Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 10/25/2007 \. :City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 . 'y ~rR ~\~ LAND DIVISIqN TENTATIVE PLAN Staff Report & Decision Project Name: Bell Part 300 33rd Street Project Proposal: Partition one lot (.31 acre) into two parcels Case Number: SUB2007-00051 Project Location: 300 33rd Street 17-02-31-31, TL 3500 Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) . Overlay District(s): N/A Applicable Refinement Plan: Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: September 7, 2007 Application. Submittal Date: September 25,2007. DRC Meeting Date: October 16, 2007 Decision Issued Date: October 25, 2007 Recommendation: Approval with Cohditions Appeal Deadline Date: November 9,2007- Associated'APPlicatio,~7~000;; I POSITION 1 Planner II I Transportation Civil EnQineer 1 Public Works Engineer in TraininQ 1 Deputy Fire Marshal I EnQineerinQ Techflician .1 Civii Engineer I Parks Planner .REVIEW OF LandUsePlanninQ Transportation I Utilities, Sanitary & Storm Sewer I Fire and Life Saiety I SUB Electric Utilities I SUB Water Utilities I WiIlamalane Parks & Recreation NAME Molly Markarian GreQ Kwock Jesse Jones Gilbert Gordon Guenter Matyszak Rebecca Templin Pat French PHONE 726-4611 736-7134 736-1036 726-2293 736-3296 726-2396 736-4055 IWJXBBl!le1llNiRs~aEVEl!!l;\'nME'N1r~RE.V. ".IEW'mE1IlM!"~'--1~~(lilillllll!ll.).~.~~~Wj.. W'"~.,," ......"iJiJi....." V,'* ...'.%.,. .t!i., .:..1@M@X~1&j.... ..;..1.....~ JftffmWNi:ffifL..M.Y Owner/Applicant Applicant's Representative Robert & Leslie Bell James A. Branch, P.E., P.L.S. 868 6th Street Branch Engineering Springfield, OR 97477 310.Fifth Street 541.543.1043 Springfield, OR 97477 541.746.0637 Case No. SUB2007-00051 10114 DECISION ' This staff report and decision grants approval with conditions to the subject application, as of the date of this decision. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes (see Appendix A) unless specifically noted in this decision with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The plat, as well as the installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved tentative plan or 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 in its entirety. REVIEW PROCESS This application has been reviewed under the procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130, Type II Applications, and SDC 5.12-100, Land Divisions - Partitions and Subdivisions, This application was accepted as complete on September 25,2007, and this decision is issued on the 30th day of the 120 days permitted per ORS 227.178. COMMENTS RECEIVED . Applications for Type II limited land use decisions require notification of property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property and any applicable neighborhood association, allowing for a 14- day comment period on the application per SDC 5.1-130. The property owner, applicant, if different, and parties submitting written comments during the comment period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. In acCordance with SDC 5.1-130, notice was mailed to the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property on September 26, 2007. No written comments were received during the comment period. ,SITE INFORMATION The subject property is a .31 acre (13,317 square feet), irregular-shaped lot at the corner of 33'd Street and B Street and is located inside the City limits. The property is relatively flat, and soils are mapped as Awbrig-Urban Land Complex-6 and Coburg-Urban Land Complex-32. Currently, the property contains a residence, covered patio, shed, and carport on the west side of the property, facing and taking access from B Street, all of which are proposed to remain on Parcel 1. Although land in the vicinity to the south is zoned Community Commercial, the property is zoned and designated Low Density Residential, and land immediately surrounding the property on all sides 'is zoned Low Density Residential. LAND DIVISIONS - PARTITIONS AND SUBDIVISIONS - TENTATIVE PLAN CRITERIA SDC 5.12-125 states that an application shall be approved or approved with conditions upon determination that the criteria listed in SDC 5.12-125 A, through J. have been satisfied and that if conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria, the application shall be denied. Criterion 1 (SDe 5.12-125 A.I The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. Finding: SDC 3.2-215 states that on standard parcels on east-west streets in all residential zoning districts, the minimum area shall be 4,500 square feet, and the minimum street frontage shall be 45 . feet. SDC 3.2-215 also states that on corner parcels in all residential zoning districts, the minimum area shall be 6,000 square feet, and the minimum street frontage on east-west streets shall be 45 feet while the minimum street frontage on north-south streets shall be 60 feet. Finding: The applicant proposes to create two parcels as follows: 1 Parcel' Parcel TVf!e I Area Street Frontaae I I 1 Standard 1 7,259 sq. ft. 61 ft. I 2 Corner I 6,058 sq, ft 1~O~. : Street Name B Street B Street 33'0 Street I Street T VDe I East-West 1 East-West I North-South I 20f14 Therefore, Parcels'1and 2 meet the requirements of SDC 3.2-215. Conclusion: This application satisfies C~iterion 1 (SDC 5.12-125 A.). eriterion 2 (SDC 5.12-125 B.l The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Developmenl Plan. . . . Finding: The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential and is designated, Low Density Residential by the Metro Plan diagram and the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan. There are no applicable Plan DistriCt maps or Conceptual Development Plans for this property, and no change to the zoning designation or boundaries is proposed, Conclusion:' This application satisfies C~iteriof1.2 (SDC 5.12-125 B.). eriterion 31SDe 5.12-125 C.} Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to water and electricity; sanitary sewer and storm water management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to seNe 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. Finding: The Oevelopment Review Committee (DRC), including representatives from the City's Development Services Department, Public Works Department, and Fire and Life Safety Department, as well as the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and Willamalane, reviewed the application,. and their comments have been incorporated into the findings and conditions below, Finding: Criterion 3 contains two categories of. development standards with sub-sections. The application as submitted complies with any applicable sub-sections of the development standards unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions. The development standards relating to Criterion 3 include but are not limited to the infrastructure standards discussed in SDC 4.1-100, 4.2- 100, and 4.3-100: 4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards- Transportation 4.2-105 Public Streets 4.2-110 Private Streets 4.2-115 Block Length 4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways 4.2"125 Intersections 4.2-130 Vision Clearance, 4.2-135 Sidewalks 4.2-140 Street Trees 4.2-145 Street Lighting 4.2-150 Bikeways 4.2-155 Pedestrian Trails 4.2-160 Accessways 4.3-100 Infrastructure Standards- Utilities 4.3"105 Sanitary Sewers 4.3-110 Stormwater Management 4.3-115 Water Quality Protectio"n 4.3-120 Utility Provider Coordination 4.3-125 Underground Placement of Utilities 4.3-130 Water Service and Fire Protection. 4.3~135 Major Electrical Power Transmission Lines 4.3-140 Public Easements 4.3-145 Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities Public Streets Finding: Abutting the subject site to the south is B Street, a 24-foot asphalt-paved two-lane local street within a 60-foot right-of-way. Abutting the subject site to the east is 33rd Street, a 24-foot asphalt paved two-lane local street within a 60-foot right-of-way. Neither street is fully improved to urban standards 30114 with curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees, or street lighting. However, a single LPS street light exists across the street from the southeast corner of the subject property. Average daily traffic along this section of 33'd Street and B Street is estimated to be fewer than 500 vehicle trips per day. Finding: . Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 230 (Residential CondominiumlTownhouse), full development of Parcel 2 with a duplex unit would generate 12 additional weekday.vehicle trips and one afternoon peak-hour vehicle trip onto the surrounding street system. In addition', assumed development may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the LCOG household survey from 1994,12.6% of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8% are made via public transit. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including the subject property. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking, and bicycle lanes. Finding: SDC 4.2-105 G,2. states that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and the development site has unimproved street frontage, that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications in accordance with criteria listed in SDC 4.2-105 G.2.a. through d. SDC 4.2-105 G.2. Exception i, states that in all cases other than a. through d. of this section, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of development approval, postponing improvements until the time that a City street improvement project is initiated. Finding: SDC 4.2-105 G.2. Exception i applies to the subject property since 4.2-105 G.2.a.through d. ~~. . "Conciition~:..prior..to' plafa-ppr6val;Jhe:applicarltshall-execute:and.record.an improvement Agreement . cfor'botfl'B":S-treet and '33'd'Street for:paving-;curb,:gutt.er,-~idE:lwalk,.,streetlighting ",anlislormwater. '. ., -- -~--.- ~. - .....-- - -- - - ~ ,~. .- . --"- .- -. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4,2-105 G.2. Finding: A two-direction arrow sign (MUTCD W1-7) exists near the subject property's southeast corner to warn motorists of the split direction the roadway takes when heading north along 33rd Street. This sign should remain in place in its current location. Street Trees Finding: Street trees are a required public improvement, and as such, must be completed prior to , development approval as per SDC 5.12-145 C. Finding: The Exception listed in SDC 4.2-140 states that in order to meet street tree requirements, .where there is no planter strip and street trees cannot be planted within the public right-of-way, trees shall be planted in the required front yard or street side yard setback of private property as specified in the applicable zoning district. Finding: 4.2-140 8.1. states that existing trees may meet the requirement for street trees (i.e. trees on . the City Street Tree List specified in the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM)) if excavation.or filling for proposed development is minimized within the dripline of the tree. Finding: There are two existing treeson the B Street frontage of the subject property within the front yard setback, ,both of which are proposed to remain, one each on Parcels 1 and 2. Although the type of tree is not identified in the application, these trees may be considered street trees. , Conaiticfn::2:= Excavation or. fill ingin:thE!,Cvicinity -of-the .existi ng-streeLlrees". as, well as_ any-future. , cremovalcoHnese-trees, -must-:-ccinform~to:the -st~jndardS:of the::-SDC:ancf:ED,SPM: '~Since these. street- qrees::a~~oE~Ie9::o~-:pf!yaXf-p'roperty"'::-maintenarfce:of' the:trees' shall- be ",pe[f9rmed.by-the.propertY' . '-owner'asper:SI:>G4c2-140G.2:' J ---'.. .. .