Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 4/30/2009 ..' cX~ " RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE APR 3 0 2009 By: 71~ ob txt!lf~ / of 23 ~./ STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, CitY of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared <\nd caused to be mailed copies of SIIB2..t:JnQ-I'JI'JOO{. -71J:tiu..d tJtA', ,o~ -~ .:Jutb (See attachment "A") on ....!if'!.i) , 2009addressed to (see ~ Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. WIJJtM' )=/ a-~ dR~ LaFLEUR l...../ t STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane () {YId 30 , 2009. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act Before me:' . OFFICIAL SEAL , ,'. ' DEYETTE KELL V ", ..! NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO, 420351 MY COMMISSiON EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011 ~fP1Z ~~' My Commission Expires: ?:'j;:;-/II Date Received:J.4.(J<W7 . Planner: AL TYPE IT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: 5 Doves Estates Subdivision l1' -.~ ~OREGON Project Proposal: Subdivide one residential parcel into five residential lots Case Number: SUB2009-00006 Project Location: 5642 A Street (Map 17-02-33-41, Tax Lot #1704) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR (Metro Plan), . Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: January 9, 2009 Application Submitted Date: March 3, 2009 Decision'Issued Date: April 30, 2009 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date:' May 15,2009 Natural Features: None Density: Approximately 7,8 units per acre Associated Applications: PRE2008-00076 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION I Project Mailager I Transportation Planninll. EIT I Public Works Enll.ineer I Public Works Engineer I Deputy F ire Marshal I Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation I Utilities Sanitarjl & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety Building APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM . Owner/Applicant: Surveyor: Vern Benson 940 Hwy 99N Eugene, OR 97402 Dave Collier, PLS Pacific Surveying, Inc. 75506 Blue Mtn, School Rd. Cottall.e Grove, OR 97424 ~ NAME Andy Limbiid Jon Driscoll. Clayton McEachern Clayton McEachern Gilbert Gordon Dave Puent . PHONE 726-3784 726-3679 736-1036 736-1036 726-3661 726-3668 Engineer: Todd Powell, PE HBA Design Group ISO 7fu Street Springfield, OR 97477 " DatEI [1eceived:_~/.,><k>r Planner: AL' 7 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. PUBLIC AND PRIVATli'lMPROVEMENTS, 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] 8 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 loca], state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in .sDC 5,]-]30 and the subdivision criteria of approval, SDC 5,]2-]00, This application was accepted as complete on March 3, 2009, This decision is 'issued on the 58th day of the] 20 'days mandated by the state, SITE INFORMATION: The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot comprising approximately 27,750 rr (0.64 acres), The property is an interior lot with frontage on A Street to the south, The subject property contains an existing dwelling that is proposed for removal. The site is zoned and designated Low Density Residentia] (LDR) in accordance with the Metro Plan, The Assessor's description for the subject property is Map] 7-02-33- 4], Tax Lot 1704, Approval of the proposed subdivision would create five LDR lots, including three panhandle lots, All five lots would derive access from A Street._ WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing. for a 14-day comment period on the application (SDC 5.]-130 and 5.2-1 ]5), 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 5.]-130 and 5,2-] 15, notice was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on March]], 2009, Staff responded to several,phone calls from adjacent residents inquiring about the proposal. Two written comments were received, Comment # 1. from Cynthia Daniel and Robert Murphree, 309 56th Street, Springfield 97478: "] received a 300 foot public notice pending subdivision tentative plan for applicant Vern Benson, ] have reviewed the record of this application and would like to voice my strong concern against this plan, ] moved to this neighborhood 3% years ago and have watched this applicant buy several lots in the area and turn them into low cost, cramped subdivisions, The manufactured homes that are being put on these lots are at least 20 years old and do not appear to have been well maintained They are then used as low budget rental properties which in turn lowers the value of my property, Not only do they have very little aesthetic appeal but the traffic these subdivisions bring to this area increases the litter and congestion on A Street, The thought of potentially 5 more families moving onto an underdeveloped street that is already cramped with Bar parking and delivery traffic seems like a bad plan. The Delivery traffic for the strip mall already takes up the major portion of A street, The plan to put in another sidewalk and narrow the road even more doesn't really seem like a good idea, ] have included pictures of his current projects as well as finished ones so you can see for yourself the quality of this applicant's subdivisions, ] hope you can take some of this into consideration when making your decision, [Note: Respondent provided 7 digital pictures showing nearby manufactured dwellings owned by the applicant and the subject property]. ~rt;! r~~ceived:4o":;""'? 2 .' .!=ml)!?f- AL ' I, Staff Response: The Springfield Development Code (Section 3,2-210) allows for dwellings on low density residential lots to be either manufactured or "stick built" homes, Residential lots on eastcwest streets must be at least 4,500 square feet (excluding any panhandle extension) and the allowable densitY is up to 10 dwelling units per acre,The applicant's proposal meets the standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC):: for dwelling unit type (manufactured home), lot size (at least 4,500 square feet, excluding panhandle) and density (approximately 7,8 units per acre), Because the applicant's proposal complies with SDC requirements pertaining to lot size and density, staff are not in a position to refuse the application on these grounds, Springfield Planning and Public Works staff visited the subject site on two occasions, A site visit is typically done to familiarize staff with the proposed project area, take digital pictures of the property and vicinity for reference, and detennine possible, development issues, In response to concerns expressed by adjacent residents, a follow-up visit was conducted by City staff to examine similar projects of the applicant's on A Street, 57th Street and 58th Street. From the site visits it appears that some of Ms, Daniel's concerns may be related to projects that have been initiated by the applicant, but are not yet completed, As an example, on the applicant's nearby properties staff observed manufactured dwellings that have been placed on support blocks, but the skirting, front steps, landscaping, fencing, and other site improvements are incomplete, , There are also piles of soil and debris on some of the lots that are visible from the street and adjacent properties. At the time of the second site visit (March 31, 2009), active