The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNotice PLANNER 2/9/2009 , d{~ RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE FEB - 9 2009 BY:~~1 ~ 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 Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be . mailed copies of 5uB200"1-0~2 'n.~j.1 c{9..D.e^;.A ,~ - p~ ~ . (See attachment "A") on q. 2009 addressed to (see ~ t+o~ Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail.box with postage fully prepaid thereon. . "=K a.MM rJfa d~ V/L ~~N LaFLEUR , STATE OF OREGON, County of lane ,: \. .1U}.,A .i~ q .2009. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, . ~;~m Teehnician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: ~i6fJ u tJ ~.. ~ OFFICIAL SEAL , DEVETTE KELL V NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON Co.V.MISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 My Commission . Exp,ires: 'b/Isi{( Date Received:~/.,2""1 Planner: AL .. TyPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION. : . Project Name: Michael Proden Partition Project Proposal: Partition one residential parcel into two residential parcels Case Number: SOO2009-00002 Project Location: 2566 Grand Vista Drive (Map 17"03-24-31, Tax Lot #1000) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Pla~ Designation: 'LDR (Metro Plan) Pre-Submittal Meeti~g Date: October 31, 2008 Application Submitt,ed Date: January 7, 2009 Decisi~n Issued DatJ: Feliruary 9, 2009 Recommendation: A,pproval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: February 24, 2009 Natural Features: None Density: Approximately 3.7 units per acre l' Associated Applicatlons:PRE2008-00067 ~l.. ''...!A, ,', ...,:;:,.,,," ~"..,,~ '. "'~I' ,;.d,~ ~ijli:, IfJ~...,;..~ "";'. I'~ .~. . ~~\..L{;.'''' ":"J;.. r ~..,~.,. '1)"~" ~~~:'-!,f>~1"f'-;~--c-~=l..;. ~' ',~~: >,-, ~b-~I. ."" ~-*--.'''~''f;' .: or r-..~ '~.....~.. "'~i""" ',,&.>'i:\!J," ~-, " -, cr.,.',' .":' <. '. '~......" '. .- -.."",,~'_, ,. .'" ~ t~ i '-"f,.. ; . " lL-- L:DRI\ ~.~," '~">- 'T"'~'. ' '", .' . '. ",,'" ,-- ". :0, ". l ~'.' ...,::",..,,:;..kr~M'r:". 'j',~"r :-,.-' Il'r .-i'){s',', i'~, ,_, t';\~~~I' ~". .... ""'''<-".',u' '. ilt ;:.c:.s' ~ .}?~ ".~ ~~,.I!''l'1I<''':'"''=';,,. ~J ....~.~ ~~ '_A ....J 'l~l,!:,,\\l . ., ..:. <..~'e"''' ".-'" '. .' ~' '~.'" ' ,.,.,J ''''''''.l. .-.I.....~ l.' i"Yl~"" '1" ~ '. .<r. !"-';::l~"1 :::-"('1>~t5a.:.....,,:&. t,. :if. ~lfr . "!J?,..,,., l';.~ ,.,,0;....'. I ~ ,~..,;".,=~--"" r..i\l, f'"'"- ," :~~. ~tt:tf~:..tj~'7~:'-}\, .:.- :g~~,~~ Ikt ~.::~~:i;' w",:' ~ .Jt!~l~"'<t~~~~j'!'/~~,'r;'" 1;~llf~'::"'JJr'ti' ~ '-'<.~\.?';-I'1l1 il~f;l~, 1~;L":"';' .~,~{,.:i~:!.~ '~i~ J ~. ~-!", '~-;- ~- ;5~? .. :~,~'ill~:'!I :!.f't!.....li~'... 't.t..t ~ .....:.. .1 .,' - j}.. ". ~ .' _,~ .' . .~~~~t~...~';' ;'.{~:.f -:" ','" ..~""" ~..,:). rt:r!'1 i.'\ '~;;~'.:::'~':--:~f;'. '.~l -...,If.~_ .., 1. U<(~"'(r, ~ .Ii; '~ . ",'~~''i-R,1;.,..-,,~,.--t.!. /....-.....y.~"".;..K~.....t,>... .. .". ~ ?1",1;r!l'~, <r.~~' l' t-.~'.tf;>:;-~r::"",'. .,............,.................~...,11t.~'t ~ I f!: \ '.;l\1-:i::;'f'}L7::;..o:;;:...t'r~::~::;-~-:-~:~li--..'~,~;'~:'f ':. :.J '.' ,~' "-i;;~,I;j:.:;'$~;?;:...,~~:!; ~ '.~Sr[iE~~==-~ -~. f:',.~1' :..~~, '~\~I ft." . ~,.:",,'Y~"":'.',""';E -:: !""(- ,. jili~;s,!j::"~ ~--' " 'I. l I ~;';-'I',l\~~""":I"~:;,,,,~,,~\,,'::f: .,' .:-;. ..).-;. .r~;..- >':~-,l ."Z~':I')o:>r."";-.t->~~~~~.~ "S'''.,. :t~..,.~ ...........,(,'.:-,~,,(. ......~ - ;; 1 ~I;,~,J.. ",I! . "." '1-, .'..... . ...~of,,,. . 'I . '" . , c l'I:Ji..,,"'.l'!.,.,,^ .......,............,.........1, ,: '"il'-" '" ,....t ( _O( "',:;,,- ~ .. I"': .....~ ....~ _,' 'it ~ , 'P'- ,_ ;~,f<.~'~'i-:i7f'j.~~.,.,~' " - ;> ,,,, .'- ';:).-'1' (. ~Ajl,\. ,/ : ~ .l-..../~ir~.(;::E.'f'...'......4~:-.; ~"i:j/ :~:K (' ... -~' .,'~..:'I ".;. ~'-,.. -m'/-"'~ ..', ."' .~- ..,' .f~" -""', t " "l'" ,.v,,' r 'n ',' " 'k" " '"I . " >;~.I;.~.J.t,.~....... ~~ to.... ~ . ~.. - ;: !il~;.tl. ~ .!....(.:.,;..~". ~, ...1. ~~ '.' - ,', , . '<7'1_ .. .... . ~'~..:}l.~( ':i.~~J~is~;;I.~ ,1~.~ !:I\.&~t.:I~~lt~.t."', . !l1:~lJI,~;r.W":::.t"(;>:i'.. ".~.:._:" '" l."'J~i'lil~':,~ <:4l" <\2'] 1 IE- ..~ .....r~ J ---- .1>) . joj" .... H, ' r'l . ".~ _ ,r .~ ':',..... 'r ,;,nl!J:;:DIi m _,.e; ".a-' ~ . "f.' "i ..~.~. I ...'!,....., .'1... ~..; - . -v,' 1_1 '\- - I r . ><IY 1...... - ---", '- .. .. 0 . ,. '_._~"';,...,tl.-' '~1~J- .",' ~...~~t ." '~~fl:' ~7';' '~i~ ~ \{.' : . :ft:. ~.' .~ ; \I~' ,jfj~C"1t~~" -:f;ij :~~' ~.;;.- ~~..;,.~;:': PI" ,-,<,:" ;''f '~A~'" .::.., ;; , ",.1'"'11. --I? -.:.-".tt.. ~i-..;;.f1 ::. -rt. I~ ~ ',... . \;. . ~.,G.,U ..$Y' . .J...:... r f r.-:::~.h-~I f--1 :. "'i,~ ~r;,~.:: ,", {to. ~'.,Cn -:- ~'-; ,ii;1E'f: -:'.1,-~ ,. _ ~ t~I:.~r,. r~t'tf.'r i~!.l:t:1,~.~!::lDt ttrfb<!!,'~~, ~~:?~....;, I ,. ~ ,,~~ ~,r... "';{ -t...__+: ....... "',~v.-,'" ll: .,t '","- ~t. ~I~t:l~~:'; f!", ~.L" /!;;1Ijr;ii~ '~~1*.:1?~:~ .... .~'h.'ik~ __ t ~~..;; ~t,,~r~.."i. ...,.').,/:0 I ?!'r, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM IposmON I Project Manager 'I' I Transportation Planning EIT I Public Works Engineer I Public Works Engineer I Deputy Fire Marshal" I Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanital1' & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety Building APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner! Applicant: Michael Proden . 