking-Fire Lane" signage shall be posted on both sides of the 20 foot wide easement per
SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix DI03,6,
]3, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the 20-foot wide accesslmaintenancelutility easement
benefiting Parcel 2 shall be executed and recorded, and evidence thereof provided to the City,
14, The 7-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the D Street frontage shall be recorded on the
Final Plat. ' .
15, Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall satisfy the parking requirements for the
, existing house on Parcel I by installing a minimum of two paved off-street parking spaces (as
shown on the Tentative Partition Map) to specifications as set forthin the SDC,
16, Prior to approval of a Building Pennit for P~rcel 2, the proposed "ccess easement shall be,
paved from the edge of pavement on D Street to the pan area of Parcel 2 in accordance with
SDC 16,030(6)(b)5,b, Pavement width shall be a minimum 12 feet in width , as set forth in
SDC 16,030(6)(b)5,a, '
17, No driving or parki(1g shall be allowed on the existing gravel,,;d surface (the proposed access
easement) until paving is complete,
18, In order to assu~e proper site access and circulation, both sheds on site shall be re1!'oved by
the applicant prior to approval of the Final Plat.
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and
the applicabie 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,
12
Appeal: This Type Ii Tentati~e Partition decision is considered a decision of the Director 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 retumed to the
appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application,
In accordance with SDC 15,020 'which provides for a IS-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, 011 July 17,2006, ,,'
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:
cp~~
David'Reesdr
Planner II
, "
'.-
'"
13
Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a
component of the partition decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
,Svstems Develonment Chames:
The applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when building pemlits are issued for
developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth 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 11), 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 upon the rates in effect at the time of permit submittal
for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Among other charges, SDCs for pail and recreation improvements will be collectcd at time. oJ building
permit issuance for a future house on"Parcels 2 and would be based on'the SDC~policy;:in effect-'at that
time, The applicant should consult with Willamalane Park and Recreation District for the current SDC '
costs,
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, have not previously been assessed or otherwise
participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to detemline if In-
Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable, [Ord,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 Permit - Required for working within a right-of-way or
public easement. Example: a new tap to the public stonn ,or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole,
Contact the Development Services Department for current rates 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 mav be necessarv:
. Plumbing Permit to re-connect the existing house to water and sewer, and to connect new stormwat'er
drain pipes
. Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
. Department ofEnviro~ent~1 Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands)
. US Artny Corps of Engineers (storm water dis'charge, wetlands)
14
. '
~,~'
'.,
'..-,
~
'. ' :1'-i~,i. ..'.' , '. ,'-:~;~;:";""'::~'~
"c " , .,' ';"CIty;QF!~fJRi~GFlELD"~,l,;:(;:,F: .;'tl
;,~~:(;:}iDEVELc5P,ME:Nr,SER~jCESDEPARfME~~~;" ;". ,;1;
?~ '"'~ - "~\:t'i'~: ";~;':<,c~~: '~~~~~~;2,~'~,5:t!lj ~~:'{ z-;;~"~ ~':'~,~: :,',":* ~':'.: ~,~ .~ ~
;;, "'("A'>,;SPRINGFIELD;OR97477 '..:.. '... ',',', '
., ~- ."'"';--: .' ,. ~t::-' ~ ':' -~,< .'~_,_~;}-';<:: <." i~".~~..- ~,~~~;';'c~Ii~';:Z~~ .~:
.----.,~---~~~ "'-:_':'-'-~~"'~ ~. -~_.~:_"~,~_":m'\Il.4_ _ -',.: _.......;~
" CITY OF SPRINGFIELD "
" DEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTM~NT~
, 2?55thS1, ',,"
'SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 '
.." ,'''." ,'~
" " "'i
.... \ ~
" -
" . .',' 'HI
, ':'_:,'~ "':_..:...:.JI
t
L1..><=:=:='=="'--""..' ..,.",.~~-
Michael J, Kaiser
Poage Engineering
PO' Box 2527
Eugene,' OR 97402
Jonathan Oakes
Poage Engineering
PO Box 2527
Eugene, OR 97402,
, "
. ':. ' ' ~,
_L,.~~.,i~' ,:;"~: '~r."-"~ ,,':~;'
" ' ,~,,"'" 'SPRINGFI~\,:O, . ' 1" ,.
, ,', : Cli'f 9F '-' ,- SDEf'AR1ME~ ,'., .
, ',i 'ORMEN1,SERy)~E< . ; 'i'., ,~,.,,:,.~,_
, 'DEVEL ", 225'5th 51- ".- ,:',", '.'
: : ," . 'O-R 97477 .,', . .,' ,
". '\::SP'R\NQF\~LD; ',",;' '". ' ,: T'
. ,." ," cJ_'Si .,.~ ,,0 '>'. ;':~
,_ ,_-J.: ~,/,:_..~~'.,.,,~ '0<:;"
St-rochlic
Deborah 24th rlace
674 ~est 97405
OR
Eugene,
{)