construction work was occurring at some of the properties. Staff noted that repair and maintenance of some manufactured dwellings may be necessary before they are ready for tbe rental market. However, manufactured dwellings are certified by the State of Oregon Building Codes Division, Unlike "stick built" dwellings, manufactured homes are not subject to a final building inspection by the City before occupancy is issued, Therefore, ensuring that the proposed manufactured dwellings are inspected by the City prior to residential occupancy is not an issue that can be ad&essed in this land use decision, . This land use decision will address requirements for site improvements that may address some of the respondent's concerns about parking, traffic congestion, dwelling appearance, and interface with the neighborhood. These requirements include: widening of the pavement surface on A Street and installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the property frontage (Condition 3); provision of landscaped building setbacks for each lot (Condition 21); provision of at least two off"street parking spaces for each dwelling (Condition 24); and repair and maintenance of the manufactured homes as necessary to 'meet current, Oregon Manufaciured Dwelling Specialty Code requirements (Condition 20), Comment #2 from Nicole Haug, 255 57th Street, Springfield 97478: "I have lived on 5rjh Street [sic] since November of2007, /was so excited to buy my new little house, It's my first home purchase, I went around and talked to the neighbors and loved the fact that e~eryone was so nice and pretty much knew everyon? on their block. Our neighborhood is' small and yes I know there are manufactured homes along the block but what Vern Benson wants to do is outrageous, Splitting up the land to place as many of them as he possibly can and practically one on top of the other, When I found out about this I actually went to Vern and met with him to inquire about his plans for the land. He made it very clearto me they were going to [be] rentals and not much more, Meaning...../ asked him ifhe was going to beflXing up the used, broken down manufactured homes that he was already moving in on that property, He flat out told me they would be 'livable' but don't expect much else, I then asked him, Are you.,going to do extensive background checks to keep certain types of people out of the neighborhood. I stressed how concerned / was about renters, Jow income families and the fact that they meaning the homes themselves were already eye sores what type of people would he attract? He said he couldn't afford to be picky. / drove home in tears, Every day / go home'/ get to see these huge monstrosities just thrown about they look awfUl. There's one directly 'behind me backed almost completely up against my back fence. It sits so high on those cement blocks they can see right into my backyard and kitchen windows, I have no privacy anymore.., even with my 7 foot fence!! I know it's hard to place yourselves in 'our' shoes, But for those of us who own our homes our property value will plummet! My home will never recover in value, I am begging you to please not let him do this to our neighborhood. He already has so many of these set up not one of them as a yard or a driveway and they are terribly cared for, / know our neighborho;d isn't , , DatE, ['{.:;ceived: Planner: AL 'I/J()/~j 'Fd 3 spectacular, ,But we're all trying very hard to make it NICE and QUIET and FRIENDix. Please help us!! Don't let Vern Benson turn our'neighborhood into his private USED RENTAL MANUFACTURED HOME parking lot, Staff Response: ' As noted above, Planning and Public Works staff visited the site on two occasions to examine the subject property and similar projects in the neighborhood. Most of the sites visited were under, construction, so the incomplete items described by both respondents were particularly noticeable, In accordance with land use approvals that were issued for the projects, City staff will be performing ongoing inspections and site visits for the subject properties to ensure required site improvements are installed. . The Springfield Development Code does not differentiate between single family dwellings that are owner- occupied and those that are rental units, Within the proposed subdivision; the five lots could be owned by one or more property owners, and any or all dwellings could be rented, The City's Development Code. prescribes standards for placement of dwellings on a site, including setbacks from property lines, amount of the lot area that can be covered with buildings, provision of driveways and off-street parking areas, landscaping, and maximum building height. Residential properties are required to abide by provisions of the City's Municipal Code, which addresses nuisance conditions that could be subject'to enforcement action, Staff advises that the applicant's proposal depicts paved 'driveways to serve each property, along with a garage, carport or parking pad sufficiently large to accommodate at least two vehicles, In this land use decision, staff are recommending provision of suitable fencing around the site, landscaping of building setbacks, street frontage improvements (including street trees), and repair and maintenance of manufactured dwellings in accordance with provisions of the Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Specialty Code, The land use decision \\@address most of the concerns identified by the respondents pertaining to parking and traffic congestion, interface between the proposed development and adjacent properties, and site improvements necessary to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood. CRITERIA OF SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE APPROVAL: SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application upon determining that criteria A through J of this Section have been satisfied. . rfconditions 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, lots on east-west streets shall have a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet with 45 feet of street frontage, Lots I and 5 are proposed as properties fronting on an east-west street. Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Lots 1 and 5 meet the minirtJum requirements for lot size and street frontage, Finding 3: Pursuant to SDC 3,2-215, multiple panhandle lots shall each contain at least 4,500 square feet in the pan portion with at least 26 feet of street frontage shared between the multiple properties. Lots 2, 3 ' and 4 are proposed as multiple panhandle properties, Finding 4: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Lots 2, 3 and 4 meet the minimum requirements for multiple panhandle lot size and street frontage. ' Conclusion: Thisproposal satis~es Criterion A. l;>f;lte fteceived' 7':.;;;iiJ ~o9 PI", " 7f?"" ',,.oner: AI,. 