2566 Grand Vista Dr: Springfield, OR 97477-1649. ,. Surveyor: Rob Ward Ward NorthWest Inc. P.O. Box 105 Florence, OR 97439 NAME Andy Limbird Jon Driscoll Eric Walter Eric Walter Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent PHONE 726-3784 726-3679 736-1034 736-1034 726-3661 I 726-3668 Engineer: Dan Olmstead EGR & Associates, Inc. 2535 Prairie Road, Suite B Eugene, OR 97402 Date Received' ~h/)c<'1 Planner: AL DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Partition Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE FINAL PLAT, MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDmONED 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. (See Attachment A and. Page II for a summary of the conditions of approvaL) 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 n procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-100. This application was accepted as complete on January 7, 2009. This decision is issued on the 33m day of the 120 days mandated by the state, . SITE INFORMATION: The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot comprising approximately 23,649 It' (0.54 acres). The property is a.comer lot with frontage on Vera Drive to the north and Grand Vista Drive to the east. The subject property contains an existing dwelling in the eastern half of the property. The site is zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Metro Plan. The Assessor's description for the subject property is Map 17-03-24-31, Tax Lot 1000. Approval of the proposed partition would create two LOR parcels: one containing the existing house with corner frontage on Vera Drive and Grand Vista Drive, and a vacant parcel with frontage on Vera Drive. 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 5.1-130 and 5,2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. Procedural Findin'g: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on January 8, 2009, No written comments were received. CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENTATIVE APPROVAL: SDC 5,12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Partition Tentative Plan application upon determining that criteria A through J of this Section have. been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfY the criteria, the Director shall deny the application. A. The request conforms to the provisions of this. Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. Finding I: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, parcels on east-west streets shall have a minimum parcel size of 4,500 square feet with 45 feet of street frontage, Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcell exceeds the minimum requirements for parcel size and street frontage. Finding 3: Pursuant to SOC 3.2-215, comer parcels shall contain at least 6,000 square feet with at least 45 feet of frontage on an east,west street, and at least 60 feet of frontage on a north-south street. . Finding 4: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcel 2 exceeds the niinimum requirements for comer parceL size and street frontage, DaiEl r~aceived: Planner: AL -z.111z"",\ I 2 Conclusion: 1'his.proposal satisfies Criterion A. B; The zo'ning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable . Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. , Finding 5: T~e subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diallfam. The zoning of the I',ul'~.~j is IeDR, consistent with the Metro Plan, and the applicant is not proposing to change the zoding designation. . . . :' , Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion B. , ' " C. Capacity req'uirements of public improvements, including but not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater. management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded ~nd the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherMse provided for by this Code and other. applicable regulations. The .Public Works Director or a'iutility provider shall determine capacity issues. " Ii I. General Finding 6: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to dJsign the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services, w 'i General Finding 7: City Building Permits are required for installation of private utilities, Developers are advised to obtain necessary City permits prior to initiation of construction activity. . General Findihg 8: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed partition. City st!lff's review::comments have been incorporated in fmdings and conditions contained herein. . II General Finding 9: Criterion C contains sub-elements and applicable code standards.. The partition application a!; submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with sp~cific fmdings and conclusions. .The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: ,; " Public improvements in accordance with SDC 4,2-100 and 4.3-100 o Public and Private Streets (SDC 4.2-105 - 4.2-145) I o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3-105) d Stormwater-Management (SDC 4.3-110 - 4.3-115) I' o Utilities'(SDCA.3-120 - 4.3-130) o Water Servi,ce and Fire Protection (SDC 4.3"130) o Public and Private Easements (SDC 4.3-140) 1 Ii ' Public and Private Streets ' , . Finding 10: Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code 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 fully improved to City specific~tions. Exception (i) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time as a City street iniprovement project is initiated. : Finding II: !he subject property has frontage on Vera Drive and Grand Vista Drive. Both streets are fully improved to Urban standards with paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street trees, underground utilities, and street lighting, Average daily traffic on each street is estimated to be fewer than 300 vehicle trips per day.. Because the streets are already fully improved, an Improvement Agreement will not be required. I , . .. :;r -,' . ~ ,. Date, r(eceived: Planner: AL ' ->;/y.z".,.r 3 Finding 12: In accordance with SDC 4.3-140, new street trees are required where development abuts public street rights-of-way, Where street trees cannot be planted in the right-of-way, existing trees in the front yard setback can be substituted for street trees in accordance withSDC 4.2-140,B. Maintenance of street trees on private property is the responsibility of the landowner. Finding 13: There are existing street trees along the northern.and eastemstreet frontages of the subject site, . including two trees in the Parcel 2 frontage on Vera Drive. In the event that driveway placement for Parcel I results in removal of a street tree, it shall be replaced in an appropriate location along the affected street frontage. Condition of Approval: 1. The driveway to serve Parcel I shall be sited such that existing street trees are not adversely impacted. In the event the driveway installation results in removal of a street tree, it shall be replaced at another location along the affected street frontage. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the 'additional volume of traffic generated by the,proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Finding 14: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains, Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities, Finding 15: The existing dwelling is served by a septic system with septic tank and drainfield. The tentative partition plan depicts the location of the on-site septic tank that is proposed for decommissioning. However, the submitted plans do not include the location of the existing drain field. The Lane County Sanitarian is responsible for confirming septic system decommissioning. Finding 16: There is an existing 6-inch lateral stubbed into the subject site near the midpoint of the north property line. As depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, the sanitary sewer lateral is approximately 16 feet east of the proposed property line. The existing lateral extends from an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line in Vera Drive that runs approximately 135 feet east to a manhole in the intersection of Vera Drive and Grand Vista Drive. . Finding 17: The applicant is proposing to install a connection from the existing 6-inch lateral to serve Parcel. 1. A private sanitary sewer easement is proposed in the northwest corner of Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I to accommodate the sanitary sewer lateral. Finding 18: The existing dwelling on Parcel 2 will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system, However, the submitted plans do not show a connection to the sewer system, Conditions of Approval: 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall determine the location of the septic drain field and provide written confirmation of on-site septic system decommissioning from the Lane County Sanitarian. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install a sewer lateral across the northwest corner of Parcel 2 to the Parcel r building envelope area as depicted on the tentative plan. .,' DatE, r~eceived. oJ I Q I ~ Planner: Al .~ '" 4 4. Prior to approval ofthe Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and coftnect the existing house on Parcel 2 to the sanitary sewer system, Stormwater Management Oualitv Finding 19: Under Federal regulation ofthe 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 applibd for, a Municipal Separate Storm $ewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit reiluires the c;!ty to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the M~imum Extent , Practicable (MEP), ji I . Finding 20: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's MS4 plan to ~ddress six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed ~ . . . . development.:: '. i~ I . Finding 21:. lMinimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensurethe reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP., The City also must,develo~"and implement strategies ,that include a combination of structural or noncstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. ' ji I Finding .22: .Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory m~chanism 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 SDC, the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). II I . . Finding 23: LAs, required. in SDC 4.3-110,E, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management i'practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent [with] the Engineering Design Stand(lrds and Procedures Manuaf'. Finding 24: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim design stand.irds for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of, either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS). Ouantitv Ii .: ' . . . Findi~g 25: jisection 4.3-1 iO.B of the SDC requires tha~'the Approval Authorjty shall grant development approval only where adequate. public and/or private stormwater management system provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. I! , Finding 26: ~ection 4.3-110.0 of the SDC requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved storinwater management system wi.th sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. . : ,I, Finding 27: !ISection 4.3-IIO,E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices thatminimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. . I. , . Finding 28: The overall storm water system design - including curb, gutter and street improvements ~ for the subject site was completed under a previous, subdivision development (Grand Vista Estates) in the 1990's. The.gutter d~wnspouts from, the existing house on Parcel 2 are connected to curbline weep hole drains, The applicant hasiindicated that the. new home on proposed Parcell will connect to the existing weep hole drains in the curbOll'VeraDrive th~rebysatisfYing SDC Sections 4.3-110.0 & E. . . ,'. ,.:. . Oak, Heceived: .zIp""" Planner: AL 5 Utilities Finding 29: Section 4.3-120.B of the SDC requires each developer to make arrangements with the utility provider to provide utility lines and facilities to serve the development area. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric is the provider for electrical service to the subject property. Finding 30: The applicant is responsible for the cost of design and installation of utility lines and facilities. In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be placed underground. Finding 31: The applicant is proposing to extend electrical and telecommunication service lines from existing connection points along the frontage of Parcel 2 to serve Parcel ],' A private easement is proposed within Parcel 2 to accommodate water, sewer, and electricalltelecommunicatiim lines for Parcel I; however, the private easement overlaps an existing 7-foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the south edge of Vera Drive. As depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, electrical and telecommunications lines to serve Parcel I are proposed to run parallel with the north property line (and inside the PUE) for a distance of approximately 16 feet. Finding 32: In accordance with the City's EDSPM and accepted construction practice, perpendicular private utility crossings ofPUEs are permissible, However, private utilities are not to co-locate within PUEs and 'run latitudinally'within (ie. parallel with) the easement boundaries. Staff recommend a joint utility trench within the proposed private utility easement that will accommodate all utilities required to serve Parcel I, Utility lines could be extended from the existing connection points into the Parcel 2 frontage (behind the PUE) and then deflect westward to Parcel I, Although the private utility connections may make a slightly oblique crossing of the PUE, this is preferable to a routing that is inside and parallel . with the PUE. Condition of Approval: 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall coordinate with SUB Electric and other utility providers as may be necessary to relocate the private electrical and telecommunication lines serving Parcel 2 such that they do not run inside and parallel with' the .existing PUE. A suitable private easement to accommodate utility lines shall be provided on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I. Water Service and Fire Protection Finding 33: Section 4.3-130,A of the SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maintenance, SUB Water coordinates the design of the water system within . Sprmgfield city limits, 'All new water system facilities and modifications required to serve.the t"vt'v,ed partition area must be placed in the public right-of-way and constructed in accordance with SUB Water standards.. .' Finding'34: The applicant's submittal indicates an existing water service connection is stubbed into the northwest edge of.proposed Parcel 2. SUB Water requires that individual water meters are placed inside the public right-of-way. As depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, the water meter for Parcel I would be placed in the Parcel 2 street frontage. Behind the water meter, the portion of water line running between the meter and the dwelling would be considered 1! private utility line. Finding 35: The applicant is proposing to extend private water service for Parcel I along the frontage of Parcel 2 within. an existing PUE. As depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, a .water line to serve Parcel I is proposed to run parallel with the Parcel 2 north property line (and inside the PUE) for a distance of approximately 29 feet. It is not clear from the applicant's submittal where the Parcel I water meter would be placed. Date Received:. 2./, i'Wo~ Planner: AL ) I 6 i: " Finding 36: As stated above, private utilities are not to co-locate within Public Utility Easements. Staff recommend aojoint utility trench within the proposed private utility easement that will accommodate all lIotilities requJed to serve Parcell. .The water meter for Parcel I could be placed at or near the existing water service:connection point on Vera Drive, subject to SUB Water approval. Finding 37: There is an existing fIre hydrant on the northeast comer of Vera Drive and Grand Vista Drive that provides coverage for fIre protection. :! Condition o~'Approval: I . , . 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall coordinate with SUB Water as may be necessary to relocate the private water line serving Parcel 2 outside the existing PUE. An oblique crossing of the PUE in ~ private joint utility trench or similar alignment may be acceptable. Alternatively, the applicant!!shall provide for extension of a water line acceptable to SUB Water within the Vera Drive right-of--ray and placement of a water meter for Parcell along the Parcell frontage. I . . Public andJ~,rivate Easements Finding 38: i Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements! with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to . fully service ',the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUEs adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all. other public utility easements shall be 7 feet unless the, Public. Works Director requires a larger easement .to allow for adequate maintenance.,1 , , Finding 39: 1n accordance with SDC 4.3-140,A, there is.an existing 7-foot wide PUE along the Vera Drive and Grand Vista Drive frontages of the site. The applicant has indicated the ,existing 7-foot PUEs on the tentative plan~ thereby satisfying SDC 4.3-140.A. . ' , . i ~ Finding 40: The applicant is proposing to extend private water, sanitaiy sewer and electricalltel~~ommunication lines from existing connection points within the Parcel 2 f~ontage. A private . easement on Parcel 2 is proposed to accommodate the utility connections. As stated and conditioned above (Conditions 5 & 6), the private easement confIguration may need to be adjusted to accommodate other utilities required to serve Parcel 1. Staff recommend a different utility alignment within a joint utility trench to provide a 1'~'I'~udicular or slightly oblique crossing of the PUE, Ii Conditions jf Approval: 'I i, 7. Prior to ~'pprova]ofthe Final Plat, the applicant shall adjust the confIguration of the private easement on Parcel' 2 as may be necessary to accommodate the utility lines required to serve Parcell. I . I 8. The private easement on Parcel 2 that benefIts Parcel I shall be dedicated as a, "private utility easement" on the Final Plat. Conclusion: ,As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfIes Criterion C. " Ii D. The propos~d development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and : constructio~ standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. ! . General Finding 41:. Criterion D 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 [mdings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and Code standards of Criterion D it\clude but are not limited to: . .'" . \.; '., Date i~eceived' .2./~!