HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 11/14/2007
.1
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
,I
srATE OF OREGON I
I 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',
Z. 1 state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, 1 prepared and causeej to'be ,'.
mailed copies ofSVI32D07-0005,'" 7Jtf{U.u06 ~-: .D/~ p~
(See attachment "A ") on 'II II';: ,Z0(57 addressed to (see ~
Attachment B"j, by causing said . letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
. Il
postage fully prepaid thereon. '
"K~ ~~
K~XN LaFLEUR ,
,
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~IV '.:!--' Z007. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act.
Before :::--------o;F~;L;;L--~--'. k' ; ( , .
j .'. BRENDA JONES 2 " ',A.../
j \.. ,/ NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON ~ ---< J- / f./IVY
I ",' COMMISSION NO, 379218 t ~
" MY COMMISSION EXP,RES MAY 27, 2008 ,.' !A1/1 " " '1 ~
..,._..:..-.:..------~~ __~, y Commission E 'es: '/Y4VUY ';}-1 dU'J{/
0" '
Date Receiv~d:-Lf-'_IJoo-L
Planner: AL'
TYPE IT TENTATIVE PARllllON REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Luke Syrios Partition
Project Proposal: Partition one residential parcel into two residential parcels
I
Case Number: SUB2007-00053
:""';t,'- '-' _I--O;"~'-"
'=,...UJ' .~,
. rn'~.., ~ _~ :tl~ :'~,j:":;i",.:.~'j
,-/<'-.;.. '.' CL!U ,LDR-~ - ~ .....
",_,;'i.'~ . > . J:.!
~ \'.a'-, ;~
Union,Ave:-.\ ",~Jr~.j"!., .:'t,
. . \{, .~ tl ._ l.::ij)',
'-'.;t;. _. .__ - . -II
\o.':-f.. -"'f'". lli:t--''''l -.,
~~j>...;...__ __:", '. I :.~,\.- '.~~' _,' ", tij!~
.,'........:...}.......Umon Terracek:~~.,.'.,..;.r; ,
'-~T~...P...~...-...~ ':;?;~~-' ,- ;
1;.. . .1.....r. l
w: .:'-':; ",,' ?';
: "'--,.10' ':~~
. ~ '1" ',.
~I ,SIJfi'
:.'" ". ",,"-
... ...:,,~l',
'c"';';;S;"
"'.., _ -, ~~~"':':~..'."". "... .... -r~~':c....~;.j..'~ro;i~' ...1
f3qotl1)~eIlY.R'-'i'cJ'.c~,,;,'t'<h:\C"4t'" " ,
-t.~~~~ '. ~'"'; :....:.~~.~:l~f. '-'~
_~,~ 'e;ea
: ~J\''l.
Project Location: 4733 Union Terrace
(Map 18-02-05-12, Tax Lot #.1900)
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
. .
Comprehensive Plan Designation,: LDR
(East Main Refinement Plan)
~1t:~...\',
f--;a
tI.,.-'-
~F~":..
f?""":/l.
""'--.<,
!CP": ..;~:;
Pre-:Submittal Meeting Date: August24,2007
Application Submitted Date: October 1,2007
i..q,R
;,
Decision Issued Date: November 14, 2007
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
r','
Appeal Deadline Date: November 29, 2007
" Union-Pacific,Railroad
"' -,
Natural F'eatures: None
Density: Approximately 5.3 units per acre
Associated Applications:PRE2007-0p052
.' '
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
I POSITION
I Project Manager
I Transportation 'Planning Engineer
I Public Works EIT '
I Public Works BIT
I Deputy Fire Marshal
I Community Services Manager
REVIEW OF
Planning
Transportation
Utilities
Sanitary & Storm Sewer :
Fire and Life Safety
Building
NAME
Andy Limbird
Greg K wock
Jesse Jones I
Jesse Jones :"
Gilbert Gordon
Dave' Puent"
PHONE
726"3784
736-7134
I 736-1036
736~1036
726-3661
726_3668
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
, "
Owner/Applicant:
Surveyor:
Engineer:
Luke Syrios
Stewardship Properties
1247 Villard Street
Eugene, OR 97403
Marvin Kiush
Krush & Associates
607 Hwy 99 North
Eugene, OR 97402,
Bradley Myers
Mortier Engineering
1245 Pearl Street
Eugene,O~( 97401
Date f'{eceived: IIlf~7
Planner: AL'
DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the
, Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicahle to each criterion of Partition Approval are listed herein
and are satisfied by tbe submitted plans and notes miless specifically noted with findings and conditions
,necessary for compliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE FINAL
PLAT, MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a
limited land use decision made according to City code and,state statutes: Unless appealed, the decision is
final. Please read this document carefully.