4 B. The zOning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptnal Development Plan. ,. , Finding 5: The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diagram:' The zoning of the I"vp~';l is LDR, consistent with the Metro Plan, and 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 shall be available to serve the site 'at the time of development, nnless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. General Finding 6: 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 the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services, Finding 7: The applicant's tentative submittal has been stamped and signed by the engineer of record, However, the engineer's stamp applied to the drawings is expired. In accordance with SDC 5.12-120,1, the plans must be stamped and signed by a currently licensed and registered Professional Engineer, General Finding 8: 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 9:' The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed subdivision. City'staff's review comments have been incorporated in fmdings and conditions contained herein, General Finding 10: Criterion C 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 fmdings and conclusions, The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: Public improvements in accordance with SDC 4.2-100 and 4.3-100 o Public and Private Streets (SDC 4.2-105 - 4.2-145) o SanitaIy Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3-105) o Stormwater Management (SDC 4.3-110 - 4.3-115) o 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) Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and resubmit plans that are stamped and signed by a currently licensed and registered Professional Engineer. Public and Private Streets Finding 11: Section 4,2-105.G,2.b of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any unimproved street frontage opposite a fully improved partial-width street, that Date Received: 'j'jo /,)-dV f Planner: fJ.i. ------, 5 street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications. Exception (i) notes that an Improvement Agreement can be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time as a City street improvement project is initiated. Finding 12: The additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic generated by the proposed development would contribute to the need for street improvements in accordance with SDC 4,2-JOS,G. Finding 13: The subject property has frontage on A Street along the south boundary. Abutting the subject site to the south, A Street is developed as a partial-width local street with ~ 22-foot wide paved surface within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The southern % of the street is improved with asphalt paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and low pressure sodium (LPS) street lighting, An LPS streetlight is located on the south side of A Street just east of the subject site, This type of LPS street lighting does not meet current City standards for street light illumination, Therefore, an improvement agreement for future street lighting improvements on A Street is warranted with the proposed subdivision, Finding 14: The applicant is proposing to improve the balance of A Street along the property frontage with paving, curb and gutter, and curbside sidewalk. The proposed plans show completion of the northern 'I:i of A'Street with approximately l3,S feet of additional paving width along the property frontage, The existing pavement width along the property frontage is shown as 22 feet on the applicant's plans, giving a total projected paved street width of3S.S feet. The applicant is proposing to taper the street improvements back to match the % street standard to the east and west of the.subject property, Finding IS: In accordance with SDC Table 4.2-1, the minimum curb to curb paved width for a local street is 36 feet. Finding 16: There is an existing setback sidewalk with curbside planter strip along the south side of A Street. The buffer created by planter strips between the sidewalk and the street can yield a safer environment for pedestrians, and improve the aesthetic appearance of the street. In accordance with SDC 4,2-13S,C, planter strips may be required as part of sidewalk construction, Finding 17: The applicant's proposed plans show a curbside sidewalk along the property frontage, which doesn't match the style of sidewalk arid planter strip on the opposite side of the street. There is sufficient room along the, subject property frontage for a setback sidewalk and minimum 4,5-foot wide planter strip, Finding 18: The proposed street improvements will be subject to an approved Public Improvement Plan (pIP) and associated permits before construction can commence.' Finding 19: There are three existing street trees along the property frontage. The 'applicant's proposed street improvements, including paving of the northem 'I:i of the street, sidewalk, ,curb and gutter, and installation of a new panhandle driveway, will likely necessitate the removal and replacement of the existing street trees, However, the applicant is not proposing to protect and retain the existing trees or plant replacement street trees along the A Street frontage of the subject site. At least three (3) street trees are required to be planted along the site frontage in accordance with SDC 4.2_140, The street tree species for this site shall be selected from the varieties listed in Chapter 6 of the City's EDSPM. Placement of appropriate street trees can be addressed through the PIP project for this development. Finding 20: In accordance with SDC 4.2-140, where street trees cannot be planted in the public right- of-way, trees in the front yard setback can be substituted for street trees in accordance with SDC 4.2- l40.B. Maintenance of street trees on private property is the responsibility of the landowner. Date Received' ?~ ~ '; p!ginner: AL 6 Conditions of Approval: 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement.., Agreement for A Street for street lighting improvements:' 3. Prior to approval of. the Final Plat, the applicant shall receive PIP approval for A Street improvements along the property frontage as generally depicted on the tentative plan. 4. The PIP plans submitted for the project shall provide for a full 36 feet of curb to curb paving width along the A Street frontage of the property, 5. The PIP plans submitted for the project shall provide for a setback sidewalk and a 4,5-foot wide planter strip between the sidewalk and curbline along the A Street frontage of the property, 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, at least three qualifYing street trees shall be installed in the planter strip along the A Street frontage of the site, 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 21: Section 4,3-I05,A of the SDC requires that sanitaJy sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains, Additionally;, installation of sanitaJy sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities, Finding 22: The applicant's utility plan shows a common sanitaJy sewer connection to serve, Lots 2-4 with a single cleanout in the' public utility easement along the frontage. Multiple Y'-Connections are shown inside the private property to accommodate the four private sanitary sewer laterals, A sewer clean out to serve Lot 5 is not shown on the plans, Finding23: The primary sanitary sewer lateral serving the site is proposed to connect with an existing 18- inch public sanitary sewer line running east-west within A Street. The sanitaJy sewer lateral connection work in A Street can be undertaken in conjunction with an approved PIP, Finding 24: The three cleanouts proposed to serve Lots 2-4 are located inside privl!