Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 8/24/2007 . J , / ! ~ "", ~ c: .':'~~' ,...: _ /)~ ^' h)d ~~~ ,', , P.FFIDAVIT OF SERVICE i~~yo srATE 'OF OREGON) } ss. County of Lane ' ) I. Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follo~s: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician' for the Planning, Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, 'Oregon. 'i 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of 5()B2D01-Cx:oZ-?--)l~ tJ?:, CIa"', - J:Th -.Au..h ~ (See attachment "A") onB/2'-f .2007 addressed to (see ~ Attachment B"), by causing said ' letters to be,placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon, 'd! t1JUA !!l-~ /1 LiA- ;~~N LaFLEUR , II r STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane !ill /,y. ~ , 2007, Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, -. Pr~;;k: Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be 'their voluntary ~ct. Before me: ,~~~~ My Commission Expires: , .~ n~( f------------------~ ~,. '. OFFICIAL SEAL " , BRENDA JONES I j ~ ./ NOTARY PUBLIC, OREGON I I .' COMMISSION NO, 379218 j L- _ __ ~:O~~~~..:~'~~~~~~~h Date, Received: g~l// MoL Planner:: AL ~' . \ PRINCIIPIELD TYPE II TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Jon's Landing Subdivision Project Proposal: Subdivide one Low Density Residential (LOR) parcel into nine LOR 'parcels Case Number: SUB2007-00023 Project Location: 809 South 57'h Street (Map 17-02-32-33, TL 2100 & 2101) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LOR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LOR Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: November 14,2006 Application Submitted Date: May] I, 2007 Application Considered Complete: July 6, 2007 Decision Issued Date: August 24, 2007 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions App~al Deadline Date: September 10, 2007 Natural Features: 12-140 slope on eastem 1/3 of site" -r,' Density: Approximately 6.4 units per acre Associated Applications: ZON2005-00061; SUB2005-00069; LRP2006.00025; PRE2,006-00094 I CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION, I Proiect Manager I Transportation Planning Engineer I Public Works Civil Engineer I Public Works Civil Eng-ineer I Deputy Fire Marshal I Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanitary & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety Building NAME Andy Limbird Gary McKenney Eric Walter :' Eric Walter ': I Gilbert Gordon I Dave Puent APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM , Owner/Applicant: Don Horton DMH Electric 780 South '57th Street Springfield, OR 97478 Engineer: Don Mogstad Poage Engineering & Surveying 990 Obie Street Eugene, OR 97402 .1. Dat~ neceived' Planner: AU I PHONE I 726-3784 I' 726-4585 I 736-1036 I 736-1036 I 726-2293 I 726.3668 I ;M/fiJo7 I I .. > 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 Subdivision Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. All improvements are required to be installed as shown on the approved plan or as conditioned herein. Any proposed changes to tbe tentative plan must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to installation. 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 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'll procedures listed in SDC 3,080 and the subdivision criteria of approval, SDC 35.050. The submittal received on May II, 2007 was considered incomplete and the applicant was issued a Notice ofIncomp}ete Application. on June 4, 2007, The applicant granted an extension of the 120 day decision period to October 8, 2007: and submitted supplementary infonnation on July 6, 2007. The application was accepted as complete on July 6, 2007, This decision is' issued on the 49th day ofthe ] 20 days mandated by the state. SITE INFORMATION: The subject development site is located on the east side of South 57th Street just south of Ridge Court and approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection with Mt. Vernon Road, The Assessor's map description is 18-02-04-11, TL #5300. The 1040 acre development site is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and contains an existing single family dwelling, Surrounding properties also are zoned and designated LDR. Properties to the south and west are outside the City limits, but within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The site has public street frontage on South 57th Street along the westem boundary, and South 58th Street tenninates at the extreme southeastern comer of the subject property. The applicant, with the concurrence of the adjacent landowner, is proposing to extend South 58th Street from its current tenninus to an intersection with South 57th Street to serve the subdivision area, The Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission approved the annexation request at a Public Hearing on August 2,2007. The property is annexed to the City limits effective August 16,2007 pursuant to an order issued by the Boundary Commission. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the application (SDC 3,080 and 14.030). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. ' Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.080 and 14.030, notice was sent to owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on May 16, 2007. Three written comments were received from two different respondents, Comments #1 & #2 from Donald Montel, 1013 South 58th Street, owner of the property immediately to the east of the development site: "Issue 1) Drainage onto my property. My property sets directly below the hill oj proposed home sites, water run off will flood my land Da',. ,'.. ,.;dved:~1,}t10l- Pia, 'oar: AL , 2 Issue 2) Cluster of trees will be cut down, and natural oak tree will be removed. According to section 35,050 article 9 no cluster of trees are to be removed." "On case number sub2007-00023, Applicant, Don Horton. My property is 1013 S 5E!h (lot 1), I cannot read your map it's too small. My question is where the road is going? Is it cUlling through my property under the guise of right-{of]-way? When I bought the property from the city of Springfield, they never indicated that there was right-{of]-way, Could you please clarify this for me, My phofle is 741-2391, and could you send me a larger map," Staff Response: Staff sent Mr. Montel a full-size copy of the subdivision plan at his request. Staff contacted Mr. Montel by telephone and clarification was provided' regarding