- Finding: SDC 4.2-140 A. states that new street trees shall be at least two inches in caliper and shall be selected from the City Street Tree List and installed as specified in the EDSPM. 4 of 14 Finding: In a letter included with the application, the applicant's representative states that the tentative plan depicts two new street trees on the frontage of Parcel 2. However, new street trees are not depicted on the tentative plan. . Condition 3: Prior to plat approval, three new street trees of at least two inches in caliper shall be planted either in the right-of-way between the property line and top of bank or, if that is not feasible, in the street side yard setback on Parcel 2. New street trees shall be selected and installed as specified in the EDSPM and shall conform to any easement stipulations for the proposed seven-foot public utility easement (PUE) along the frontage of Parcels 1 and 2. Depending on the selected location of these trees, maintenance shall be performed bX the property owner or the City as perSDC 4.2-140 C. Finding: Existing street trees, as well as the above condition, are adequ~te to meet the requirements of SDC 4.2-140. Sanitarv Sewers Finding: SDC 4.3-105 A. states that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development within the city limits and to connect developments to existing mains. Finding:' The application indicates that. the existing residence on the subject property is currently served by a sewer lateral to the eight-inch sanitary sewer main in the PUE along the north property line, and the applicant has proposed continuing to serve Parcel 1 via this sewer lateral. The applicant has proposed serving Parcel 2 with a six-inch lateral from the above-mentioned sanitary sewer main as depicted on the tentative plan. , Condition 4: Prior to occupancy, Parcel 2 shall be serviced with a six-inch lateral from the eight-inch sanitary sewer main in the PUE along the, north property line as depicted on the tentative plan. Finding: Existing facilities, as well as the above condition, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-105 A. Stormwater Manaoement Finding: SDC 4.3-110 B. states that development approval shall only be granted where the Public Works Director has determined that adequate public andlor private stormwater management systems provisions, consistent with the EDSPM, have been made. ' Finding: SDC 4.3-110 D. states that run-off from a development sh;;lll be directed to an approved stormwater, management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.' Finding:. SDC 4.3-110 E. states that new developments are required to employ drainage management , practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface run-off into receiving streams and that promote . water quality. Finding: The stormwater run-off from the subject property is currently dispersed onsite and drains over. land to an existing roadside ditch that is an approved public stormwater management facility. The applicant proposes that stormwater will continue to be managed in this fashion for both Parcels 1 and 2. Finding: Existing facilities are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-110: Utilitv Provider Coordination Finding: SDC 4.3-120 states that all .utility providers shall be responsible for coordinating utility installations with the City and the developer through the Development Review Committee or by separate written correspondence and that the developer shall be responsiblefor the design, installation, and cost of utility lines and facilities to the satisfaction of the utilityprovideL 50f14 Finding: The application indicates that the existing residence on the subject property is currently served by SUB Electric via overhead lines in the rear of the property that connectto Pole # 80219 in the northwest corner of the property, and the applicant has proposed keeping this utility connection for Parcel 1. The tentative plan shows a possible power connection for Parcel 2 at the above-mentioned pole, but there is no mention in the application of how electric service will be extended from the pole to serve Parcel 2. Finding: SUB Electric advises that the existing electric service to the subject property is sufficient to serve Parcel 1. SUB Electric has stated that electric facilities can be extended underground from Pole #80219 via the existing 14-foot PUE along the north side ofthe property to serve Parcel 2, Condition 5: Prior to occupancy, electrical service shall be extended from Pole # 80219 to serve Parcel 2. Placement of such electric facilities shall be in the existing .14-foot PUE along the north side of the subject property and shall be underground as conditioned in the Underground Placement of Utilities section below. Finding: Existing facilities and easements, as well as the above condition, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-120. Underaround Placement of Utilities Finding: SDC 4.3-125 states that wherever possible, all utility lines shall be placed underground. Finding: The application indicates that power, cable, and telephone utilities currently serve the existing residence on the subject property via above-ground lines connecting to an existing utility pole on the northwest. corner of the property. The applicant has proposed maintaining these utility connections aboveground for Parcel 1. The application does not indicate where utility lines for Parcel 2 will be placed. Condition 6: During residential development, all new utilities to serve Parcels 1 and 2 shall be installed underground in accordance with SDC4.3-125. ' Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4,3-125. Water Service and Fire Protection Finding: SDC 4.3-130 states that each development area shall be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish an adequate water supply to the development and that fire hydrants and mains shall be installed by the developer as required by the Fire Marshall and the utility provider. Finding: The applicantion indicates that a six-inch water line is located in the B Street right-of-way, parallel to the street centerline, and is perpendicular to and crosses an eight-inch water line located in the 33'd Street right-of-way to the south of the property, parallel to the street centerline. The application also indicates that the six-inch water line becomes an eight-inch line when it crosses the above- mentioned eight-inch water line and continues up 33rd street to the north. In addition, the application indicates that a fire hydrant is located in the B Street right-of-way near the southwest corner of the subjeCt property. . Finding: Th~ application indicates that the subject property is currently served by SUB water via a lateral to the the six-inch waterline and water meter located in the B Street right-of-way near the southwest corner of the lot and that this water connection and water meter will continue to serve Parcel 1. The applicant has proposed connecting Parcel 2 to SUB water service via a lateral to the six-inch water line in the B Street right-of-way near the southeast corner of the lot and establishing a water meter there, as well, as shown on the'tentative plan. 60f14 Condition 7: Prior to occupancy, Parcel 2 shall be connected to the water system as proposed on the tentative plan and in accordance with SUB Water Division standards. . Finding: Existing facilities, as well as the above condition, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-130. . Public Easements Finding: SDC 4.3-140 A. states that the applicant 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. This policy dictates that the minimum width for PUEs adjacent to street rights-ofcway, as well as all other PUEs, shall be seven feet, unless otherwise specified. Finding: An existing ten-foot PUE is located along the west property line, half of which is located on the subject property, and an existing 14-foot PUE is located along the north property line, half of which is also located on the subject property. The applicant has proposed an additional seven-foot PUE along'the street frontage of both Parcels 1 and 2. Condition 8: Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall record and document a seven~foot PUE along the street frontage of Parcels 1 and 2. ' ,Finding: SDC 4.3-140 A. states that the utility provider or the Public Works Director may require a !' larger easement for major water mains, major electric power transmission lines, sanitary sewer lines, \ stormwater management systems, or in any other situation to allow maintenance vehicles to set up and perform the required maintenance or to accommodate ,multiple utility lines. Finding: An existing 12-inch storm line is within one to two feet of the edge of the existing 14-foot PUE along the north property line. The Public Works Direcior has requested an additional three feet of PUE be provided along the the north property line of Parcels 1 and 2 for adequate maintenance of and access to the storm line in accordance with SDC 4.3-140 A. Condition 9: Prior to pl?lt approval, the applicant shall record and document an additional three-foot PUE adjacent to the south side of the existing 14-foot PUE along the north property line of Parcels 1 ~~. ' Finding: Existing easements, as well as the above conditions, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.3-140 A. Finding: SDC 2.1-110 and 2.1-115 state that the regulations contained in the SDC are intended to ensure that development is consistent with the applicable standards of the SDC 'and all other applicable City, regional, State, and Federal regulations. The definition of development in SDc Chapter 6 includes partition, and as such, existing structures on the subject property must be brought into conformance with any applicable public regulation prior to final development ijlpprovaL Finding: A carport is currently attached to the existing house on the subject property and protrudes into an existing PUE on the west side of the property by four feet. The applicant has proposed keeping the carport in its current location on Parcel 1. ' Finding: ORS 92.044 grants cities the authority to regulate uses and obstructions within platted public easements. The City of Springfield interprets PUE lines to be vertical planes in order to maintain access for utility vehicles, equipment, and personnel without obstruction. Pursuant to these policies, the ~xisting carport constitutes an obstruction and must be removed from the easement area. . Condition 10: Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall remove the carport on the .subject property from the easement area on the westside of the property. 