-te property, and behind the '7-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) along the site frontage, The Y -connection points must be located within the 7-foot wide PUEto allow for public maintenance access to each'.individual sewer line, Finding 25: There is no sanitary sewer connection to serve Lot I shown on the applicant's tentative plan, The applicant may be proposing to connect to an existing sanitaJy sewer lateral' that serves the existing house, The applicant must demonstrate that sanitaJy sewer service is extended to Lot I by showing the location and connection point on the utility'plan. ' Finding 26: The proposed sanitaJy sewer laterals to serve Lots 2-5 are located within the panhandle extensions of Lots 2-4. As depicted on the tentative plan, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a variable- width joint access, maintenance and utility easement across portions of Lots 1_5 to accommodate the private sanitaJy sewer. laterals, ' Date ~eceived: Planner: AL Pphf "1 ~::' 7 Conditions of Approval: 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised utility plan for the property that shows: the V-connections and cleano'uts for Lots 2,5 relocated inside the 7-fooC' wide PUE along the site frontage; and a sanitary sewer connection extended to Lot I. 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install private sanitary sewer lines to serve Lots 1:5 as generally depicted on ,the revised utility plan. All private , sanitary sewer installations shall meet the requirements of the Plumbing Code, Stormwater Management Oualitv Finding 27: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CW A), 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 28: 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, "Post- , Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment'" applies to the proposed development. Finding 29: 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 30: 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 recently-adopted Storrinvater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP), Finding 3 I: As required in SDC 4.3-110,E, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent [with] the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf', Finding 32: 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 Servic.es (CWS). : Finding 33: Section 3,03.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% reduction in the total suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50% of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using v~getative methods. Finding 34: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 permit, the SDC, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant lias proposed one private vegetative water quality swale (bioswale), but, the actual seed mix and/or plant types and application rates have not been specified. The applicant has provided a list of plants Date R.eceived' 1~/dM~ p.J~f!ner: AL 8 from the Portland Stonnwater Management Manual that are suitable for use in a bioswale, but has not specified the quantity or species of plants or type of seed mix to be used, This infonnation is necessary to evaluate the proposed bioswale for adequate functioning asa~at,:,r quality feature, Finding 35: The vegetation proposed fOLuse in the bioswale will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stonnwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes' of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has becn fully established, Ouantitv Finding 36: Section 4.3-110.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stonnwater management system provisions have been maoe as detennined 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 stonnwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge, Finding 38: Section 4.3-llO,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 applicant's tentative plan depicts the location and design of a proposed bioswale and a list of plants that would be appropriate for this feature, As noted above, a detailed planting plan and seed application rate are not provided with the tentative plan. Additionally, an operation and maintenance plan has not been prepared and submitted to the City for review, The plan must contain a schedule for periodic inspections and maintenance of the bioswale, and an assignment of responsipility for the long-tenn maintenance of the stonnwater management feature. Conditions of Approval: 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a,:proposed seed mix and plant list for the private bioswale, The selected plant species, planting densities, seed mix, and seed application rates shall meet the requirements of the City's interim design standards in accordance with Section 3.02 of the EDSPM, The City of Portland stonnwater management manual may be ff;ferenced for design, 10. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit an operations and maintenance plan for the bioswaJe that is satisfactory to the City's Public Works Department. The operations and maintenance plan shall contain a schedule for periodic inspe~tions and maintenance, and an assignment of responsibility for the long-tenn maintenance ofthe bioswale. 11. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 penn it, the SDC and the EDSPM, the private bioswale shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to ,final plat. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until the bioswale vegetation becomes fully established. Utilities Finding 40: Section 4.3-120,B of the SDC requires each developer to make. arrangements with the utility provider to provide utility lines and facilities to serve the development area, Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric is the provider for electrical service to the subject property; DateJ~eceived:-%/;"~f Planner: AL 9 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 serving the development site shall be placed underground, Additionally, all required utilities must be installed to the building envelope area of each lot prior to plat. " . , ' Finding 42: The applicant's utility plan states that all new utilities are to be placed underground, However, the utility plan shows an existing overhead telecommunication (cable TV) line within Lot 2, In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, this overhead line must be removed or relocated underground, Finding 43: The applicant has not provided details on the provision of electrical, telecommunication and other utility lines (such as natural gas) to the site, The applicant's ,proposed utility plan shows an underground electrical power line to serve Lot I, but routing of electrical service for Lots 2-5 is not depicted, A 5"foot wide private utility easement is proposed along the northern bo'undary of Lots 2 and' 3, presumably to accommodate underground electrical and telecommunication service for Lots 2-4. However, SUB Electric advises that electrical service to all five lots will be provided from the A Street frontage of the property, The proposed 5-foot wide private utility easement could be retained for provision of underground telecommunication services to Lots 2-4. ' Finding 44: To provide electrical service to Lots 1-5, SUB Electric requests a 5-foot wide utility easement that forms a 36-footby 69, I-foot rectangular "horseshoe" centered On the south property line, As depicted on a 'sketch plan prepared by SUB Electric, the requested 5-foot wide utility easement would run inside and parallel with the east boundary of Lot I, perpendicular across the panhandle extensions of Lots 2-4 from the northeast comer of Lot I to the northwest comer of Lot 5, and then inside and parallel with the west boundary of Lot 5, Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 4.3-120,B, the applicant is responsible for utility system design and construction costs for the proposed development. Conditions of Approval: 12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install the underground utility lines serving Lots I to 5 to the satisfaction of the utility providers, In accordance with the applicant's tentative plan submittal and SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be installed or relocated ,underground, 13. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a suitable utility easement along the east boundary of Lot I; across the panhandle extensions of Lots 2, 3. and 4; and along the east boundary of Lot 5 for extension of underground utilities necessary to serve the development area, The easement configuration shall be acceptable to ,SUB Electric. Water Serviee and Fire Protection Finding 46: Section 4.3-130,A of the SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development 'and sufficient access for maintenance. SUB Water coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits, All new water system facilities and modifications required to serve the proposed subdivision area must be placed in the public right-of-way and constructed in accordance with SUB Water standards. Finding 47: The applicant's submittal does not show the locations or sizes of water lines proposed to serve Lots 2-5 of the development area. The ,existing water service for the property is proposed to be retained to serve Lot 1. A new water system connection and water meters to serve Lots 2-5 are shown Q?te Received:.-J;'horL- pl~nner: AL 10 near the southwest corner of Lot 5, However, the routing of individual water'service lines is not shown inside the subdivision area, Finding 4S:' There is an existing fIre hydrant located on tIle south side of A Street, approximateiy 2S0' . feet east of the proposed panhandle driveway serving Lots 2-5. Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 3.2-220.A,5,b, the minimum width for a multiple panhandle driveway is IS feet. Tbe applicant's proposed' panhandle driveway serving Lots 2-5 is 19 feet wide with an IS-foot wide driving surface. The driveway is proposed to be composed of S-inch thick concrete or comparable paving material that will support an SO,OOO lb, imposed load. Finding 50: SpringfIeld Fire & Life Safety advises that the proposed multiple panhandle driveway serving Lots 2-5 does not meet the minimum 20-foot driving surface width requirement of the 2007 SpringfIeld Fire Code (SFC), In accordance with 2007 SFC 503.2,1, the driveway paving width must be adjusted to meet the minimum 20-foot standard. Finding 51: The applicant is proposing to install "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage on both sides ofthe multiple panhandle driveway in accordance with requirements of the SFC. Condition of Approval: 14. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall adjust the panhandle driveway paving to provide at least 20 feet of driving surface width in accordance with 2007 SFC 503.2,1, Public and Private Easements Finding 52: 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 necessaIY to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUEs adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 7 feet unless the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance, ' Finding 53: There is an existing 7-foot wide PUE along the A Street frontage of the property, Finding 54: As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a 5-foot wide private utility easement along the northern boundary of Lots 2 and 3 to benefIt Lots 2, 3 and 4. ' Finding 55: As described above and previously conditioned (Condition 13), SUB Electric is requesting a 5-foot wide utility easement in the south-central portion of the site. Finding 56:, The applicant is proposing to dedicate a variable-width, irrevocable, private joint access, maintenance and utility easement across the eastern edge of Lot I; the panhandle extensions of Lots 2, 3 and 4; and the western edge of Lot 5 for the benefIt of Lots 2-5. Conditions of Approval: 15. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a private utility easement across the northern 5 feet of Lots 2 and 3 for the benefIt of Lots 2, 3 and 4, unless ,the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the private easement is not required to provide underground utility service to the benefIting lots. " DaL, i(eCeived:~;';';""'1 Planner: AL 11 16. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record the variable"width, irrevocable, private joint access, maintenance and, utility easement, affecting and benefiting Lots 1-5 of the subject subdivision, and provi~e evidence thereof to the City. 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 Code and other applicable regulations. General Finding 57: Criterion D 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 D include but are not. limited to: D.I Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking,ILoading.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 Residential Manufactured Dwellings (SDC 3,2-235) o Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105) o Screening (SDC 4.4-11 0) o Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115) o On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC4,5-1 00) o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4,6-100) D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements o The site is within the Zone of Contribution for the Weyerhaeuser drinking water wells. o The site is not within an adopted Refmement Plan area, D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) Parcel Coverage and Setbacks Finding 58: The applicant is proposing to install manufactured dwellings on the'subject lots, and the conceptual building envelope for each lot has been shown on the submitted tentative plan, To maintain consistency with other dwellings along the street, building setbacks for Lots I and',5 will be established from the A Street frontage. Building setbacks for Lots 2-4 will be based on the orientation of the dwelling on each lot. As proposed, the building envelopes on Lots 1-5 meet the required building setbacks of the LDR Districtfor interior and panhandle lots. Finding 59: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, the maximum building coverage for LDR lots is 45%, including the principal dwelling and any regulated accessory structures such as carports, garages, porches and sheds. Conditions of Approval: 17. The front yard building setbacks for Lots I and 5 shall be established from the south property line, Any dwellings placed on Lots I and 5 shall meet the minimum 10 foot setback from the edge of right-of-way on A Street. , Date. Received: ~h~;)..pr rjgJ1ner: AL .' 12. 