the proposed extension of South 58th 'Street, and that no part of his property was to be used for additional right-of-way, Staff explained that the applicant is responsible for managing storm water runoff on the development site to prevent impacts \0 adjacent properties, The site assessment plan submitted by the applicant does not show an oak tr~e on the subjecf property, The landowner is proposing to retain most of the existing coniferous trees along the eastern boundary of the site, However, some trees probably will have to be removed for home construction and installation ofa driveway to serve proposed Lot 8. In accordance with SDC .38, the applicant/landowner will have to obtain a tree felling permit ifmore than five trees greater than 5" diameter are to;ibe,removed from the property over a 12 month period, Staff also provided an email response to Mr. Montel as follows: ' "Thank you for your response, Please be advised that your comment will be kept on file and included in the staff report on this application, You will be sent a copy of the subdivision decision when it is issued, In the meantime, I will send you a larger copy of the tentative subdivision plan for Mr. Horton:s (the applicant) 'property at 809 South 57th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend South 58th Street from its current dead-end point at the eastern edge of the property to an intersection at South 57th Street.; All ofthe proposed road connection is on Mr. Horton's property, with the exception of a small triarigular area on the property to the south (Tax Lot 100), The owner of Tax Lot 100 is proposing to dedicate the northe'ast corner of their property (the 'triangle') for road right-of-way to complete the South 58th Street connection, There is no land proposed to be taken from any other properties for road right-of-way. For that to occur, written agreement from the affected landowner would be required in advance." Mr, Montel seemed satisfied with the response from staff and did not provide any further comments, , Comment #3 from Tina Cropper, 5703 Ridge Court, owner of property about ] 00 feet north of the development site: "I received a public notice regarding 809 South 57th I would like to know more about the plans, Are they pUlling manufactured homes or stick built? I do not approve of the proposal of a 9 lot subdivision." Staff Response: Staff advised Ms. Cropper in writing that Article 16 of the Springfield Development Code would allow for either stick-built or manufactured homes to be placed on the proposed lots, The email response follows: "Thank you for providing a comment on this subdivision proposal. Your written com~ent will be kept in the Planning case file and included in the staff report on this application. You will be mailed a copy of the subdivision decision when it is issued, There are full-size subdivision plans available for review at the Development Services office in City Hall if you are interested - please contact me at 726-3784 if you wish to make an appointment to view the plans. I will be away from the office tomorrow and Thursday on a training course, so either Friday afternoon or a convenient time next week would be preferable." Subject to meeting schedules and other obligations, my hours of availability are generally 8 am - 5 pm, Monday to Friday. If you want to submit another written comment after reviewing the plans, it will be accepted even ifthe May 31 response deadline has passed. In accordance with the existing Low Density 'Residential zoni,!g for the , l't Date Heceived: pr,?;o7 Planner: AL '3 proposed subdivision area and provisions'ofthe Springfield Development Code, either stick-built or manufactured homes could be placed on the proposed lots. Manufactured homes (but not "mobile homes") are allowable on Low Density Residential lots within Springfield unless there special restrictions placed on the property by a private developer. You could contact the landowner/subdivision applicant, Don Horton (who is a homebuilder) and inquire about the type of homes that are planned for the lots. His contact number is 517-3059." CRITERIA OF SUBiHVISION TENT A TIVE APPROVAL: SDC 35,050 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application upon determinirig that criteria (1) through (9) of this Section have been satisfied, If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application, (1) Tbe request conforms to tbe requirements ofthis'Code pertaining to parcel size and dimensions. Finding 1: Pursuant to SDC Section 16,030(2), residential lots on an east-west street shall have a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet and a minimum frontage of 45 feet Finding 2: Proposed Lots 1-7 and 9 have frontage on an east-west street, and exceed the minimum requirements for parcel size and frontage, Finding 3: Pursuant to SDC 16,030(6)(a), lots with panhandl~s shall a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet in the pan portion with at least 20 feet of street frontage for a single panhandle, Finding 4: Proposed Lot 8 is a panhandle lot that exceeds the minimum parcel size in the pan area, and has 20 feet of public street frontage: Finding 5: Pursuant to SDC 16,030(6)(b)l, panhandle driveways shall be permitted where dedication of public right-of-way is impractical or to comply with the density standards in the applicable zoning district. Finding 6: The proposed panhandle driveway for Lot 8 is adequate to serve the development area, and allows for the density standards for the site to be met. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I. (2) The zoning is consistent with tbe Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 7: The subject property does not lie within an adopted Refinement Plan area, The site is zoned and designated Low Density Residential in the Metro Plan, and there are no changes proposed to the existing zoning for the site. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 2. (3) 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 sball not be exceeded, and tbe public improvements sball be available to serve tbe site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by tbis Code and otber applicable regulations. Tbe Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. General Finding 8: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the subdivision improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and R ' d' P-'/'l//~CTJ . ' gate ecelve .