<,<,1 Planner: AL '----, ., -7 D.I Conformance with standards of SDC 3,2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5,17-100 (Site Plan Review) o Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3,2-215) o 'Height Standards (SDC 3,2-215) o. Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105) o Screening (SDC 4.4-110) o Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115) o On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC 45-1 00) o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100) D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable RefInement Plan Requirements o The site is not within a mapped Time of Travel Zone for Springfield drinking water wells. o The site is not within an adopted Refmement Plan area, D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) Parcel Coverage imd Setbacks Finding 42: The 'applicant is proposing to retain the existing dwelling on Parcel 2. As proposed, the dweIling on ParcelZ meets the required building setbacks of the LDR District for corner lots. Finding 43: Proposed Parcel I is an interior parcel, and development setbacks will be determined based on the orientation of the dwelling to Vera Drive. The applicant has indicated a conceptual building envelope area on the tentative plan. Height Standards Finding 44: ill accordance with SDC 3.2-225, the maximum building height in the LDR District is 30 feet, except where modifIed by solar access standards, Finding 45: Prior to issuance of building permits for a house on Parcel 2, the developer will be required to demonstrate compliance with the solar access standards ofSDC 3.2-225, Landscaping Standards Finding 46: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215 footnote (5), all building setbacks shall be landscaped unless the setback is for'a garage or carport. . Screening Finding 47: There is no requirement to install screening between comparable LDR parcels.. Fence Standards Finding 48: We Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts.. However, there is no requirement for fencing between comparable LDR parcels. The existing rear (westerly) fence for the property is discussed below in a later section (see Section F - Site Access and Circulation), _'j'- Date i~eceived: Planner: AL 2-1 q 12dt>o" , ,'..... . ',. '.. 8 On-Site Lighting Standards ." Finding 49: It is not expected that outdoor residential lighting for the existing and proposed dwelling will cause light trespass onto adj~cent properties. V ~hicle Parking Standards , , I Finding 50: I~ accordance with SDC 4,6-100, a minimum of two off-street parking spaces are required for each dwellin~ unit. The off-street parking requirement for Parcel 2 is met by the existing driveway and garage. r< Findmg 51: At least two paved off-street parking spaces will be required prior to issuance of occupancy for a future hous~ on Parcell. . .. I' II Condition o~:Approval:. I' ,I 9.. Prior to ifsuance of Final Occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, at least two paved off-street parking , : spaces shall be developed on the site. I' Conclusion: As conditioned. herein, this proposal satisfies.Criterion D.l. I' !i D.2 Overlay IDistricts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 52: i:Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water Protection Oxerlay District and Refinement Plan requirements. The subject site is just outside the mapped Tim{: of Tra-;el Zone for the nearest drinking water well (Maia wellhead). Therefore, no specific policies of.the DWP 9verlay District or the Metro Plan apply to the. proposed partition. t' . Finding 53: As stated previously, the developer or future landowner will be required to abide by the solar setback requitements ofSDC 3.2-225 when applying for building permits on Parcel 2. .. II ' , ' . If Conclusion: IThis proposal satisfies Criterion D.2. I: E. Physical features, inCluding, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with srlsceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock outcropping~; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3l3-900 or ORS 97;740-760, 358.905-955 and 390;235,,240, shall be rpotectedeatures have been evaluatrd and protected as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations. . J . . Finding 54: .The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable soils, , . I . ,Finding 55: ,I The site is not within an identified wetland area and does not contain significant trees or . , . . shrubs. ;, , . II Finding 56: I' The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated Wetlands M~p, Hydric Soils Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Map and the. list of Historic Landmark sites have been consulted and there are no features .needing to be protected or preserved on this site: If any dnifacts are found during construction, there are state laws that could apply; ORS 97.740, ORS 358.905, O~~ 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class "c" felony to proceed under ORS 97.740.. . . Ii iI ~onclusion: I~is proposal satisfies Criterion E. .. '.';... ',' "" ." r)~)L I ~;~0c:eived: Planner: AL .2;/tjr2AP1 9 I .~ . 