18. The manufactured dwellings and any regulated accessory structures to be placed on Lots] -5 shall not exceed the 45% maximum lot coverage provisions ofSDC 3.2-2]5. Height Standards . Finding 60:' In accordance with SDC 3,2-225, the maximum building height irithe LDR District is 30 feet, except where modified by solar access standards, The applicant has stated on the tentative plan that "all lots meet solar access' standards with base zone development minimum setback standards", However, supporting calculations or diagrams have not been provided with the tentative plan submittal, and the applicant has not specified the proposed building heights for manufactured dwellings to be placed on Lots 1-5, Finding 61: Unlike standard residential Building Permit submittals for "stick-built" dwellings, City staff will not be reviewing building plans for the manufactured dwellings. Determination of solar setback compliance is typically done through the Building Permit review, Therefore, the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the solar access standards of SDC 3,2-225 prior to Final Plat. Condition of Approval: 19. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the solar access standards ofSDC 3.2-225 for each manufactured dwelling to be placed in the subdivision. Residential Mannfactnred Dwellings Finding 62: In accordance with SDC 3,2-235, manufactured dwellings are permitted in LDR districts, subject to' siting standards, Finding 63: The applicant is proposing to relocate previously"owned manufactured dwellings onto the subdivision area, In accordance with provisions of the Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Specialty Code, the manufactured dwellings must meet .current State certification requirements. Condition of Approval: 20. All manufactured dwellings to be placed on the subject development.area must meet current State of Oregon certification requirements for occupancy in accordance with the Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Specialty Code, Landscaping Standards Finding 64: In accordance with SDC 3.2-2]5 footnote (5), all residential building setbacks shall be landscaped unless the setback is for a garage or carport. The applicant is not depicting any landscaping areas on the tentative plan, , Finding 65: In accordance with SDC 4.4-100, site landscaping consists of trees, shrubs, groundcover plants and turf, or a combination thereof. Site landscaping does not consist of o~ly gravel or bark mulch ground cover, unless the latter is used as a growing medium for planted trees and shrubs, Finding 66: Because the proposed subdivision is for manufactured dwellings, the foundation pads and' landscaping can be pre-installed prior to having the dwellings placed on the site, Additionally, as noted previously in this decision, the City does not regulate building occupancy for manufactured dwellings, Therefore, site improvement issues that otherwise could be deferred to the Building Permit review and final occupancy must be addressed through this subdivision decisiOli. . Date Received:-4I1;1.-.."'1 Planner: AL " . .' 13 Condition of Approval: 21. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install yard landscaping in the building setback areas of Lots 1-5. The landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs, groundcover plants, 'grass;,..., or a combination thereof. At least one landscaping tree shall be installed at a suitable location in each lot, not including required street trees. Screening Finding 67: In accordance with SDC 4.4-110,B, screening maybe used to provide visual separation between adjacent properties, For the subject site, screening must be vegetative or structural (eg. trees/shrubs or fencing). . Finding 68: To increase privacy and provide adequate separation of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 4 from the dwellings on Lots I and 5, screening is required along the northern boundary of Lots I and 5. The screening can be vegetative or structural. Conditio,! of Approval: 22. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install approximateiy 52 linear feet of vegetative or structural screening along the common east-west bOUlidaries between Lots I and 2, and between Lots 4 and 5, .. Fence Standards Finding 69: The Springfield Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts. However, there is no requirement for fencing between comparable LDR parcels, 'There is an existing 6-foot chain link fence surrounding the property, The applicant's tentative plan does not show existing or proposed fencing along the property lines, .. Finding 70: In accordance with SDC Table 4.4-], the maximum height of a fence in the front yard setback is 4 feet high for chain link, and 3 feet high for a slatted chain link or sight obscuring fence, Staff advises that the existing 6-foot high chain link fence located on or near the south property line of the subject property must be removed or scaled-back to a suitable height to meet the requirements of SDC Table 4.4-1. Condition of Approval: 23. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall remove non-compliant front yard fencing from the A Street frontage of the subject property, All fencing for Lots 1-5 shall meet the standards listed in Section 4.4-115 of the SDC. On-Site Lighting Standards Finding 71: 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 72: In accordance with SDC 4.6-100, a minimum of two offcstreet parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit.' The off-street parking requirement for Lots 1-5 are met by the proposed , driveways and parking pads, Because the driveways and parking pads serve multiple properties, they will have to be installed prior to [mal plat (see Criterion F - Site Access and Circulation, below), pal"" r.....eceived:~~? p,!iinner: AL ' 14 Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.l. D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 73: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and Refinement Plan requirements, The subject site is within the mapped Zone of Contribution for the nearest drinking water wells (Weyerhaeuser wellheads). Because the proposal is a low-density residential development on the extreme fringe of a mapped Time of Travel area, there are no specific policies of the DWP Overlay District or the Metro Plan that apply to the subdivision, Finding 74: As stated and conditioned previously, the developer or future landowner will be required to abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 prior to Final Plat. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D,2, E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; 'Yatercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian"areas; wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240,shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. Finding 75: The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable ,soils, Finding 76: The site is not within an identified wetland area and does not contain significant trees or .. shrubs, Finding 77: The Metro Area 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 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.' Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 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 78: The Development Review. Committee reviewed the proposed 5-Jot subdivision at a meeting' on March 24, 2009. The existing and proposed driveways are sufficient to serve the proposed lots. Provision of at least two off-street parking spaces will be required for each of-the five lots within the subdivision, Transportation System Impacts Finding 79: Abutting the subject site to the south, A Street is a 22-foot wide asphalt mat roadway within a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The street is improved with paving, curb, gutter, setback sidewalk Date, Received: <lhlJ/~r Planner: AL / . 