Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/27/2009 ~~. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON } }ss. County of Lane } I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Notice of Decision Type II Tentative Partition Review SUB2009.00003 (See attachment "A") 01) February 27; 2009 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. hv~ Brenda Jones Planning Administr --<.~- .'r__ STATE OF OREGON, County.of Lane ~i h1A~;17 , 2009 Personally appeared the above nam~ Brenda Jones, dministrati e Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . . OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELLY NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 /Sf COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 ~ ell( My Commission Expires: '?' /is-It! ~~~t~~;~::C~t~d: fj ~'l _ . SPRINGFIELD ~ ~OREGON TYPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Geoff Cossell Partition Project Proposal: Partition one residential parcel into two residential parcels Case Number: SUB2009-00003 Project Location: 26609 Stn,et (Map 17-03-36-11, Tax Lot #9100) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) , Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR (Metro PiaI'!) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: December's, 2008 , Application Submitted Date: January 8; i~09 Decision Issued Date: February 27, 2009 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: March 16,2009 Natural'Features: None Density: Approximately 7-10 units per acre Associated Applications: ZON2008-90076; PRE2008-00070; DRC2009-00002 ,,' CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TE~ I POSITION I Proiect Manager , Transportation Planning EIT I Public WorkS Engineer I Public Works Engineer- I Deputy Fire Marshal I Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanitarjr & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety Building PHONE 726-3784 726-3679 - 736-1036 736-1036 726-3661 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner! Applicant: , Surveyor: Geoff & Elizabeth Cossen 445 E. 50th Ave. Eugene, OR 97405 NAME 'Andy Limbird Jon Driscoll Clayton McEachern Clayton McEachern Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent I I I, I Engineer: Joe Ferguson, PLS 2130 Daphne Street Springfield, OR 97477 Stephen Keating, PE _ Keating Engineering LLC 159 E. 16th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 -: .',' ,'. .... DatEI Heceived' f-7~tJ1 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 CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. . (See Attachment A and Page 15 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 II procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-100. This application was accepted as complete on Jariuary8, 2009. This decision is issued on the 50th day of the 120 days mandated by the state. SITE INFORMATION: The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot comprising approximately 12,825 if (0.29 acres). The 'propertY is a corner lot with frontage on G Street to the south and 26th Street to the west. The subject propertY contains an existing d)"elling and accessory building in the northern haif of the prop~rtY. Th~ site is zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Metro Plan. The Assessor's description for the siJbject propertY IS Map 17-03-36-11, Tax Lot 9100.. Approval of the proposed partition would create two LDR parcels: one containing the existing' house with frontage on 26th Street, and an L-shaped vacant'parcel with corner frontage on G and 26th Streets. ' . WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of propertY owners/occupants within 300 feetofthe 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 noti~e period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. Procedural Finding: 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 12,2009. Three written comrrients were received. Comment #1 from Joel & Jill Daniken, 821 26th Street, Springfield'97477: . "Concerning 300-foot Public Noticefor Minor Variance Application at the location of 2660 'G' Street which we received on January 13th, 2009 from applicant Geoff and Elizabeth Cossen. Our first concern is in regarding the - five foot private waste water ~asement 'serving Parcel 2 and 821 26'h Street. Before the proposed new driveway is poured for Parcel 2, the 26th Street side, our sewer pipe connection is on the south side of our home: under the laurel hedge traveling under current gravel driveway of Parcel 2 and continues toward 'G " Street approximately 7'-10' outfrom the existing home'(ParceI2} on the west side of26'h Street. This sewer pipe serves both our home 821 26'h Street and 2660 'G'Street, already existing home: Therefore, our sewer pipe would need to be replaced with new up to code sewer pipe bejore any driveway is poured.' We would like to know if the above applicants, Geoff and Elizabeth Cossen will be paying the entire cost involving the new up to code sewer pipe? Our second concern is regarding the C. private jive foot waste water easement serving 82 r 26'h Street. Where is this located? Can bark a mulch be used there or grass? Where is it located? Concerning no. 15, duplex to be served by existing unused sewer lateral, 30 [feet] west ofSE corner. Where is. that located? Staff Response: Staff met with the Danikens at the City's Development Services office to explain the proposed alignment of the private sanitaiy sewer lateral, the location of the proposed utility easement, that installation of the sewer pipe from the connection point to the existing house on Parcel 2 would be the obligation of the applicant, and that any arrangement for replacement of existing sewer pipe that currently serves 821 26th Street would have to be worked, Datt:l f'<dCeived: 2-/17/J1Jo'f 2 Plt:lnner: AL ' out between the applicant and the benefiting. propertY' owners. This staff report and decision contains a recommendation 'that the entire sewer line is replaced, but the applicant is not obligated to replace existing, private utility infrastructure that serves off-site dwellings with this decision. Unless' provisions of the easement document specifically prohibit improvements, groundcover plants, bark mulch or paved surfaces could be installed atop the private easement and private sanitary sewer line at the propertY owner's risk and expense. In the event the sewer line requires replacement in the future, the surface improvement would need to be removed or replaced following '.excavation. Staff advise that the sanitary sewer connection proposed to serve Parcel 1 is noted with lineworkon the applicant's tentative plan. The existing .connection is shown extending northward from a 10" public sanitary sewer line runn.ing east-west within G Street. . Comment #2 from Jan Peterson, 2575 G Street, Springfield 97477: "PLEASE, check with the police department. You'll find the MANY records generated by inhabitants of DUPLEXES in the neighborhood. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CRIME and 'UNDESIRABLES' IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. Home owners property values will be 'lowered by another highly visible low-end shacky rental. The ancient house on the property now is somewhat of an eyesore..., and the new unit will no doubt be just as bad......in keeping with the established 'style' or lack thereof Will theroofridgeline line be continous [sic).....as I was told is required by the City io be considered a duplex? Your tentitive [sic] partition'does not show an at/ached roojline. Without tearing down the existing house will a duplex be possible? Are the sizes of the newly partitioned lots large enough to each be considered a legal lot?, ....one that meets' current code? Ifj;ou approve this Application, it WILL set a precedent. Other owners and rental owners without civic pride (AND no aesthetic sense of beauty), will put a low end shack on their property too. PLEASE do not approve this. (If you approve it, please require the owners to bring both units into the 21st century with AlTRACTIVE exterior touches....like stone work, quality siding and roofing and profes~ional quality landscaping)." Staff Response: Staff advise that concerns about possible criminal activity and social problems associated with neighborhood residents cannot be addressed in this land use decision. These issues should be addressed directly with the Springfield Police Department, For a dwelling to be considered a duplex under the City's Development Code, it must be "designed or used exclusively for the, occupancy of two families living independently of each other, sharing a common roof, wall or foundation at the garages, carports and/or living areas" (Springfield Development Code, ,Section 6.1-110). Therefore', the roofline mayor may not be continuous depending upon the' style of the dwelling ,units. Some designs (often referred to as "tandem" units) may have a common wall between the garages, and.also may have, varied rooflines and living areas that are oriented to different streets. It is notable that the applicant could replace or reconfigure the existing single-family dwelling as a duplex dwelling because the parcel already meets the Development Code requirements ,for a duplex lot. Building permits would be required for this change, but no other land use actions would be required. ' The applicant's submittal shows a conceptual building footprint with a rectangular dwelling orie~ted east-west and two side-by-side single garages at the east side of the building. Staff advise that the applicant is not required to demonstrate that a duplex will fit on the parcel with this application, only that the parcel meets or exceeds the minimum dimensional'requirements of the Springfield Development Code. In this case, the proposed parcel has corner exposure, is at least 6,000 square feet, and has at least 45 feet of frontage on an east-west street (G Street). The applicant has requested a variance for the north-south street frontage (45 feet is proposed, where 60 feet is required) pursuant to Planning Case DRC2009-00002. If the variance and partition approval are granted, the applicant will be required to submit buiJdii1g plans that meet current Building Code requirements. Although it is an important consideration for neighborhood compatibility, the applicant is not required by this land use decision to upgrade the existing house or provide extra architectural detailing for the proposed dwelling on Parcel I. The applicant has advised they are engaging'the services of a professional architect for the proposed duplex, and that they intend to construct an attractive dwelling that will fit with the,neighborhood. ;' .~: +.. ; ! ..' , ~ Date Received' ~/n//C<P? Planner: AL 3 Comment #3 from Joe Suminski, 888 26th Street, Springfield 97477: "1 oppose a variance for 2660 'G' Street. There are two reasons for my opposition. J. According to the map he's asking for a variance on N.: 26th street. This street is already clogged with cars parked on both sides of the street due to houses being built so close that there's no place to put cars, boats, trailers, etc.. We don't want, a precedent to make structures even closer. 2. J 5 yards is not enough distance from the roadfor safety or curb appeal. Please reject this petition. Staff Response: Staff included the comment from Mr. Suminski regarding the proposed variance to ensure the respondent receives a copy of both staff reports and decisions when they are issued., A response to Mr. Suminski's concerns is provided in the variance request staff report and decision (DRC2009-00002). ' CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENTATIVE APPROVAL: SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve orapprov~ 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 north-south streets shall have a minimum parcel size of 5,000 square feet with 60 feet of street frontage. Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcel 2 exceeds the minimum requirements for parcel size and street frontage. Finding 3: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, corner 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 minimum requirements for corner parcel size and street frontage on an east-west street. Finding 5: The applicant is requesting a variance to the north-south street frontage requirement for proposed Parcel I because the existing house on Parcel 2 precludes establishing at least 60 fcet of frontage on 26th Street. For Parcel I, the applicant is.requesting a 45-fooffrontage on 26th Street where 60 feet is required, a 'variance of 15 feet (25%). Finding 6: In accordance with SDC 5.21-120, an adjustment of a dimensional standard of up to 30% is considered a minor variance. A minor variance may be granted to a parcel dimension that does not reduce the parcel size below the minimum required in the LDR district. Proposed Parcel I meets the minimum 6,000 ft' requirement ofSDC 3.2-215. Finding 7: The applicant's tentative plan proposes a reverse L-shaped Parcell with an irregular north-south boundary between Parcels I and 2. The Springfield Development Code does not limit the number of angle points that can be used to create a common property line between two low density residential (LDR) parcels. Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain a variance for the Parcel I north-south street frontage pursuant to Planning Action DRC2009-00002. The variance must establish' a 45-foot frontage for Parcel I on 26th Street, where 60 feet is required. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, ,this proposal satisfies Criterion A. " 'Date Received' -../7-7 1 ?<itA Planner: AL I 4 B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and .Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 8: The ~ubject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diagram. The zoning of the ",v,,~'~f is LDR, consistent with the Metro Plan,imd the applicant is not proposing to change the zoning designation. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion B. C. Capacity requirements 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 and the public improvements shaU be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. General Finding 9: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manua/(EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services. General Finding 10:. 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 Finding II: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed partition. City staffs review comments have been jncorporated in [mdings and conditions contained herein. General Finding 12: Criterion C contains 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 subcelements and code standards of Criterion Cinclude 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) o ,Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3-105) , o StormwaterManagement (SDC 4.3-110-4.3-115) 0, Utilities (SDC.4.3-120 - 4.3-130) o Water Service and Fire Protection (SDC 4.3-130) o Public and Private Easements (SDC 4.3-140) Public and Private Streets Finding 13: Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a proposed land division or development wiiJ 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 specifications. 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 improvement project is initiated. Finding 14: In accordance with SDC 4.2-105.G.2.a, when fully improved street right-of-way abuts the property line of the subjectproperty, street improvements shall be constructed across the entire property frontage. Finding 15: The subject prop~rty has frontage on 26th Street al~ng the west boundary. Abutting the subject site to the west, 26th Street is developed as a 27-foot wide paved local street within a 3'0-foot wide right-of- " 'D.att;' l~eceived:--7h7oW'L Planner: AL 5 , way. The street is unproved with a paved surface, curb and ~gutter, and low pressure sodium (LPS) street lighting. An LPS street light is located on the west side of 26th Street across from the subject site, but this type of lighting does not meet current City standards. Finding 16: There is no sidewalk or planter strip along 26th Street north of G Street, and there is insufficient width to develop a 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk entirely within the public' right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 5-foot wide sidewalk easement and Public Utility Ease;"ent (PUB) along the west boundary of Parcels I and 2. The sidewalk easement would facilitate a future sidewalk connection between G Street and properties to the north along 26th Street. An improvement agreement for future sidewalk and street lighting improvements on 26th Street is warranted w!th the proposed partition. Finding 17: The applicant is proposing to plant three street trees along !lie 26th Street frOlitage of Parcels I and 2. The proposed street trees are a listed variety in the City's EDSPM, Chapter 6. Finding 18: Abutting the subject site to the south, G Street is a 32-foot wide collector street within a 40- foot'wide right-of-way. The street is improved with a paved surface, curb 'and gutter, and LPS street lighting. Starting at the southwest corner of the subject propertY and running westward, there is a 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk along the north side of G Street. However, there is no sidewalk along the G Street frontage of the subject propertY. Finding 19: 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 with SDC 4.2-140.B. Maintenance of street trees on private propertY is the responsibility of the landowner. Finding 20: There are no street trees planted or proposed along the subject propertY frontage on G Street. The applicant has indicated that street trees are not desired along the G Street fro!)tage of the propertY because of. the future development plans for the site. However, staff contend there is sufficient room between the edge of curb/sidewalk on G Street and the future building envelope area to accommodate street trees. Street trees can be included on an improvement agreement and planted prior to occupancy of a dwelling on Parcel I. Finding 21: The applicant is proposing to dedicate the southern five (5) feet of Parcel I as publicright-of- way to facilitate future G Street improvements and an extension of the public sidewal\" Provision of a public sidewalk along the G Street frontag~ of Parcel 1 is warranted with the proposed partition. Finding 22: An improvement agreement for future street lighting improvements on G Street is, warranted with the proposed partition. Conditions of Approval: 2. Prior to or'concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a public sidewalk easement for the western;five feet of Parcels I and2. 3. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a public right-of-way dedication for the southern five feet of Parcel I as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 4. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, a 5"foot wide curbside sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire G Street frontage of Parcel L The sidewalk shall be constructed to City Standards and connect with the existing sidewalk at the intersection of 26th and G Streets. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, at least three street trees shall be installed along the 26th Street frontage of Parcels I and 2 as g;enerally depicted on the tentative plan. Date Received: Zh7/WI'L Planner: AL ! '/.' , 6 c/ 6. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel '1, at least two street trees shall be installed along the G Street frontage ofthe.property. 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement.Agreement for 26th Street for sidewalk and street lighting' improvements. 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement for G Street for street trees and street lighting improvements. 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 23: Section 4.3-105Aofthe SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development arid to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding 24: The applicant's utility plan was not stamped and signed bya professional engineer. Ordinarily, a professional engineer will prepare the utility plans in accordance with SDC 5.l2-120.A.1. Because there are no public improvements associated with this application, an engineer's stamp is not specifically required. mstallation of private utilities required to serve the development site and adjacent property (Tax Lot 9200) will be completed and inspected through the building permitting process. ' Finding 25: The applicant's tentati,:e plan indicates a: sanitary sewer lateral stubbed into the G Street frontage of the 1'<V1'~'~i approximately 30 feet west of the southeast property corner. The existing sewer lateral will provide service for a future dwelling on Parcell. Finding 2~: The existing dwelling is served by a private sanitary sewer line running north-south inside the, west property line. The private sanitary sewer line serves the existing dwelling and a dwelling no.rth of the subject property (Tax Lot 9200). The sanitary sewer line connects to a lO-inch public sanitaiy sewer pipe in G Street near the southwest corner of the subject property. Current Building Code regulations require a separate, dedicated sanitary sewer line for each dwelling. Finding 27: The applicant is proposing to replace the private sewer line that serves the existing dwelling on Parcel 2. As depicted on the tentative plan, the aPl'licantis proposing to install two parallel sanitary sewer lines to serve the existing dwelling and the adjacent property. (Tax Lot 9200). . It is not clear from the applicant's tentative plan whether the entire sewer, line serving Tax Lot 9200 is proposed to be replaced. The owners of Tax Lot 9200 have expressed their interest in replacing the northern segment of private sewer line that runs beneath the'driveway on Parcel 2 (see Written Comment # I). Staff agree that replacement of the entire 'sewer line serVing Tax Lot 9200 would be appropriate with this proposal. However, it is the responsibility of the' applicant and the benefiting landowners to coordinate sewer line installation and possible cost-sharing arrangements. Finding 28: The applicant is proposing to dedicate a 5-foot wide private sewer easement along the western edge of Parcels I and 2. As depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, the easement is set back 5 feet from the edge of the 26th Street right-of-way, and behind the proposed 5-foot wide sidewalk easement and PUB. The private sewer easement will benefit Parcel 2 and the adjacent property to the north (Tax Lot 9200). Conditions of App'roval: 9. Prior .to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install private sanitary sewer lines to serve Parcel 2 and the dwelling on Tax Lot 9200 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. . ' f~~ 7 10. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat,the applicant shall execute and record a 5-foot wide private, sewer easement to benefit Parcel 2 and Tax Lot 9200 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. Stormwater Management Oualitv Finding 29: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 30: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require.the City's MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "PostcConstruction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed development. Finding 31: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. .The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. . . Finding 32: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). . Finding 33: As required in SDC 4.3-11O.E, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent [with] 't.'le Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual". Finding 34: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM. states the Public Works Department1will accept, as interim design standards 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). Finding 35: The applicant is proposing to direct runoff from the paved driveway on Parcel 2 to a grassy swale on the north edge of the driveway. From there, the runoff will drain to a, weep hoIe'in the curbline on 26th Street. The applicant has not provided details on the grassy swale, including proposed gradient, seed mixture and application rate. However, while they are considered a "best practices" measure, water quality swales are not specifically required for singlecfamily residential properties. OuantitY . Finding 36: Section 4.3-1.l0.