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 57: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 2-lot partition at a meeting on January 27, 2009. The existing and proposed driveways are sufficient to serve the proposed parcels. As previously conditioned, additional off-street parking will be required for proposed Parcell (Condition 9). Transportation System Impacts Finding 58: Abutting the subject site to the north, Vera Drive is a 32-foot wide asphalt-paved roadway within a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Abutting the subject site to the east, Grand Vista Drive is a 32-foot wide asphalt-paved roadway within a 50-foot right-of-way, Both streets 'are fully improved to urban standards. Along the property frontages, average daily traffic on Vera Drive is estimated to be fewer than 100 vehicletrips per day and average daily traffic on Grand Vista Drive is estimated to be 150 vehicle trips per day. Finding 59: Staff advise that the subdivision plat for Grand Vista Estates dedicated the street abutting the property to the north as "Vera Street". However, to avoid potential confusion the City has changed the street type to "Vera Drive" to be consistent with the existing segment of V era Drive that is just west ofthe subject property. All service providers have been notified of the street name revision, and the street signs located at the nearby intersections have been changed accordingly. The applicant is advised that the future dwelling on Parcel I will be addressed off Vera Drive. Finding 60: Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) full development of an additional parcel with a single-family residential use would generate 10 additional vehicle trips per day and I PM peak-hour vehicle trip onto the surrounding street system, Finding 61: Assumed development also may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1,8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the'need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals; crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 62: The nearest regular transit bus service is provided by L TD Routes # 18 (MohawklFairview) and.#19 CF",irviewlMohawk) operating along Q Street and Marcola Road. . Finding 63: Existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional volume of. traffic generated by the proposed development. . Therefore, the proposed partition should have no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding street system. Condition of Approval: 10. .The applicant is advised that the future dwelling on Parcel I will be addressed off "Vera Drive" in accordance witli 11 street name change done by the City in 2008. Site Access and Circulation Finding 64: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points, A greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 4.2-120,A.I permits each parcel to have one driveway access. k Date Received' 7./..1 2>-r> ", Planner: AL 10 Finding 65: The existing house on Parcel 2 has a driveway approximately 50 feet south of the curb return at,the intersection of Vera Drive and Grand Vista Drive, ; ',.' . Finding 66: The easterly proposed driveway option depicted on the tentative plan (Option #1) will be at least 100 feet west of the westerly curb return at the intersection of Vera. Drive and Grand Vista Drive. As depicted on the tentative plan, the existing and proposed driveways are consistent with the requirements of SDC Table 4.2-4. Ii Finding 67: Ih accordance with SDC Table 4.2-2, residential driveways serving single family homes must have a paved:'surface 12 to 16 feet wide and at least 18 feet long as measured from the edge of property line. i, " Finding 68: The existing rear yard fence for the property is a 6-foot screening fence that runs along the entire. west p~operty line. Upon partitioning of the -parcel, the west fenceline will become the side yard fence for Par~el I, Additionally, the applicant is showing a driveway option area (Option #2) adjacent to the fenceline,:; In accordance with SDC Table 4.4-1, screening fences within the front yard s.etback area can b~ a maximu~ of 2.5 feet high in a vision clearance area, and 3 feet high elsewhere. Staff advise that the northern portion of the fence may need to be scaled back in.height to ensure it meets the requirements of SDC Table 4.4-1. ' ii i' , I Finding 69: ~s proposed and conditioned herein, the existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access, driveway, and, vision clearance requirements ofSDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130. 11 " Conditions of Approval: " " 11. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of the site , driveway~ in accordance. with SDC 4.2.130. .' 12. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve the future dwelling on Parcel I, The location of the driveway shall be consistent with either of the two options depicted on the tentative partition plan, Th~ dimensions of the new driveway serving Parcell shall.comply with.SDC Table 4.2-2. 'I 13. Prior to i~suance of o~cupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, the existing fence along the west boundary of the p,jj.cel shall be ~caled back in height and/or length as may be necessary .to meet the vision clearance:and front yard setback requirements of SDC 4.4-1, C~nclusion: ks conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F, 'I , I . G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership cab be accomplished as specified in this Code. il i~ Finding 70: There is no other property under the same ownership that can be further developed. I' Conclusion: !This proposal satisfies Criterion G. H. Adjacent la~d can be ()eveloped or is provided access t.hat will allow its development as ~pecified in this Code.- Finding 71: 1djacent land is, currently developed with residential dwellings and has access to public streets. , I Conclusion: ' This proposal sa.tisfies Criterion H. . I. Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city limits but Within the City's urbanizable area and no coitcJrrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified helow shaD also apply. I . :' i~ ~ Date Received: ~ /~9 Planner: AL ( 11 Finding 72: The property involved in this proposal is inside the City limits. Therefore, this condition does not apply. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 1. CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Crite.ria A-I of SDC 5.12-125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SpC 5.12~ 145. What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to one year from the date of this letter to meet the applicable conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Partition Plat. Please refer to SDC 5.12-135 & 5,12-140 for more information. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE FINAL PLAT MUST BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE TENTATIVE PLANS ANn THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Final Plat is required to 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 Departmen~ the Plat may be submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until the plat is recorded and five (5) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development Services Department by the applicant. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The driveway to serve Parcel I shall be sited such that existing street trees are not adversely impacted. In the event the driveway installation results in removal of a street tree, it shall be replaced at anothef'location along the affected street frontage. 2. . Prior to. approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall determine the location of the septic drain field and provide written confirmation of on-site septic system decommissi~ning from the Lane County Sanitarian. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install a sewer lateral across the northwest corner of Parcel 2 to the Parcel I building envelope area as depicted on the tentative plan. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and connect the existing house on Parcel 2 to the sanitary sewer system. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall coordinate with SUB Electric and other utility providers as may be necessary to relocate the private electrical and telecommunication lines serving Parcel 2 such that they do not run inside and parallel with the existing PUE. A suitable private easement to accommodate utility lines shall be provided on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall coordinate with SUB Water as may be necessary to relocate the private water line serving Parcel 2 outside the existing PUE. An oblique crossing of the PUE in a private joint utility trench or similar alignment may be acceptable. Alternatively, the applicant shall provide for extension of a water line acceptable to SUB Water within the Vera Drive rightcof-way.and placement of a water meter tor Parcell along the Parcel I frontage. . 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall adjust the configuration of the private easement on Parcel 2 as may be necessary to accommodate the utility lines required to serve Parcell. 8. The private easement on Parcel 2 that benefits Parcel I.shall be dedicated as a "private utility easement" on the Final Plat. . Date Received' Planner: AL '- "J-/q 1H<>1 I I 12 9. . Prior t5l issu~ce bf Final Occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, at least two payed ,off-street parking spaces shall be developed on the site. 10. The applicant is advised that the future dwelling on Parcell will be addressed off "Vera Drive" in accordance with a street name; change done by the City in 2008, ~ . ' 11. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles ,at the comers ofthe site driveways " . ..., . in accordance wit~ SDC 4.2-130.. .. . . . '. ... . 1 ,., .,.." ., . 12. A maximum of o('e driveway will be permitted to serve the future dwelling on Parcell. The location of the driveway shall b~ consistent with either of the two options depicted on the tentative partition plan, The dimensions ofthe'1new driveway serving Parcell shall comply with SDC Table 4.2-2. Ii' . . I . " . . , .' . .' . 13. Prior to issuance '~f occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, the existing fence along the west boundary of the parcel shall be sc~led back in height and/or length as may be necessary to meet the vision clearance and front . yard .setback requirements of SDC 4.4-1. , . 11 Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the appli~able criteria of ~pproval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development Services Department,j:225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. . , I . . Appeal: This Type ,II Tentative 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 ~ppeal must be in accordance withSDC 5;3-100, Appeals, An Appeals application must be submitted to the City]iwith a, fee of $250,00, The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal applicatIOn. . II In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule lO(c) for servic~ of notice by ~ail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m, on February 24, 2009. ' I Questions: Please 4U Andy Limbjrd in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726"3784 or email alimbirdlalci.sorinlIfield.or.usifyou haye any questions regarding this process. I' { , I, " Encl: Attachment A ~ Tentative Partition Plan r"-", " I .~~ Date !'(eceived:4/i~L-. Planner: AL . "I, , It.. . -, _t', . 13 Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component Of the' subdivision decision. FEES AND PERMITS Svstems Develooment Charl!es: The applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when building permits 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 surfa~e area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield Code Chapter II, Article II). Some exceptions apply to Springfield Urban Growth areas. Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the cohstruction of buildings and site improvements within the subject site. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the devel?pment. Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected at time of building permit issu~ce for a future house on Parcel 2, and would be based on the SDC policy in effect at that time. Willamalane ParK and Recreation District advises tliat the SDC for park and recreation improvements is presently $2,858 for each new single-family dwelling. .. '. Sanitarv Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment: Pay a Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property or portions .of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable. lOrd. 5584] Public Infrastructure Fees: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public'infrastructure required to provide utilities to the property. Other City Permits: . Building Permits - In addition to standard requirements, the developer shall abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225' when submitting for building permits for the dwelling on Parcel 2. . Encroachment Permit or' Sewer Hookup Permit - Required for working within a right-of-way or public easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $139.50 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. . Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for new home construction. Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements. Additional oermits/aoorovals that maY be necessmy: . Plumbing Permit to install stormwater drain pipes and connect the future house to a drywell system. . Electrical Permit . Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands) . Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands) . U.S Army Corps <;>fEngineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands) .. ... ~ Date Received:~[.Do1 Planner: AL 14 ~~..-. =: "~"'N ,e:./":')T:o_::_~_~/}o'_~ -II --~~.~- ::::::~_'_~m -.- :-!'~_.'-~~'~~=!~~=2~ _1.. .'...:....'. )u:~. ...-.-- VERA ET I W c. . b . I I RIMEL-45J69 ,_. ..-. -. STRE \/I '" ~ I _ . ---------------------------------1--~--);;. ------ -e.sEWEJlU~E--lii -- - ------ -1--- ----. - _____8 9EWERLINE EXTENDW"'TER~ ,<: I I EXTENDPOWER)_ - . ~ ~ --'--_ W.I I I -,-CU.RBGUTTER CURBGUTTER---..". "'I ..........- .ILlI I ~. ,., - I 1\ z.t!' ,., ." SIDEWALK.!. SIDEwALK . on. I DRIVEWAY ii9:-61~ DRIVEWAY r-.."-~... .........,~...... 56S'42'U"E; 10!li,JD' ~ 0 ' I : .0>:2 ------- c"'''~'~j{JP~"~;I:;i'~~~~:~"''~;~~~:~~n-,~;~~f~L~,:=~~;.;, :.: i::" o ~7 _ ~< l;:i,l SQ,OO' ><.us., x...... I ~I J I I _CURB I 81 GUTTER I I QI ~ I : ~ ~ I" ~ :;:J :I q ~ q ~ en4 I "r : I I 'l.65' L TENTATIVE LAND DIVISION PLAN FOR: MICHAEL PRODEN MAP NO: 17.03-24-31 TAX LOT 1000 SPRINGFIElD,- OR FlREHYDIlANT"T~ .. INTERSECTION OF" . .., '.~ -VEIlA8T.&'TTH.---- LANDOWNER, MICi"!AELPROOEN SURVEYOR: ROB WARD WARD NORTkWEST INC. P_O. BOX 105 FLOROCE.OR ~743g ENGINEER: OANOLMSTEAQ EGR&ASSOClATES 15151l PIlAIRIE ROAD !:UGEN!:.OR 97401 ZONING' lD(lOWDENSITY) FlOOD lONE: PROP!:RTYIS IlES1GNATEIl AS BEING OUTSIDE TllE ~-VEARFlDOOZONE. SEE FIR~MAPI<<l.41O]9C1153 COMMUNlTYNO.41~S92 TIME TRAVEL ZONE: ZONE OF CONmIIlIJTION FORAWEllHEAD . AT lBTllAND 0 ST1l.!:Ef SOllTYP!:: MAlA80N SilTY CLAVlOAM 'DO%OFPROPERTY LEGEND '" DECIDUOUS TREE " GAS VALVE . WATER METER CURBLlNE WEEP HOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS & . US WEST <> FIRE HYDRANT e SEWER MAN HOLE . CURBLlNE CATCHBASIN . STREET LIGHT X SPOT ELEVATION - FENCE 6" WATER SE"RVICE -<> GUTTER FLOW DIRECTION rn POWER SERVICE ( -~ VICINITY MAP NO SCALE '\.,. .~~,",,=~~r,'!~=~ .~, ot"PVCWATERUNE- . ~EOR~~~~~~~~~~ MAY '4. '9~5. REC!:PTlON NO. 3301. LANE COUNTY. OR. z i ~ x".." PARTITION PARCEL 1 985TSqFI 0.228.....,... PARTITION PARCEL 2 ,37D3SqFl 0.317A",.. lOTl LEGACY ESTATES NDTE:NDCUTORFIll. REQUIRED. GROUND IS FLAT. REFER TO SPOTB.EVATIONS. z ~ - ~ ~og G 8!11 . .'" . ! ,.. - z I PATIO ~ '<.. '<.. PROPOSEOPARTITION-----'--- liNE NOTE: EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM TO BE DECOMMISSIONED <, 1;;1 $1 01 ~: ", I I ---: I 6"PVCWATEFlUNE_1 I I I ___'.LATEAAI.__-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRIVEWAY x.., x.., x.,,,,, .-..--.-.'O'SET6ACKliNE.~-.-.- '" ......_.___.1 x,,$!j' t:~.... .. ~ <$0-2- '1'--,._ ~9'42'12"W 99,0'. ~9.42'U"W '25.40' NOTE . LOTl LEGACY ESTATES .REVISED PARCEL II PARTITIONS'I.PIJ549 PERCSF32366 26.875 SQ. FT. COMMUNITY MATLBOX LOCATED +I- 1T~FEETSOIJTtIERlYFROM lNTERSECTlON OF DEl 1l0SE AV'ENUEAND GRANO VISTA DRIVE Date Received: (~~ ....1 ~,,"\..;;Gdived: Planner: AL -0'/""""<'? JAN - 7 2009 lilY Ul'rgllli:l' vU"'""LL~.</- .:}' ,~ ~ o 20' ,~--- i _(OLlRa ,~ ~ ::::~:~:::'::~ J, I ~._...,,"".....,""...... ...'....~., ......,...- ~ )> (") I ~ m z --l )> U,_," ,f. J'. 1,"- ..j '::i .'!: .~~ '.- . , 'i' "-,",' ..'1: II ., I~ ;,,' ., I,' .:1 :..o....'c .. " ",r L\.,. ,__....--....._....... _._.......,. ..._.._._....."',.... ...""-~_ ~ . ..1 'C':: .~ 'f, ,.,.l:~,:'i...,,;Jlr/ V;;di':'fr-~ .' ~i~' ;.,~ '.,:.. I ." 'I, '''?-'''I~'C~HTl'' "~\ I'lM{~L1f :~~~- , . 'I" l. !II 'c;r ,'>6;' ,. .",.....;Ir,ft\ ~ , " CITY OF. SPRINGFIELD,;' . - --- ., "-' - ", ,,'" ..'.. . ""'.~ . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES,DEPARUAEN . " .~.,,', ',\ ..1. -, --. ',,_",';.I.,/",i,11 '. '" . 225 5th ST. . 'J';,' . . .' - --,,- ,~,., ':.," .,'\- SPRINGFIELD, OR 9747:7::\ ',' "': .~'~: i',-."<'" ';)~it".~~;:'>~ii~. ,~'"r :' ",' = Michael Proden 2566 Grand Vista Springfield, OR . . ".:- Dr 97477 , ~:"!'>1', "..' ',." ',r,:;;<\~::-.:t'<~';~':"":i;'>~';"'\ 1\ .:~". ~'';'\l '. '.,,' "" C''''fl'>l€''~.'f'fl :~I~' :tr.,xf '.'/ . ~'" ".',,,' ':,:~;:':j';;,''':'~ .~~"! ',".";"':' ,,'CITY OF SP,RINGFIEiD '. DEVElOPMENT}3ERVICESDEPfRTME ~ ,.! "225 "5th" 8r.' , "<'~~i~l~'~'~"1i1:l SPRINGFIElOOfj 97477/:;'. ',~ ':'~~.:l~.. ';':':::'.< 'J":''::..;_'_'_ Rob Ward Ward North West Inc PO Box 105 Florence, OR 97439 ': "". . ,,~.";~ ',':~ of;:: ;~~'~i~~:~M,tJ~~~:::' -" ", ,',CI.TY OF~P~IN~fl,E(();'I:;~~~; DEVELOPMENT SERVICESHEPARTMEN . .' .', "-,,' . -,': '~I:""""~~ l:"i'""','" ,- '-,.J!i -/\ .,' .;," -',,225 5th'ST"'';:',~lt}:J.;:\'''~''~'~(af~~''i', ,..\ . .., . SPRINGFIELD' C;R~7 47f';;,:';;i;i~')t~o\\;,\.;;~ " , - . : : ~ -, :' ': :",:", d, ':'~i>"::~:;.c;::";~",' j~;,::,;'tt~,:>:~;r:~~fJ;;~~ jL ,."" Dan Olmstead EGR & Associates, Inc 2535 Prairie Road, .Suite B Eugene, OR 97402 Uo,,,, ksceived' ~4",? Plannei':_AL. / ~ 13.. "'" ..,