15 and street lighting on the south side, Average daily traffic on A Street is estimated to be fewer than 500 vehicle trips per day, As stated and conditioned previously, the street is not improved along the property frontage on the north side of A Street. Street improvements will be completed through an . approved PIP ," . , Finding 80: The site contains an existing dwelling that generates I 0 vehicle trips per day, and one PM peak-hour vehicle trip, Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing), full development of the subdivision area with four additional single detached dwellings would generate 40 additional vehicle trips per day and four PM peak-hour vehicle trips onto the surrounding street system, At build-out, the five-lot subdivision would generate 50 vehicle trips per day and five PM peak-hour trips, Finding 81: Assumed development also may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12,6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent are by transit ,bus. These .trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this site, Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 82: The nearest regular transit bus service is provided by LTD Route #11 (Thurston) operating along Main Street. Finding 83: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) advises that theprilpertY is in the vicinity of a future Interchange Plan for the Highway 126 expressway. The property owner(s) will receive notification of public meetings regarding these planned improvements, I Finding 84: Existing and proposed transportation facilities would be adequate to accoinmodate the additional volume of traffic generated by the l'wl'v"~d development. Therefore, the proposed subdivision should have no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding street system, Site Access and Circulation Finding 85: 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 regulates site access and driveways, Finding' 86: The applicant is proposing a multiple panhandle driveway across Lots 2, 3 and 4 to serve Lots 2-5. A variable-width easement is proposed to ensure legal and physical access is provided to each lot. Finding 87: In accordance with SDC 3.2-220.A.5.b, the minimum width for a multiple panhandle driveway is 18 feet. The applicant's proposed panhandle driveway serving Lots 2-5 is 19 feet wide with an 18cfoot wide driving surface. As previously stated and conditioned (Condition 14), the driveway will need to be adjusted to meet minimum width for fire apparatus access. Finding 88: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing 12-foot wide paved driveway to serve Lot I. A new curb cut and driveway approach will be installed to serve Lot I in conjunction with PIP approval for A Street improvements. In accordance with SDC Table 4.2-2(3), the driveway shall be paved at least 18 feet into the property, Finding 89: 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. ~ ,.> Date Received: J?1~n~ner: AL .;ho /~? I / 16 Conditions of Approval: 24. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the curb cut, driveway approach, paved multiple panhandle driveway, and paved off-street parking spaces serving Lots 2"5 shall be fully installed. '. >' 25. 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 cle~rance areas are unobstructed. 26. The existing and proposed driveway approaches must be constructed to City standards, 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 90: 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 access that will allow its development as'specified in this Code. Finding 91: Adjacent land is currently developed with residential dwellings aild has 'access to public streets, Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H, I. Where the Subdivision of property that is outside of tbe city limits but within'the City's urbanizable area and no concurrent annexation application is submitted,. the standards specified below shall also apply. Finding 92: 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 subdivision, as snbmitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A-I of SDC 5.12-125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed dnring platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12cI45. 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 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-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 Department, the Plat inay be submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording, No individual lots may be transferred nntil the plat is recorded and five (5) copies of tlie filed subdivision are returned to the Development Services Department by the applicant. Date ri(eceived: '1.;0. ~~7 Planner: AL / v 17 ,CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and resubmit plans that are stamped and signed by a currently licensed and registered Professional Engineer. 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement for A Street for streetlighting,improvements. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall receive PIP approval for A Street improvements along the property frontage as generally depicted on the tentative plan, . 4. The PIP plans submitted for the project shall provide for a full 36 feet of curb to curb paving width along the A Street frontage of the property. 5. The PIP plans submitted for the project shall provide for a setback sidewalk and a 4,5-foot wide planter strip between the sidewalk and curbline along the A Stieet frontage ofthe property, 6. Prior to approvill of the Final Plat, at least three qualifYing street trees shall be installed in the planter strip along the A Street frontage of the site, 7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised utility plan for the property that shows: the Y-connections and cleanouts for Lots 2-5 relocated inside the 7-foot wide PUE along the site frontage; and a sanitary sewer connection extended to Lot I, 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the appiicant shall obtain necessary permits and install private sanitary sewer lines to serve Lots 1-5 as generally'depicted on the revised utility plan. All private sanitary sewer installations shall meet the requirements of the Plumbing Code. 9. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a proposed seed mix and plant'Iist for the private bioswale. The selected plant species, planting densities, seed mix, and seed application rates shall meet the requirements of the City's interim design standards in accordance with Section 3.02 of the EDSPM. The City of Portland storm water management manual may be referenced for design. 10. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit an operations and maintenance plan for the bioswale that is satisfactory to the City's Public Works Department. The operations and maintenance plan shall contain a schedule for periodic inspections and maintenance, and an assignment of responsibility for the long-term maintenance of the bioswale. 