70f14 Finding: Two street trees exist within the proposed seven-foot PUE along the frontage of Parcels 1 and 2. Therefore, any future removal of the. existing street trees to provide access to the PUE must conform to the standards of the SDC and 'EDSPM. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 3 (SDC 5.12-125 C.) as conditioned herein. eriterion 4 (SDC 5.12-125 OJ The proposed land division shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding: Criterion 4 contains four categories of development standards and requirements. As such, the application must comply with the development standards of SDC Chapter 4 not addressed by Criterion 3, as well as the development standards for the applicable zoning district not addressed by Criterion 1. In addition, the application must comply with the requirements of any applicable overlay district andlor refinement plan. The application as submitted complies with the applicable development standards and requirements unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conditions. The , development standards and requirements relating to Criterion 4 include but are not limited to the following: Chapter 4 - Development Standards 4.4-100 Landscaping, Screening, &' Fence Standards 4.5-100 On-Site Lighting Standards 4.6-100 Vehicle Parking, Loading, & Bicycle Parking Standards 4.7-100 Specific Development Standards for Certain Uses 4.8-100 Temporary Uses 3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts 3.2_215 Base Zone Development Standards 3.2-220 Additional Panhandle Lot/Parcel Development Standards 3.2-225 Base Solar Development Standards 3.2-230 Cluster Subdivisions 3.2-235 Residential Manufactured Dwellings 3.2-240 Multi-Unit Design Standards Applicable Overlay District No overlay distriCts apply to the subject property' Applicable Refinement Plan Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan LandscaDina. ScreeiJina & Fence Standards Finding: SDC 4.4-115 states that fences shall not exceed the height standards in Table 4.4-1. Table 4.4-1 (7) states that no fence shall exceed the two and a half foot height limitation within the vision clearance area as specified in SDC 4.2-1,30. SDC 4,2-130 C. states that the clear vision area shall be in the shape of a triangle, two sides .of which shall be ten feet al.ong property lines at any driveway and the third side of which is a line across the corner of the parcel joining the non-intersecting ends of the two other sides. Finding: A six-foot wood fence currently exists al~ng the west and north property lines that is not exactly aligned with the actual property lines. Alignment of fencing along private property lines is a civil matter between neighboring property owners. However, the fence along the west property line protrudes into the vision clearance area for approximately five feet. ' Condition 11: Prior to plat approval, the, area of the fence along the west property line that protrudes into the vision clearance area shall be scaled back in accordance with SDC 4.4c115. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements o(SDC 4.4-115. Vehicle Parkina. Loadinfl. & Bicvcle Parkina Standards Finding: SDC 4.6-125 states that a minimum of two off-street parking spaces are required for single- family and duplex dwellings. 80f14 . Finding: The application indicates thai: the existing. residence on the subject property is currently served by a carport and asphalt paved driveway and that these faciliti.es will continue to serve Parcel 1. Condition 12: Prior to occupancy, vehicle parking shall be provided to serve Parcel 2 in accordance with SD"c 4.6-125. , Finding: Existing facilities, as well as th~ above condition, are adequate to meet the requirements'of SDC 4.6-125. ' Base Zone Deve/ooment Standards Finding: SDC 3.2-215 states that interior side yard setbacks shall be five feet. Footnote 7, however, states that where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above-grade structure, except a fence, may be built upon or over that easement. . Finding: An existing 14-foot PUE on the north side of the subject property extends seven feet into the subject property, and so the easement is larger than the required side yard setback of five feet on Parcel 2. Furthermore, as discussed under Criteria 3, Public Easements, an additional three feet of PUE has been requested by the Public Works Director. ' Condition 13: Future developm'ent on Parcel 2 may not include placin'g any building or above-grade structure, except a fence, upon or over the ten-foot easement area on the north side of the subject property as per SDC 3.2-215. ' Finding: As conditioned above, this appli,cation meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-215 Base Solar Deve/ooment Standards Finding: SDC 3.2-225 states that all buildings in the LDR zoning district shall protect the solar access of neighboring residentiallots/parcels. Condition 14: Future development on Parcels 1 and 2 shall abide by the base solar development standars as per SDC 3.2-225. Finding: As conditioned above, this application meets the requirements of SDC 3.2-225. Aoolicab/e Refinement Plan Finding: The DRC reviewed the application with respect to the Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan and concluded that the policies of that plan applicable to the application have been met through the land use approval process, Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 4 (SDC 5.12-125 D.) as conditioned herein. Criterion 5 ISDC 5.12-125 E.\ Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQL W Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas, . of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740- 760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. Finding: The Metro Plan and any applicable refinement plans, Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Natural Resources Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Maps, Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and the list of Historic Landmark sites have been consulted, and there are no features needing to be protected or preserved on the subject property. . 90114 Finding: If any historic or archaeological artifacts are discovered during construction', ORS 97.740- 760, 358.905-955, and ORS 390,235-240 may apply. If any human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class C felony to pro~ed under ORS. 97.745. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 5 (SDC 5.12-125 E.). Criterion 6 (SDC 5.12-125 F.\, 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 driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding: The DRC, including representatives from the City's Public Works Department, reviewed the application, and their comments have been incorporated into the findings and conditions below. Finding: 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. Therefore, SDC 4.2-120 A.1. states that all developed parcels shall have an approved access to a public street or alley along the frontage of the property, a privaie street that connects to the public street system, or a public street by an irrevocable joint uselaccess easement serving the subject property. ' Finding: SDC 4.2-120 C. states that driveways shall be designed to allow safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egrE!ss as specified in Tables 4.2-2 through 4.2"5, the City's EDSPM, and the Public Works Standard Construction Specifications. According to Table 4.2-2, single-family and duplex dwellings must conform to a driveway minimum and maximum of 12 feet and 24 feet, respectively. Note 3 of this table states that single driveways serving single-family and duplex dwellings shall be paved for the first 18 feet when abutting a curb and gutter street but may be graveled for the remainder of their length. Finding: The application indicates that existing access to the subject property is via a 17-foot wide asphalt-paved driveway onto B Street near the west property line, and the applicant has' proposed keeping this access for Parcel 1. In a letter incluqed with the application, the 'applicant's representative states that the tentative plan depicts a proposed access for Parcel 2, but no access to Parcel 2 appears on the tentative plan. Finding: The street frontage of Parcel 2 is on a curve. Therefore, access to Parcel 2 shall be limited to a single access point, located as far north as is reasonably possible, in accordance with SDC 4.2- 120 C. Condition 15: Prior to plat approval, the ,applicant shall record a deed restriction stating that access to Parcel 2 shall be limited to a single access point, located as far north as is reasonably possible, approximately 35 feet south of the intersection of the north .and east property lines. . Condition 16: Prior to occupancy, access shall be provided to Parcel 2 in accordance with the deed restriction conditioned above and shall conform to the requirements of SDC 4.2-120 C. , , Finding: Existing facilities, as well as the above conditions, are adequate to meet the requirements of SDC 4.2-120 A.1. and SDC 4.2-120 C. Finding: SDC 4.2-130 A. states that all corner parcels shall maintain a clear area at each access to a public street and on each corner of property at the intersection of two streets in order to provide adequate sight distance for approaching traffic. Finding: SDC 4.2-130 B. states that no screen or other physical obstruction is permitted between two and a half feet and eight feet above the established height of the curb in the triangular area. SDC 4.2- 100114 130 C. states thatthe triangular area for driveways is ten feet along each property line while for any street it is 25 feet along each property line. . Finding: As discussed above in the findings and conditions relating to fence standards under Criterion 4, the fence along ttie west property line protrudes into the vision clearance area of the existing driveway and thus must be scaled back in accordance with the SDC. Condition 17: Clear areas shall be maintained at each access to a public street and at the intersection of 33'd Street and B Street as per SDC 4.2-130. Finding: As conditioned above and as conditioned under Criterion 4, this application meets the requirements of SDC 4.2-130. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 6 (SDC 5.12-125 F.) as conditioned herein. eriterion 7 ISDC 5.12-125 G.\ Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership' can be accomplished as specified in this Code. Finding: No property under the same ownership remains. Therefore, Criterion 7 is not applicable. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 7 (SDC 5,12-125 G.). Criterion 8 ISDC 5.12-125 H.l Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this Code. ' Finding: Adjacent land is currently developed with residential dwellings and has access to public streets by way of direct frontage. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion B(SDc 5,12-125 H.). eriterion 9 ISDC 5.12-125 1.\ Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city limits but within the City's urbanizable area and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified in SDC 5.12-125 /. 1. and 2. shall also apply. Finding: The subject property is located inside the city limits. Therefore, Criterion 9 is not applicable. Conclusion: This applicatio~ satisfies Criterion 9 (SDc 5.12-125 I.). Criterion 10 ISDe 5.12-125 J.\ Where the Subdivision ora manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the approval criteria in SDC 5.12-125 J. 1. through 7. apply: 'Finding: The application does not propose the subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park. Therefore, Criterion 10 is not applicable. Conclusion: This application satisfies Criterion 10 (SDC 5.12-125 J.). ...., . SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NOTE: This summary of the conditions of approval is provided as a courtesy to the applicant. The applicant should, however, carefully read the decision in its entirety to understand the basis for each condition. In addition, as stated earlier, the applicant must comply with the entire deCision, and the plat, as well as the installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved tentative plan or as conditioned herein. ' , 110114 1. Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement for both B Street and 33'd Street for paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, and stormwater. 2. Excavation or filling in the vicinity of the existing street trees, as well as any future removal of these trees, must conform to the standards of the SDc and EDSPM. Since these street trees are located on private property, maintenance of the trees shall be performed by the property owner as per SDC 4.2-140 C.2. 3. Prior to plat approval, three new street trees of at least two inches in caliper shall be planted either in the right-of-way between the property line and top of bank or, if that is not feasible, in the street side yard setback on Parcel 2.' New street trees shall be selected and installed as specified ,in the EDSPM and shall conform to any easement stipulations for the proposed seven- foot public utility easement (PUE) along the frontage' of Parcels 1 and 2: . Depending on the selected location of these trees, maintenance shall be performed by the property owner or the City as per SDC 4.2-140 C. , 4. Prior to occupancy, Parcel 2 shall be serviced with a six-inch lateral from the eight-inch sanitary sewer main' in the PUE along the north property line as:depicted on the tentative plan. 5. Prior to occupancy, electrical service shall be extended from Pole # 80219 to serve Parcel 2. Placement of such electric facilities shall be in the existing 14-foot PUE along the north side of the subject property and shall be underground as conditioned in the Underground Placement of Utilities section below. 6. During residential development, all new utilities to. serve Parcels 1 and 2 shall be installed underground in accordance with SDC 4.3-125. 7. Prior to occupancy, Parcel 2 shall be connected to the water system as proposed on the tentative plan and in accordance with SUB Water Division standards. 8. Prior to plat approval, the' applicant shall record and document a seven-foot PUE along the street frontage of Parcels 1 and 2. 9. Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall record and document an additional three-foot PUE adjacent to the south side of the existing 14"foot PUE along the north property line of Parcels 1 and 2. 10, Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall remove the carport on the subject property from the easement area on the west side of the property. 11. Prior to plat approval, the area of the fence along the west property line that protrudes into the vision clearance area shall be scaled back in accordance with SDC 4.4"115. . 12. Prior to occupancy, vehicle parking shall be provided to serve Parcel 2 in accordance with SDC 4.6-125. ' 13. Future development on Parcel 2 may not include placing any building or above-grade structure, except a fence, upon or over the ten-foot easement area on the north side of the subject property as per SDC 3.2-215. . 14. Future development on Parcels 1 and 2 'shall abide by the base solar development standars as per SDC 3.2-225. . 15. Prior to plat approval, the applicant shall record a deed restriction stating that access to Parcel 2 shall be limited to a single access point, located as far north as is reasonably possible, approximately 35 feet south of the intersection of the north and east property lines. 120114 16. Prior to occupancy, access shall be provided to Parcel 2 in accordance with the deed restriction conditioned above and shall conform to the requirements of SDC 4.2-120 C. ' 17. Clear areas shall be maintained at each access to a public street imd at the intersection of 33rd Street and B Street as per SDC 4.2-130. eONCLUSION The application, as submitted and conditioned herein, complies with the ten qriteria listed in SDC 5.12- 125 A. through J: The tentative plan approved as submitted and conditioned herein may not be substantively changed during the platting process without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12-145. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? SDC 5.12-140 A. states that for partitions, a plat pre"submittalmeeting shall be held within one year of the 'tentative plan approval. Therefore, the applicant has up to one year from the date of this decision to meet SDC standards and the conditions of approval contained herein and to submit a plat application for pre-submittal. SDC 5.12-140 A. also states that the applicant shall submit the mylars and application fee within 180 days of the pre-submittal meeting, If, however, the applicant has not submitted the plat application within these timeframes, the tentative plan approval shall become null and .void and re-submittal, is required. Please' refer to the plat application packet available at the Development Services Department, as well as 5.12-135 through 5.12-150, for more detailed information on the platting process. . Please note that the plat, as well as the installation of public and private improvements, must conform to the approved tentative plan or'as conditioned herein. In addition; please note that no individual parcels /nay be transferred and no building permits will be issued until the plat has been recorded at Lane County and the applicant has submitted five (5) recorded, rolled paper copies of the plat and three' (3) copies of required documents to the Development SeNices Department. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The application, all documents, and supporting evidence are available for free inspection (copies are available for a fee) at the Development Services Department. APPEAL This decision is considered a Director's Type II decision and as such, may be appealed to the . Planning Commission. SDC 5.3-115 states that only the property owner, applicant, if different, and those persons who submitted written comments within the 14-day comment period have standing to appeal this decision. SDt 5.3_115 also states that an appeal application in accordance with 5.3-100 shall be filed with, the Development Services Department within 15 calendar days of the Director's decision (the date of this decision). In accordance with this policy and the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c), the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00pm on November 9, 2007. QUESTIONS Please call Molly Markarian in the Development Services Department Planning Division at 726-4611 or email heratmmarkarian@ci.springfield.or.usif you have any questions. r PREPARED BY Molly Markarian Planner II Urban Planning Section 130114 r- , , , ~ ! ,d' , I: d' ......"> :1: "",,,,,I>: . I ~'.~! ; I'Q$SSLE . - , ", ~. . . iOIll'rm'rJ'p.J,le.~',.:c~9t.;O. .' ,tit" . I R ~ F-, " I i PHONE" EJtmfIGl"'~JJ.E.,'.If)<. .. ~~~~# iQ :1 , : Il::':::::::::.::-n---:--r---------.,,;L-- -'.;f"". ., J .a~ 1-;trJ--...=-_"I' . - ~!r:n'.JO"l;'~=-- -,,-~,~~' _ ,,~ . ~, - ..~ . i' -;-__rIlAII__---l" -~..,Atj--5B__r:_-I-_ ~-IlAN_.57'______ l._! 'rJJ :." ,~- ~~~~;wc i I r=~:::~r=-~'~ :::-;-=t'-'l~ j'; ~ ~-I'~ T 'l)roO> : ( r AREA ~ 7.2~' SF , AREA.6.1J58 SF.... I' ~ :. i uP': 1 ,\'v I I Q._' I J. I ~'1, I ! . "f> r .~.~) I ' I ! ate , r Ir' J IIl~ 'Ii I ~~~' I 1 I l' TF'P! ,I" ,I' I I j I::! I I I ' I 'r~~ I I': 1 ' : ~:'\~ - /~,/ j ~ i~ " - :' I i ~ -'OO,"'o~.,.. / I i~,~'\ 'o~.. / . /, I~ ~ / l~ ' ~ : \T '-l ~/>~ i _\C:l ~~~1: ~-/\' ," .~-' ! :! ...~< '/ .,:- ; -t!"'- 1"111'2$'.)0". I ~'( ~/; ''"R. ;"p "'Ii. <'~1'lWl., r tot'.. '.(..!:..- z-wArllfle:entIrf /,' . - '--,--'-\ -_. _'::'-r._,' i.--r-' _.._ -8"__~-' . . C>>St. 10' ',...,_<..,,~..,. ,-,...... . I .: ~ l ~"EROf~1'E ) I iii ~. ~2B" SrnEET ~ r I I I I I . . 'U'f01l"S'T. ~~ J "d' , '" ,,& '" :: !~l--, :1 ~ I l!o I~ l~ I'" I'" ; }w' ~ i I ~d' 1'_,\" ... a ~ ... IQ TAX MAP /7-02-3/-51, TAX LOT 3500 -.L_ TENTATIVE PARTmON MAP FOR BELL . N.E.1/4, S:-W. 1/4, SEC., 31, T.nS., R.2., LOT 39 OF OLD,' WINDMILL TRACT 'LANE COUNTY, OREGON SEPTEMBER 24,. 2007 'Sc.u..2::.1- = zo'" '. . ~ -, 4P. } . " ,=m<D f'OImlG_~~ I'I'lCII"OBI'lICftIINU'O" &\lS1IIC_tfA_ l'IlOi"IlS8l_lLrlllll\'f'lfAY ___~.._~_ DSIJC.I!>>X '.--EX_-O'lIINi..~ ~.-I'llQ'DSl!IIII'AWILM: - --D'SAN- --;Dl:I'INl~o.vr~~ -.~-I'III:RCEP~.urr'E191 - -E.lCB",,-.~ P'llnifTON/...UEK llHI"'DlRIni~/'DIIOf "DHr: DIlf1Jtl;OIElM:.<Il~ -[.UI"(:fTOo ''',. /ifI'E ntV.orI;IW ~w_ llIl '!.4/OlJlE'lEll III 1UO'IiN!:1IIlQI" @ 9D11WWMlJ..t . . =~ rn_ =- ~~ - (rrJ LoJ~' =- ....."". ~- ,.,.OF:ESSIOrllll. lJW l!UIlVEYOR DECEIlI9ER5I.MlO1 )> ~"C "C m z c Jr. Jr.M. >< )> DlWNAG1/ RUNOFF, FROM PFloPOsED PARCEL Z II WLL B~ Df'IE'CT'ED TO THE" EXISTING ROADSfJE: orTOi RUNOFF FROM TrE EXJSTWG RE8IDE:NTlAL BLll.OI'IG AND ASSOCJATED DfWE" WI.L CONTNJE ro, BE O/SPfRSED ON-SITE" AND FLOW TO - THE ROADSiOfi OITCH \o1A Ovel'l'LAMI Fl..OIf. 4CC1/SS ACCESS TO PARCEL 2 ~ 'PLACEO AT THe ESTABLISHED. GRAVCl.. DR1VEW.<\Y 9A~ mAT CROSSES'TI.JE" (.lc1SllYG ROADSK OlTCH. THE PARCEl 2 DRIIlEWAY . 1 WLL BE PAVe') AS SHOWN. JW<I'lIWOllK NO ClJTOOFLl ISPROPOSEtl AT 7HlS r/ME. " ~,Bl"aIlch En~ineerii1~. Inc. ~1:J10"UI.b.S~t SPrin&1leJd.Orel!:oa. rTU.71 l!>.j)7411-Dtl:I7FA1.{~J)7411~ . bnu>abad..m..bo..b......"loQo.a1n"Q'\%I,II::.<:om Chil . Stnlc:turu . TnDilpon...UolI '- StlrleyiDI ~T~},&' N~]hl - 9 I ~ .~~; P -=i8 M"'., ~ ~,- :. -r{' I T=~, g PROJECT NO. .07-J52 - -.. 1ll1I'\2007\07-12 AlIDERS HARSTAD BEl.L\TEl'ITATIVE: DWGS\07-15;:> TFNT "ARTn'ION'MA"nwr. I VICINITY MAP I SCALE" NOM;