~ 4 . pl;;\nner: AL tlie current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM): The private civil , engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services, ' General Finding 9: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed subdivision, City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions contained herein. General Finding 10: Criterion 3 contains sub-elements and applicable code standards. The subdivision application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions, The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to: Public improvements in Accordance with SDC 31 and 32 o Public Streets and Related Improvements (SDC 32,020-32.090) o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 32.100) o Storm Water Management (SDC 32.110, 31.240) o Water and Electric Improvements (SDC 37.120(1)) o Fire and Life Safety Improvements (SDC 32,120(3)). o Public, and Private Easements (SDC 32.120(1) and (5)) Public Streets and Related Improvements Finding 11: Section 32,020(7)(b) of the SDC requires that whenever a proposed land division or , development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has ,any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications, Exception (a) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time that a City street improvement project is initiated, Finding 12: The subject property has frontage on a County road (South 57"' Street) along the western boundary. The portion of South 57'h Street abutting the subject site is developed to urban standards with curb,gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and lane striping, The applicant is proposing to install three street trees along the South 57"' Street frontage of the subject property in accordance with SDC 32.050. ,. Finding 13: The subject property also haS a small interface with an improved City street (South 58"' Street) at the extreme southeastern corne'r of the site, The developer is proposing to extend 'South 58"' Street westward from its current terminus to an intersection with South 57!!' Street by dedicating and constructing a % public street along the southern boundary of the subject propertY, To facilitate the proposed street extension, right-of-way dedication will be required from th~ subject property and the northeast edge of the adjacent property (Tax Lot 200), The owner of Tax Lot 200 has submitted a' concurrence for the right-of.way dedication to occur in conjunction with the proposed tentative plan, Finding 14: The developer is proposing the name "Jon's Lane" for the east-west segment of street connecting South 57"' Street with South 58"' Street. The proposed name will be subject to review and approval by the County-wide Road Naming Committee. Staff will alsq ensure the proposed name is consistent with the City's street naming guidelines, iJ Finding 15: In accordance with the City's EDSPM and requirements of SDC 32, the applicant is proposing to construct curb, gutter, a 5-foot wide sidewalk, and street trees alpng the northern edge of the % public street serving the subdivision area, Date Received: f~~7 Planner: AL 5 Finding 16: The applicant is proposing to construct 23 feet of paving width for the segment of 0/, street abutting Tax Lot 190, Thereafter, the applicant is proposing to flare the southern edge of the right-of-way and increase the paving width from 23 feet wide near the midpoint of the development site to 36 feet wide at the eastern edge of the site in order to match the existing pavement width on South 58th Street The flared right-of-way and pavement width is proposed' to be accommodated primarily witliin the adjacent, participating property to the south (Tax Lot 200). However, the proposal does not represent the 'full extent of street right-of-way required to develop the southern one-third of the street when Tax Lot 200 is developed, Finding 17: Portions of the proposed 0/, street abutting Tax Lot ,100 are shown to have an interim pavement width of 23 feet wide. This pavement width should be sufficient to accommodate vehicle and fire apparatus passage until the southern one-third of the street is dedicated and developed in the future, To ensure that provision for safe vehicle passage is maintained, parking will need to be restricted along both sides ofthe 0/, street , Finding 18: The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 325 linear feet of 6-inch wide extruded asphalt curb along the southem edge of the 0/, street from the westem boundary of the subject property to a transition point along the northeastern edge of Tax Lot 200. East of the transition point, the applicant is proposing to construct concrete curb and gutter to match the existing conditions on South 58th Street ' Finding 19: The tentative subdivision plan and street cross-sections submitted by the applicant indicate there may be a surcharged fill slope along the proposed asphalt curb, To prevent curb failure and to avoid sloughing of slope material onto the street surface, a concrete curb and gutter or engineered retaining structure may be required along this section, The curbing materials and design will be addressed at the time of public improvement plan (PIP) submittal. Finding 20: The applicant is proposing to dedicate a one-foot reserve strip along the southern edge of the 0/, public street until the properties to the south develop and the full width of right-of-way is dedicated, The reserve strip will serve to restrict access from the adjacent property to the south in accordance with SDC 32.020(7)(e), However, the one-foot strip is not depicted on the tentative subdivision plan. Conditions of Approval: 1. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a variable-width public, street. right-of-way affecting the subject property and the' adjacent property (Tax Lot 200) as depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, 2. Prior' to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install at least 17 street trees along the public street frontages of the subject site as generally depicted on the tentative subdivision plan. The street trees shall be appropriate species selected from, Section 6,02.2,A of the City's EDSPM, 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain City approval and execute and record necessary documents for creation of a one-foot (I ') reserve strip along the southem edge of the 0/, street serving the subdivision area, 4. The Final Plat shall depict the one-foot reserve strip along the southem edge of the subdivision area. Date, r:~eceived: f/zr/j;ol Planner: AL f 6 ' Sanitary Sewer Improvements ':' Finding 21: Section 32,100 of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new de"elopment and to connect developments to existing mains, Additionally, installation of , sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities, I' Finding 22: The applicant is proposing to install two sanitary sewer lines to serve the development. The applicant is p~oposing to connect to an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line;'running north-south within South 57th Street. The appl icant proposes to install a new manhole at the intersection of South 57th Street and the new east-west street serving the subdivision area (proposed as "Jon's Lane"), and to install approximately 185 feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer line with laterals t6 serve Lots 1-4. A second 8-inch sanitary sewer line with laterals is proposed to be extended froman existing manhole in South 58th Street to serve Lots 5-9, Finding 23: Annexation of the subject property to the City of Springfield has been completed, However, the proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewer line in South 57th Street will require an extraterritorial sewer line extension, ~s the street is not within the Cil): limits, Finding 24: The Lane County Local Government, Boundary Commission ~ill !,ot be accepting annexation or extraterritorial extension requests after December 31, 2007, and will cease.to function after June 30, 2008. Finding 25: There is an existing dwelling with septic field that is proposed to be removed prior to Final Plat. Decommissioning of the dwelling's septic system will be required prior to the Final Plat. !l Conditions of Approval: 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain approval for an extraterritorial sewer line extension from the City of Springfield and/or the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. . . i' 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide evidence that, the septic system has been decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Lane County Sanitarian, Stormwater Management (Quantity) Finding 26: Section 32.110(2) of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant , development approval only where adequate ,public and/or private stormwateri,management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consi~tent with the EDSPM. Finding 27: Section 32,110(4) of the SDC requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved storm water management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge, Finding 28: In accordance with SDC 32.110(5), future developments on the ,parcels created by the proposed subdivision plan will be required to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface water runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality, , Finding 29: To comply with Sections 32,110(4) & (5), storm water runoff from the site will be directed into private storm pipes and double chambered catch basins, prior to discharge into the public system. The catch basins are required to be double chambered to comply with water quality requirements. , Finding 3~: The applicant is proposing to install a new manhole and extend' a lO-inch stormwater Date Received: rp,M 7.'.,' Planner: AL 7 line from the existing 15-inch stormwater line that runs north-south within South 57th Street. The ,proposed lO-inch stormwater line runs eastward approximately 225 feet to a manhole and cu'rb inlet at the boundary between Lots 4 and 5, From the applicant'ssubmittal; it appears the proposed curb inlet is at or near the apex of a drainage divide for the property: Lots 1-4 appear to drain westward toward South 57th Street, and Lots 5-9 appear to drain eastward toward South 58th Street. The design of the catch basin and stormwater line is questionable due to apparent conflicting elevations and grades. Finding 31: The building envelope for proposed Lot 8 is north of (and down.gradient from) the east- west public street. The applicant has not provided any proposed stormwater management system information showing how the drainage can gravity flow to the curbline approximately 115 feet south of the building envelope area, Finding 32: The tentative subdivision plans submitted do not ,have sufficient stormwater information, elevations, and details to ensure the proposed lots and street drain properly, ' As stated above, the proposed curb inlet between Lots 4 and 5 appears to be at a peak grade break location. Additionally, there is insufficient design and details provided for the south side of the % street proposed to contain extruded asphalt curb. Finally, the plans and ,design submitted does not have sufficient information demonstrating that all lots will have adequate, slope 'to 'ensure positive drainage. ' " Condition of Approval: 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised grading and utility servicing plan showing a complete stormwater system, and provide sufficient information to confirm the proposed street grades and drainage systems are acceptable .for serving all lots within the subdivision area, 'Stonnwater Management (Quality) Finding 33:' Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the <;;ity 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 34: Federal and Oregon Department of EnvironmentaJ Quality (ODEQ) rules require the , City's MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures", Minimum Cot\trol'Measure 5, "Post- Construction Storm water Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed development. Finding 35: 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 36: 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), Date Rece:"'- ,!, Planner: I _, fllA/Joll1 I 8 Finding 37: As required in SDC 31.050(5), "a developmentshall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consisierit with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf'. Finding 38: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will 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 39: Section 3.033.