11. To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of Springfield's MS4 permit, the SDC and the EDSPM, the private bioswale shall be, fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to final plat. Alternatively, if this condition cannot be met, the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim ,erosion controVwater quality measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until the bioswale vegetation becomes fully established. 12. Prior to' approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and install the underground utility lines serVing Lots I to 5 to the satisfaction of the utility providers. In accordance with the applicant's tentative plan submittal and SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be installed or relocated underground, 13. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a suitable utility easement along the east boundary of Lot I; across the panhandle extensions of Lots 2, 3 and 4; and along the east boundary of Lot 5 for extension of underground utilities necessary to serve the development area, The easement configuration shall be acceptable to SUB Electric. Date Received: 1fo/Jo09 planner: AL 18 14. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall adjust the panhandle driveway paving to provide at, least 20 feet of driving surface width in accordance with 2007 SFC 503,2,1. 15. Prior to'or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat,. the applicant shall execute and record a private utility ,-' easement across the northern 5 feet of Lots 2 and 3 for the benefit of Lots 2, 3 and'4, unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the private easement is not required to provide underground utility service to the benefiting lots. 16. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record the variable- width, irrevocable, private joint access, maintenance and utility easement affecting and benefiting Lots 1-5 ofthe subject subdivision, and provide evidence thereof to the City, 17. The front yard building setbacks for Lots I and 5 shall be established from the south property line, Any dwellings placed on Lots I and 5 shall meet the minimum 10 foot setback from the edge of right-of-way on A Street. 18. The manufactured dwellings. and any regulated accessory structures to be placed .on Lots 1-5 shall not exceed the 45% maximum lot coverage provisions ofSDC 3.2-215, 19. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance: with the solar access standards of SDC 3,2-225 for each manufactured dwelling to be placed in the subdivision, 20. All manufactured dwellings to be placed on the subject development area must meet current State of Oregon certification requirements for occupancy in accordance with the Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Specialty Code, 21. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install yard landscaping in the building setback areas ,of Lots 1-5, The landscaping shall consist of trees, shrubs, groundcover plants, grass, or a combination thereof At least one landscaping tree shall be installed at a suitable location in each lot, not including req uired street trees. 22. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install approximately 52 line'ar feet of vegetative or structural screening along the common east-west boundaries between Lots I and 2, \lnd between Lots 4 and 5. 23. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall remove non-compliant front yard fencing from the A Street frontage of the subject property, All fencing for Lois I -5 shall meet the standards listed in Section 4.4-115 of the SDC, ' 24. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the curb cut, driveway approach, paved multiple panhandle driveway, and paved off-street parking spaces serving Lots 2-5 shall be fully installed, 25. 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, 26. The existing and proposed driveway approaches must be constructed to City standard~. 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 Director and as such may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department ,-,_.~d " :..:..........;lv'ed. Planner: AL . 0u/~g9 19 .. , -, by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, 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. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 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 May 15,2009. Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or e~ail alimbird@ci,snrinciield,or,us if you have any questions regarding this process, ?t?~ Planner II Encl: Attachment A - Tentative Subdivision Plan pate. ReCeiVed:5I.l/.)#<''f f?!~n.ner: AL I 20 Please be advised that the following is provided for information only arid is not a component of the subdivision decision. FEES AND PERMITS Systems Develooment Chames: The' applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when buildiog permits are issued for developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundmy, 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 ofthe development. Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected based on the SDC policy in effect at that time. WillamaJane 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 ofthe property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable, [Ord. 5584] Public Infrastructure Fee~: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the property , Other City Permits: . Building Permits - Permits may be required for construction of accessory structures such as garages or. carports, and installation of utilities necessmy to serve the development site, ' . Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit - Required for working within a right-of-way or public easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate is $139,50 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. . Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for site grading and construction, Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements, Additional oermits/aoorovals that mav be necessarY: . Public Improvement Plan for A Street frontage . Plumbing Permit to install stormwater drain pipes . Electrical Permit . Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands) . Department ofEnvironmentaJ Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands) . US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater disc~arge, wetlands) Date Received: 'I/JI1 I~ , Planner; Al 'I " I , 21 '. . ~ , 'MENT SERVICES G DEPARTMENT I STREET 'ELD, OR 97477 iFlELD, OR 97477 ,VELOPMENT SERVICES ANNING DEPARTMENT 5 FIFTH STREET 'RING FIELD, OR 97477 Nicole Haug 255 57th Street Springfield, OR 97478 Cynthia Daniel Robert Murphree 309 56th Street Springfield, OR 97478 ~~~ Todd Powell, PE HBA Design Group 150 7th Street Springfield; OR 97477 '-;. ...~ .... ,-.. ...,. ","'. ~', " '-"." ".. -"~',;."'~-"-..-" : 1 ;, ,-., . ,."",' ,'., CITY OF SPr://NGF/ELD ." DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT '. 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 1 - ---. Vern Benson 940 Hwy 99N Eugene, OR 97402 . Date ReceiJed" 7/;)YcP"! Plann'er: AL "..6 'I ,C,.' ,.".. ,i.' . SPR'NG"RDN If.tI'Il'IJ.'J;1{:.-r:r:rtNi/;tT;;(6JJifi]:I~t1'Tl8J!lA .I........ . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ tiJ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Dave Collier, PLS Pacific Surveying, Inc, 75506 Blue Mtn School Rd Cottage Grove, OR 97424 ./ .: ~ .. .. ':>:- ,. ',' . t.. .-.1' Date Received:. ~A./'~....'! .. Planner: AL . . 7'" . I.,'