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority 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. Finding 37: Section 4.3-110.D of the SDC requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater managemep,t system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Date Received:. Planner: ALd. ')./11 l:tPuI( I I' 8 Finding 38: Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 39: The gutter downspouts from the existing house on Parcel 2 are connected to curb line weep hole drains in 26th Street. As stated above, the applicant is proposing to direct driveway runoff from Parcel 2 to a grassy swale prior to discharge to curb line weep hole drains. The applicant haS indicated that the new dwelling on proposed Parcel I will connect to weep hole drains in the curb on G Street thereby satisfYing SDC Sections 4.3-110.0 & E. Utilities Finding 40: Section 4.3-120.B ofthe 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 41: 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. The applicant's project narrative indicates that the existing overhead electrical, telephone and cable TV lines are. proposed to be relocated underground. ' Finding 42: The applicant is proposing to extend electrical and telecommunication service lines from an existing power pole outside the northeast co~er of the development site. The applicant is proposing a 7- foot wide private utility easement across the northern "panhandle" extension of Parcel I to accommodate the underground utilities for Parcel 2. SUB Electric advises that the proposed 'private. utility easement is not ideally located because it would require installing longer service lines in order to bypass the. north and west sides of the existing shop structure. . Additionally, the applicant's proposed easement would not facilitate efficient service connections for the future dwelling on Parcel I. SUB Electric recommends extending the utility lines for Parcel 2 southward approximately 50 feet from the existing power pole. A 5- foot wide utility easement running east-west across the "panhandle" extension of Parcel I would be required at or near the midpoint of the Parcell east propertY line. SUB Electric advises that ajunction box would need to be placed on or near the propertY line between Parcels I and 2; the service connections for both dwellings would be taken from this point. Finding 43: The applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide PUB along the.east propertY line of Parcel I to facilitate utility line extensions. Electrical and telecommunications service lines can be placed within'this PUB. Finding 44: SUB Electric advises that the existing power pole in the southwest corner of Tax Lot 10105 is not contained within a public utility easement. Because underground services will need to connect to this pole, trenching across the propertY line will be required.. A utility easement for the power pole will be required from the propertY owner of Tax Lot 10105 :,(addressed as 2681 Garson Lane). SUB Electric advises that the applicant will be partly responsible for the cost of obtaining and recording a new easement for ,the power pole. Finding 45: SUB Electric advises that the overhead conductor between the pole in Tax Lot 10105 and a nearby pole will need to be upgraded to meet the electrical power needs of the development site. Additionally, SUB Electric advises the existing conductor on the nearby pole also will require upgrading because it is running over 100% capacity during winter months. In accordance with SDC 4.3-120.B, the applicant is responsible for utility system design and construction costs for the proposed development. Finding 46:, The telephone lines for Parcel 2 are proposed to be relocated underground along the east propertY line of Parcel I. The utility easement required for the SUB Electric lines:,< described above) also could accommodate relocated telephone and cable TV lines. " 'cia", ";,:.,cl::lived: 0(.?etJf Planner: AL 9 Conditions of Approval: 11. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall coordinate with SUB Electric and other utility providers as may be necessary to relocate private utility lines serving the existing dwelling on Parcel 2, including but not limited to electrical power, telephone, and cable TV. 12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install the underground utility lines serving Parcels'l and 2 to the satisfaction. of the <utility providers. In accordance with the applicant's project narrative and SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be placed underground. 13. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a suitable utility easement across the Parcell ':panhandle", extension forthe benefit of Parcels I and 2. Water Service and Fire Protection Finding 47: Section 4.3-J30.A ofthe 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 Springfield city limits. All new water system facilities and modifications required, to serve the proposed partition area must ):>e placed in the public right-of-way and constructed in accordance with SUB Water standards. Finding 48: The applicant's submittal indicates the existing water service connection for Parcel 2 is located on 26th Street near the southwest p~operty corner. The applicant is proposing to install a new water service connection near the northwest corner of Parcel I. A.street cut on 26th Street will be required to install the new water service connection. SUB Water requires that individual water meters are placed inside the public right-of-way. Finding 49: There is an existing fire hydrant located on the south side of G Street, approximately 310 feet west of the southwest corner of Parcel I: Condition of Approval: 14. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the .applicant shall obtain ,necessary permits and install the water service for Parcell as generally depicted on the tentative plan. Public,and Private Easements Finding 50: 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 PUBs 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. Finding 51: The applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide sidewalk easement and PUB along the west side of Parcels I.and 2. A 5-foot wide PUB also is proposed along the south and east sides of Parcell. The existing dwelling on Parcel 2 is located such that it constrains the provision of parallel 7-foot wide easements for public and private utilities: Public Works staff have reviewed the proposal and acceptthe provisioh ofa 5-foot wide PUB along the west side of Parcels I ,and 2, and along the south side of Parcel 1. Dat~ Re,>.. ,,,,.;I: 1J~~ I F9Q'j Planner: AL ~I 10 Finding 52:, As previously stated and conditioned (Condition 10) the applicant is proposing to record a 5- foot wide private sewer easement benefiting Parcel 2 and TaxLot 9200 across the west edge of Parcels I and 2. Finding53: As previously stated and conditioned (Condition 13) a utility easement will be required across the "panhandle" ,extension of Parcel I for the benefit of Parcels I and 2. Condition of Approval: 15. Prior to or concurrent' with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a 5-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the west side of Parcel 2;' and along the west, south and east sides of Parcel I as generally depicted on the tentative plan. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion C. D. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Clide and other applicable regulations. General Finding 54: 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 fmdings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and Code standards of Criterion D include butare not limited to: . D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Stll11dards), 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) co Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115) . o On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC4.5-100) o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100) " .' D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable RefmementPlan Requirements o. The site is within the 5" I 0 year Time of Travel Zone for the Milia drinking water well. o The site is not within an adopted'Refinement Plan area.. n.l 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 and Setbacks Findmg 55: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing dwelling 0;" Parcel 2. As proposed, the dwelling on Parcel 2 meets the required building setbacks of the LDR District for interior lots. Finding 56: Proposed Parcel I is a corner parcel, and development setbacks will be determined based on the orientation of the dwelling to both G Street and 26th Street. The applicant has depicted a' conceptual building envelope area on.the tentative plan. ['atz, (,.')ceived:0 ?O? Planner: AL 11 Height Standards Finding 57: In 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 58: Prior to issuance of. building permits for a dwelling' on. Parcell, the developer will be required to demonstrate compliance with the solar access standards ofSDC 3.2-225. Landscaping Standards Finding 59: 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 60: There is no requirement to install screening between comparable LDR parcel~. Fence Standards Finding 61: The Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts. However, there is no requirement for fencing between comparable LDR parcels. The applicant is not proposing to change the existing fences that run along the north and east property lines. On-Site Lighting Standards Finding 62:' It is not expected that 'outdoor residential lighting for the existing and proposed dwellings will cause light trespass onto adjacent properties. Vehicle Parking Standards Finding 63: In accordance with SDC 4.6-100, a minimum of two off-street parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. The off-street parking requirement for Pa:cel'2 is met by the existing driveway. Finding 64: The applicant is proposing a two-car driveway and two single garages for the future dwelling on Parcel 1. The off-street parking requirement for a single family dwelling or a duplex can 'be accommodated 'with the paved driveway and garages. Provision of paved off-street parking will be required prior to issuance of occupancy for adwellirig on Parcel I.. Condition of Approval: 16. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for any dwelling on Parcel I, at least two paved off-street parking spaces shall be developed on the site for each dwelling unit. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.1. D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding. 65: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and Refmemerit Plan requirements. The subject site is within the mapped 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone for the nearest drinking water well (Maia wellhead). Because the proposal is a low-density residential development, there are no specific policies of the DWP Overlay District or the Metro Plan that apply to the partition. ~~'~~'~~0~Lea:*I~' r~ ,Finding 66: As stated previously, the developer or future landowner will be required to abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 when applying for building permits on Parcel I. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D.2. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; : areas wit~ susceptibility to flooding; significant c1usters,oftrees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse' Map and their associated' riparian areas; wetlands; rock outc~oppings; 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 rpotectedeatures have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations.: Finding 67: The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable soils. Finding 68: The site is not within all identified wetland area and does not contain significant trees or shrubs. ,Finding 69: The Metro 'Ar~a General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric ,Soils Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Map and the list of Historic Landmark sites have been consulted and there are no features needing to be protected or preserved on this site. If any artifacts are found during construction, there are state ,laws thai could apply; ORS 97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construct(on, it is a Class "c" felony to proceed under ORS 97.740. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies ,<::riterion E. . 