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs that in 'combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total' suspended solids in the runoff generated by the development. Section 3 ,03A,E of the EDSPM requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for storm water quality improvement using vegetative methods, Finding 40: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the Springfield' Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant is required to design a comprehensive stormwater system to serve the development area, pursuant to Condition 7 (above), ,. Waterand Electric Improvements . Finding 41: Section 32.120(3) of the SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to fumish a&quate supply to the development, and sufficient access for maintenance, Springfield Utility Board (SUB) coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. Finding 42: Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Water advises that City water service is available adjacent to the subject property, The applicant is proposing to extend a water line trom the existing 6-inch water line within South 57th Street through the subject property to ~" connection with the existing water line in South 58th Street. However, the size of the water line to serve the subdivision area has not been indicated on the tentative plan. Additionally, the location and, size of the water line within South 58th Street is not depicted on the tentative plan, ' I, Finding 43: As stated previously, annexation of the property will be completed prior to Final Plat. However, an extraterritorial water line extension will be required to serve the subject property. I; Finding 44: In accordance with SDC 32.120(2), wherever possible utility ,lines shall be placed underground, Finding 45: The developer is proposing to place all new' utilities to ~erve the subdivision underground, Finding 46: Electrical service is available to serve the proposed development area. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing electrical service near the southeast comer of the property. Additionally, there is an overhead electric line running north-south along the western boundary of the site, SUB Electric will be the service provider for the subdivision area. Finding 47: SUB Electric has requested an electrical line easement along the western boundary of the panhandle parcel (Lot 8) to provide service to this property. A 5-foot wide utility easement will be required to accommodate the underground electrical service. II Dale Heceived: ~P~O"'7 Planner: AL 9 Conditions of Approval: 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised utility servicing plan showing the sizes and locations of existing and proposed water lines to serve the subdivision area, 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain approval for an extraterritorial water line extension from the City of Springfield and/or the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, 10. Prior to or concurrent with the Final Plat, a 5-foot wide electrical utility easement acceptable to SUB Electric shall be provided along the western boundary of Lot 8, Fire and Life Safety Improvements Finding 48: Springfield Fire and Life Safety advises that the proposed water service to the subdivision area is acceptable. The nearest existing fire hydrants are located at the northwest comer of the property on South 57th Street, and at the southeast comer ofth!, property on South 58th Street. Finding 49: Where the pavement is proposed to be 24 feet wide or less, the '% street will not be sufficiently wide to allow for any parking on the street. Therefore, parking shall be restricted on both sides of the street in these locations until the full width of public street is dedicated and developed, Condition of Approval: 11. "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage shall be posted on both sides of the % street where the pavement width is 24 feet or less, in accordance with 2004 SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix 0103,6, Public and Private Easements Finding 50: Utilities shall be extended underground to serve new improvements, The facilities currently requested are standard residential services. Extending and connecting public utility facilities at property lines improves efficiency and service to individual properties. Finding 51: Public utility easements are necessary to protect public infrastructure and 'serve the subject site with existing, new or improved utilities. Public utility easements protect the utility facilities and users, and improve efficiency by providing consistency and planning. Utilities and easements shall be provided and extended to the boundaries ofthe subject site to efficiently serve the development area. Finding 52: SOC 32.120(5) 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 public utility easements adjacent to street rights.of-way shall be 7 feet. , The minimum width for all other PUEs shall be 14 feet. Finding 53: In accordance with SOC 32.120, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 7-foot wide PUEs along the public street frontage ofthe lots within the subdivision area. Finding 54: As conditioned previously (Condition 10), a utility easement will be required to provide electrical service to the building envelope area of the panhandle parcel. The electrical service is Da'''' :,;.,,-' .",,' c \.. I , ,,', ~:' J'." PI<;!nner. ,:\L ~/2-1/ ~7 10 intended to serve only one private dwelling, and therefore the easement width shall be acceptable to the utility provider (SUB Electric), . Condition of Approval: 12. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of streets ide 7-foot wide PUEs as depicted on the applicant's tentative plan. I Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 3. (4) The proposed development shall comply with all applicabl.e public and 'private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. General Finding 55: Criterion 4 contains two elements with sub-elements and applicable Code standards, The subdivision application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under'each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. . The elements, sub- 'elements and Code standards of Criterion 4 include but are not limited to: 4a Conformance with standards ofSDC 31, Site Plan Review, and Article 16,' Residential Zoning o Schedule of Use Categories (SDC 16,020) . o Setback Standards (SDC 16.050) o Height Standards (SDC 16,060) o ' Off-Street Parking Standards (SDC 16,070 and 31,170-230) o Fence Standards (SDC 16.090) o Landscaping Standards (SDC 31.130-150) o Screening and Lighting (SDC 31,160) 4b Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements o The site lies outside an adopted Refinement Plan area. o The site lies outside the Drinking Water Protection area., I' o The site is being annexed pursuant to Planning Action LRP2006'00025. Finding 56: The proposed subdivision plan would create nine lots for residential development with single-family dwellings, In accordance with SDC 16,020(5) and (II), future :dwellings constructed on the site can be either stick-built or manufactured homes, ' Setback Standards Finding 57: The development site abuts existing Low Density Residential lots on the south and east sides. Therefore, future development on the site will be reviewed in accordance with the solar access requirements of SDC 16.050(5). Solar access requirements can be addressed through future Building Permit applications, ' Height Standards Finding 58: The maximum building height for dwellings in the LOR district is 30 feet, unless a lower building height is required to meet solar access standards for adjacent lots. Date Received: ~frf/~7 Planner: AL ' . I; II Off-Street Parking Standards Finding 59: At least two dedicated off-street parking spaces are required for each future dwelling unit. The off-street parking requirements will be addressed at the building permit stage, Fence Standards Finding 60: Fences are not required between adjoining properties in the LOR District. The Springfield Development Code Article 16.090 regulates the height and location offencing to ensure proper setbacks and vision clearance areas are maintained, Installation of fencing is up to the individual property owners, and maintenance will be the responsibility of the benefiting property owners, Screening and Lighting Standards Finding 61: There is no Development Code requirement to provide screening between adjoining properties in the LOR District. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 4a, 4b Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 62: The subject property is outside the established Time of Travel Zones (TOTZs) for drinking water wellheads, Therefore, there are ilO provisions of the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District that affect the proposed development. Finding 63: This subject property is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area, and there are no specific policies affecting the proposed residential development on this site, Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 4b. (5) Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize curb cuts ou arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations, and comply with the ODOT access management staudards for state highways. , Finding 64: The Development Review Committee (ORe) reviewed the proposed 9-lot subdivision at a meeting on May 29,2007. The applicant's revised submittal was reviewed at a special DRC meeting on July J 8,2007, Except for the following, the proposed parking, driveways and access points are sufficient to serve the proposed parcels. Transportation System Impacts Finding 65: Abutting the subject site to the west, South 57th Street is a '36-foot wide asphalt mat street within a 59.06-foot wide right-of-way: The street is improved with curb and gutter, sidewalk, lane striping and Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) street lighting. Average daily traffic on the street is estimated to be 6,500 vehicle trips per day. Along the frontage of the subject property, South 57th Street is a County road. Finding 66: Abutting the subject site to the east, South 58th Street is a 36-foot wide asphalt mat roadway within a 60-foot wide right.of-way. The street is improved with curb and gutter, sidewalk '1/11/)otJl oatE/ heceived: Planner: AL 12 . and LPS street lighting. Average daily traffic on the street is estimated to be fewer than 200 vehicle trips per day, South 58th Street is inside the City limits, Finding 67: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing single-family dwelling prior to platting the subdivision, Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Sing]e-Family Detached Housing), full development of the nine parcels with single family dwellings would generate 90 additional vehicle trips per day and 9 PM peak-hour vehicle trips onto the surrounding street system, In' addition, assumed development may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According ',to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, ]2.6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking, and ] ,8 percent are by transit bus, These trips may have their .origins or destination~ 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 68: The applicant proposes to dedicate 3] feet of street right-of-way and construct an east- west public street ("Jons Lane") extending from South 58th Street on the east to"South 57th Street on the west. The applicant has submitted a concurrence from the adjacent property owner of Tax Lot 200 allowing for dedication of sufficient right-of-way to complete a variable-width street connection from South 57th Street to South 58th Street to serve the,subdivision area.' The public street will be completed through an approved Public improvement Project(PIP) plan. Finding 69: The new roadway section would provide a 22,5-foot wide road')'ay section with full curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements on the north side, and an extruded curb along the southern boundary. As slated previously, the pavement width is proposed to flare out as' it approaches the eastern edge of the development area to match the existing 36-foot wide pavement on South 58th Street. Finding 70: Lane County Transportation has requested that the developer prepare and submit a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the new proposed intersection of "Jon's l!,ane" and South 57th Street. Additionally, a Lane County Faci]ities Penn it will be required for any utility or street improvement work within the South 57th Street right-of-way, Finding 7]: Due to the limited number of anticipated vehicle trips generated by the subject development area (fewer than 100), the City would not ordinarily require a TIA for the proposed subdivision, However, the developer is proposing to connect to a County road and undertake work within the County road right-of-way. " Finding 72: As conditioned herein; the existing and planned transportatiOl:t facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional trips generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Conditions of Approval: 13. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the developer shall prepare and submit a TJA acceptable to Lane County Transportation for the proposed intersection on South 57th Street. The developer shall provide a copy ofthe T]A to the City for review. 14. Prior to approval of the PIP or Final Plat, the developer shall obtain appro va] of the TIA from Lane County Transportation. ' 15. Prior to approval of the PIP or Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain a Lane County Facilities Permit for work within the South 57th Street right-of-way, and provide evidence thereof to the City, Dale f~eceived' f2f"~d7 Planner: AL 13 , Site Access and Circulation Finding 73: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points, The greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 32,080(1)(a) stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "an approved access to!! public street". Finding 74: The proposed new partial-width street ("Jon's Lane") would provide all lots within the , subdivision area with direct access to a public street. The City would not support access to proposed Lot I directly from South' 57th Street. Finding 75: As conditioned below, ingress-egress points will be, planned to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safetY, avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on public streets as specified in SDC Articles 31 and 32, applicable zoning and/or overlay district articles, and applicable refinement. plans. Conditions of Approval: 16. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install" stop sign at the connection to South 57th Street as depicted on the tentative subdivision plan, 17. The street lighting design and construction shall be performed under a PIP and shall be in accordance with the City's EDSPM, 18. Access to Lot 1 shall be limited to the east-west % street serving the subdivision area. The driveway access for Lot 1 shall be installed as close to the eastern boundary as practical to provide a separation from the South 57th Street intersection. 19. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the comers of all site driveways in accordance with SDC 32.070, . Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion 5. (6) Physical features, including, hut not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs" watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited, Waterconrse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features have been evaluated and 'protected as specified in this Code or other applicable' regulations. Finding 76: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated Wetl~ds Map, Hydric Soil; 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 that could apply; ORS 97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class "C" felony to proceed under ORS 97.740. Finding 77: The existing trees on the site are planted ornamental species that provide visual amenity, but do not warrant special protection measur~s, The site assessment plan submitted by the applicant does not show an oak tree on the property. 'As stated previously, the developer will require a tree felling permit to remove more than 5 trees from the property within a 12 month period. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 6, , " o~t~ Received: Planner: AL ~k;/ )WI I 14 . (7) Development of any remainder of tbe property under tbe same ownersbip can be accomplisbed ,in accordance witb tbe provisions of tbis Code. Finding 78: The applicant's entire property is proposed for development, and therefore this criterion does not apply to the proposed subdivision area. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 7. (8) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development in accordance witb the provisions of tbe Springfield Development Code. Finding 79: Adjacent properties within the City limits are developed, or have direct access to public streets and uiilities. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 8. " (9) When' no concurrent annexation application submitted witb a Subdivision Tentative Plan on property that is outside of tbe city limits bnt witbin the City's urbanizable area, tbe standards specified below sball also apply. Finding 80: The property involved in this proposal is located inside the current City Limits, The applicant received annexation approval pursuant to Planning Action LRP2006-00021, Confirmation of annexation was issued by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission on August 16,2007, Conclusion: Tbis proposal satisfies Criterion 9. CONCLUSION: The tentative subdivision, as submitted and conditioned, complies witb Criteria 1-9 of SDC 35.050. Portions of tbe proposal approved as'submitted may not be substantively changed during platting witbout an approved modification application in accordance witb SDC 35.100. What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to two vears from the date of this letter to meet the applicable conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Subdivision Plat. Please refer to' SDC 35.080 & 35.090 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 go through a pre-submittal process, After the Final Plat application is complete, it must be submitted to the Springfield Development Services Department. A separate application and fees will be required, Upon signature by the City Surveyor and the Planning Manager, the Plat may be submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording, No individual lots may be transferred until tbe plat is recorded and tbree (3) copies of tbefiled partition are returned to the ~evelopment Services Department by tbe applicant. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a variable-width public street righ~-of-way affecting the subject property and the adjacent property (Tax Lot 200) as depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install at least 17 street trees along the public street frontages of the subject site as generally depicted on the tentative subdivision plan. The street trees shall be appropriate species selected from Section 6.02.2.A of the City's EDSPM. Date Received' ~017177 Planner: AL IS > 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain City approval and execute and record necessary documents for creation of a one-foot (I ') reserve strip along the southern edge of the 0/:. street serving the subdivision area. 4. The Final Plat shall depict the one-foot reserve strip along the southern edge of the subdivision area. 5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain approval for an extraterritorial sewer line extension from the City of Springfield and/or the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide evidence that the septic system has been decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Lane County Sanitarian, 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare .and submit a revised grading and utility servicing plan showing a complete stonnwater system, and provide sufficient infonnation to confinn the proposed street grades and drainage systems are acceptable for serving all lots within the subdivision area. U 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised utility servicing plan , showing the sizes and locations of existing and proposed water lines to serve the subdivision area, 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain approval for an extraterritorial water line extension from the City of Springfield and/or the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, 10. Prior to or concurrent with the Final Plat, a 5-foot wide electrical utility easement acceptable to SUB Electric shall be provided along the western boundary of Lot 8. 11. "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage shall be posted ,on both sides of the 0/:. street where the pavement width is 24 feet or less, in accordance with 2004 SFC 5033 and SFC Appendix 0103.6. 12. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of streets ide 7-foot wide PUEs as depicted on the applicant's tentative plan, ' 13. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the developer shall prepare and submit a TIA acceptable to Lane County Transportation for the proposed intersection on South 57th Street. The developer shall provide a copy of the TIA to the City for review. 14. Prior to approval of the PIP or Final Plat, the developer shall obtain approval of the TIA from Lane County Transportation. 15. Prior to approval of the PIP or Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain a Lane County Facilities Pennit for work within the South 57th Street right-of-way, and provide evidence thereofto the City, 16. Pri~r to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall instaIra stop sign at the connection to South 57th Street as depicted on the tentative subdivision plan. 17. The street lighting design and construction shall be perfonned under a PIP and shall be in accordance with the City's EDSPM. 18, Access to Lot I shall be limited to the east-west 0/:. street serving the subdivision area. The driveway access for Lot I shall be installed as close to the eastern boundary as practical to provide a separation from the South 57th Street intersection. ' ~at\:i f~eceived:J/1d-/ ~O] fl!i3n.ner: AL 16 v 19. The applicant shall provid~ and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at th~ corners of all site , driveways in accordance with SDC 32.070, 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 Subdivision decision is considered a decision of the Pirector and as such may be appealed to the Planning Commission, The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party, The appeal must be in accordance with SDC, Article 15, Appeals, An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250,00, The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. [n accordance with SDC 15,020 which provides for a 15.day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on September' 10, 2007. Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (54]) 726-3784 or email alimbirdlalci.so.in..fielci.oLus if you have ariy questions regarding this process. . - ' - d:~p:,f 7,. , A/J? Limbird Planner II Date Received: Planner: AL -'.. ~~&7C7 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 Charges: 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 submittal 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 future houses on Lots 1-9 and would be based on the SDC policy in effect at that time, Wiliamalane Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recreation improvements is , presently $2,303 for each new single-family dwelling. SanitarY Sewer In-Lieu-of-Assessment Chame: The applicant must 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 ifln-Lieu-of-Assessment charge is applicable (Ord, 5584), Public Infrastructure Fees: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure. Other City Permits: Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit for working within right-of-way or public easements (eg. new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole)., The current rate is $135 + 5% Technology fee for processing (plus applicable fees and deposits), ' . Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements. . Plumbing Permit . Encroachment Permit Additional oermits/aoDTovals mav be necessarv: . Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands) . Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Erosion control - acre or greater, pump station, stormwater discharge, wetlands) . US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, w~tlands) 1:fC<l\;i i":",ceived: 'l/21/)c07 P'~hner: AL ~ 18 I . ~ l , , ... "", ..:t'.<."~~.,,~';':?:;:~ftril1 , "~' ,'.: ;","t;,,'4i.'>~~;>~'I;iA\it\i , " ,__:~.~,'.'f, ~,~rl~~.!l',\:;~~ CITY OF SPRINGFIE~D 'i ~1-~";;'~:'.i~~;i;\ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTM.E, ~T;~:,;r;~,'(~~~)i,l 225 5th ST .' ," . ,., -, i'",;:1'~1\f:~ . '_H.1/\,;\,i..> SPRINGFIELD, OR9747I~ . ,;.;.",;.;i;;.,Q;~;;"~ , '," "',,.' '~' ",,'" " (~ <',"\"""- , , ";,' ',:'" "~", " <, ' Tina Cropper 5703 Ridge Court Springfield, OR 97478' , . ~ ... CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTME~T 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ',',' " " '.",,::.;, , ~;;~~~~j:!,~{~.:r~l ......,.J...,..."."'" ,~I...~ .,.. Don Mogstad Poage Engineering 990 Obie Street Eugene, OR 97402 & Surveying -..........-~'~ ), ....,:i~....' '.', " CITY OF SPRINGFIELD '" , ;::, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ",:',:' . 225 5th ST ", ",." _ S?BLNGFIELD, QR 9[477 , ;','::":~~~ .". ;\:':.~')~,L..t ri1 Don Horton DMH Electric 780 S 57th Street Springfield, OR 97478 - ~ . q: , ,Y:;": :;,.: ;(~l~/i"~,:'~! CITY OF SPRINGFIELD . ;.:.:',;~::-):'; DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ,', ,~",>.i" 225 5th ST "q,',:.:;;,'::'2 SPRINGFIELD,OR,97477 ',' 'f'::fi':":,:f"Y'li " . , ~,:':~~'\;;;~~~ Donald Montel' 1013 S 58th Street' Springfield, OR 97478 \'.. ~ ~ ~, ~ <:l6, ..~ -c Q) >...J '(j) <C- o !1) 'i..:. "~" OJ ':; c, ',C,. ,.!] :'1,:. ,