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 70: 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, off-street parking will be required for a dwelling on Parcel I prior to occupancy (Condition 16). Transportation System Impacts, Finding 71: Abutting the subject site to the west, 26th Street is a 27-foot wide asphalt-paved roadway within a 30-foot wide right-of-way. ,Abutting the subject site tQ the south, G Street is a 32-foot wide asphalt-paved collector roadway within a 40-foot right-of-way. Both streets are improved with paving, curb and gutter and LPS street lighting. Along the property frontages, average daily traffic on 26th Street is estimated to be fewer than 200 vehicle trips per day and average'daily traffic on G Streetisestimated to be ,approximately 1000 v,ehicle trips per day. Finding 72: Parcell has the potential to be developed with one or two dwelling units (single family home or duplex). Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing) full development of Parcell with a residential use would generate 10-20 additional vehicle trips per day and 1-2 PM peak-hour , vehicle trips onto the surrounding street system. Finding 73: 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 ~d 1.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of . Cia,.,. i\eceived' 0 '/~o/ . Planner: AL 13 land uses, including this site.' Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 74: The nearest regular transit bus service is provided by LID Route #13 (Centennial) operating along 21" Street and Centennial Boulevard. Finding 75: 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. Site Acc,ess and Circulation Finding 76: 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.1 stipulates that each parcel is entitled to ".. ,have an approved access provided, .." (emphasis added). Finding 77: In 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. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted.to serve each of Parcels I and 2. Finding 78: The applic~nt is proposing to modify the existing oversize driveway off 26th Street that serves the house on Parcel 2. The'driveway is proposed to be reduced in width to an 18'x20' paved driveway with a curb cut and approach that meets City standards. The existing oversize curb cut will need to be scaled back and unused portions replaced with vertical face curb and gutter. In accordance with SDC 4.2-2(3), the driveway is proposed to be paved at least 18 feet into the property. Finding 79: There is an existing curb cut and driveway approach from G Street near the midpoint of the Parcel I south boundary. The applicant is proposing'to relocate the driveway serving Parcel I to the southeast edge 'of the parceL. Note # 13 on the applicant's tentative plan indicates that unused curb cuts will be replaced with vertical face curb and gutter. Finding 80: Upon partitioning of the property, the existing house on Parcel 2 will not have frontage on G Street. Instead, the dwelling will be re-addressed from 26th Street; the City's Building Division is 'responsible, for assigning street addressing numbers. In.accordancewith the Springfield Municipal Code, Chapter 3.246(5), street numbers are to be posted in a visible location on the dwelling. The applicant's tentative plan indicates that a hard surface walkway will be constructed from the front door of the dwelling , to the curb line on 26th Street. Finding 81: As 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. Conditions of Approval: 17. Prior to approval of the Final 'Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install a paved residential driveway off 26th Street to serve Parcel 2 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. Unused portions of the oversize curb cut shall be replaced with vertical face curb and gutter in accordance with City standards. 18. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and replace the curb cut and driveway approach located near the midpoint of the south property line of Parcel I with vertical face curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip (as appropriate). , ~ '. [,,,,,'-, i,.:JGeived' 1.-\'),1 J-D01 Planner: AL 14 :19. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of the site driveways in accordance with SDC 4.2-130, including but not limited to proper placement of street, trees and other on-site vegetation to ensure vision clearance areas are unobstructed. 20. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, ,the applicant shall install new addressing numbers on the existing house to represent its address assignment on 26th Street. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F. G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as specified in this Code. . Finding 81: There is no other property under the same ownership that can be further developed. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion G. H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided acces~ that will allow its development as specified in this Code. Finding 82: Adjacent land is currently developed with residential dwellings and has access to public streets. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H. I. Where the Partition of property that is outside ofthe city limits but within the City's urbanizable area and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shall also apply. Finding 83: 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 Criteria A-I of SDC 5.12-125. Portions ofthe proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12-145. What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to one vear 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 AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Final Plat is required to go through a pre-subl11ittal process. After the Final Plat application is complete, it must be submitted to the Springfield Development Services Department. A sepi'rate application and fees will be required. Upon signature .by the City Surveyor and the Planning Department, the Plat may be submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until the pl:it is recorded' and five (5) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development Services Department by the applicant; !' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: - .'" ~, I I - . ; ...... . -1 15 2. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and recorda public sidewalk easement for the western five feet of Parcels I and 2. 3. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a public right-of- way dedication,[or the southern five feet of Parcel 1 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 4. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcell, a 5-foot wide curbside sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire G Street frontage of Parcel I. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City Standards and connect with the existing sidewalk at the intersection of 26th and' G Streets. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, at least three street trees shall be installed along the 26th Street frontage of Parcels I and 2 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 6. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I,' at least two street trees shall be installed along the G Street frontage of the property. . 7. 'prior to approval of the Final Plat, th~ applicant .shall execute and'record an Improvement Agreement for 26th Street for sidewalk and street lighting improvements. 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an ImprovementAgreement for G Street for street trees and street lighting improvements. 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install private sanitary sewer lines to serve Parcel 2 and the dwelling on Tax Lot9200 as generally depicted on tlie tentative plan. 10. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a 5-foot wide private sewer easement to benefit Parcel 2 and Tax Lot 9200 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 11. Prior to approval ofthe Final Plat, the applicant shall coordinate with SUB Electric and other utility providers as may be necessary to relocate private utility lines serving the existing dwelling on Parcel 2, including but not limited to electrical pow~r, telephone, and cable TV. 12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install the, underground utility lines serving Parcels I and 2 to the satisfaction of the utility providers. In accordance with the applicant's project narrative and SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be pl~ced underground. 13. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a suitable utility easement across the Parcell "panhandle" extension for the benefit of Parcels I and 2. 14. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits'and install the water service for Parcel I as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 15. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a 5-foot wide Public Utility Easement along the west-side of Parcel 2; and along the west, south and east sides of Parcel I as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 16. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for any dwelling on Parcell, at least two paved off-street parking spaces ,shall be developed on the site for each dwelling uriit. 17. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install a paved residential ,driveway off 26th Street to serve Parcel 2 as generally depicted on the tentative plan. Unused portions of the oversize curb cut shall be replaced with vertical face curb and gutter in 'accordance with City, standards. . ~ -., ..-.... . ~ Date, Received: , Planner: AL "lv'1I:M7Q \ I 16 18. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and replace the curb cut and driveway approach located near the midpoint of the south propertY line of Parcel I with vertical face curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter strip (as appropriate). 19. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance 'triangles at the corners of the site driveways in accordance with SDC 4.2-130, including but not limited to proper placement of street trees and other on-site vegetation to ensure vision clearance, areas are unobstructed. 20. Prior to or concurrent with approval ofthe Final Plat, the applicant shall install new addressing numbers on the existing house to,represent its address assignment on 26th Street. Additional Information: The application" all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Appeal: This Type II Tentative Partition decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may,be appealed to the Planning<=ommi~sion. The appeal may, be filed with the D'Cvelopment Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must ,be in accordance with SDC S.3~100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The' fee ~ill be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil P~ocedures, Rule lO(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at.S:OO p.m. on March 16, 2009. Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird@ci.sorinmeld.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process. Prepared By: p~ Encl: Attachment A - Tentative Partition Plan '... Dated:.;,aceiveO' ~;/~"'J" . Planner: AL 17 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 CharQ: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 surface 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 construction of buildings and site improvements within the subject site. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected at 'time of building permit issuance 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 that 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 haven~t'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 Permit~: . 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 Hookl}p 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 nennits/annrovals that mav be necessarY: . 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) '. . US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands) Date, Received: 1,.0\1;,1, \ ,~ 0; Planner: AL ~ 18 Geoff & Elizabeth Cossen 445 E. 50th Ave. Eugene, OR 97405 Joe Ferguson, PLS 213 0 Daphne Street Springfield, OR 97477 ' Joel & Jill Daniken 821 26th Street Springfield, OR 97477 Jan Peterson .2575 G Street Springfield, OR 97477 Joe Suminski 888 26th Street Springfield, OR 97477 , Please Send Copies of Both Staff Reports to: , . . 2.-/21 / ;uc,~'- ,.. ",_~ceNed.- I I ~"l,}.l:;;;j t\." Planner. AL