(See Attachment A and Page 12 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 federaf
regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedui-es'listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the
partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-100. This application was accepted as complete on October I, 2007.
lbis decision is issued on the 44th day oftbe 120, days mandated by the state.
SITE INFORMATION: The subject.property is:ill irregular shaped lot comprising, approximately 16,469 If
(0.38 acres) arid contains one existing dwelling, The p,vp".;j is zoned and designated Low Density Residential
(LDR) in accordance with the East Main Refinement Plan. The subject site backs onto the Booth Kelly Road
and the Union Pacific Railroad line to the south, The Assessor's description for the subject property is Map 18-
02-05-12, Tax Lot 1900. Approval of the proposed partition would create two LDR parcels with frontage on
Union Terrace. The second (vacant) parcel to the rear of the existing house is proposed as a panhandle parcel.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural ,Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14 day comment period on the
application (SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the
notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration.
Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to I'wp""j
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on October 5, 2007. One written comment was received
from Donna Carpenter, 4740 Union Terrace:
"This is re: location at 4733 Union Terrace Springfield/Assessor's Map No, 18-02-05-12, Tax Lot 1900. I have
a few concerns about this property being divided and adding another home on the backside of this property.
1) The increase in traffic on our road that is not currently maintained on 'a regula; basis.
2) Increased size of the current pot holes due to the road not being maintained.
3) If the current property owner is allo~ed to build an additional home on this property, who is to say
that other property owners on this street won't do the same thing? If more people build on [their]
property like the one 'mentioned above who will maintain this road?
I Understand that the other property owners do not want to pitch in to have a paved road, sidewalks' and street
lights due [to] the possibility of increased traffic, the cost that the hame owners would have to pay, and the face
that from my understanding they like the quietness of the street. I personally. don't mind the graveled road [if] it
was taken care of on a regular basis (which it is not), I wish we could have at least 1 street light down here, but
1 know the cost of the street light is far more than 1 home owner could handle, and we home owners would have
to pay for it and1 understand most do not want to bear the cost of the installation. With that said, I STRONGLY
OPPOSE Luke Syrios's Application to partition his lot into two parcels, as I am sure he is not going to pay the
cost to repair and maintain the road."
,.
Date, R~ceived:....(I}.y/.Joo7
Planner: AI" '/
2
Staff Response: ,
Staff advises that, as a condition of the partition decision, the property owner will be r~quired to enter into an
Improvement Agreement with the City for,the Union Terrace frontage of the site. An Improvement Agreement
obligates the landowner to participate in future street improvements when and if these lVe initiated by the City.
The Improvement Agreement includes provision for future street upgrades including! sidewalk, curb, gutter,
storm sewer, street lighting, and street trees, As Ms. Carpenter notes in her written cpmment, the associated
costs for street upgrades are more than one homeowner can reasonably be expected to p~y for. It would require
a City Council decision to initiate a Local Improvement District levy for street upgrades, and to be successful
the levy would require participation of the majority of benefiting landowners. In lieu of street upgrades, there
are other interim measures that could be taken to improve the condition of. the street, including application of
gravel overlay and regrading to address potholes. Participation of benefiting landowners (through cost-sharing)
would be a pre-requisite to any street improvements initiated by the City. Planning will forward Ms.
Carpenter's comments regarding existing street conditions to the City's Transportation and Maintenance
divisions for their consideration,
CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENT ATIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Partition Tentative Plan
application upon determining that criteria A through J of this Section have been satisfied," If conditions cannot be
attached to satisfY the criteria, the Director shall deny the application,
A. The request conforms to the provisions ofthis Code pe'rtaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. ,
Finding I: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, parcels on east-we~t streets shall have a minimum parcel size of
4,500 square feet with 45 feet of street frontage,
Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcel I meets the minimum requirements for
parcel size and street frontage.
Finding 3: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, single panhandle parcels shall contain at least 4,500 square feet in
the pan portion and have at least 20 feet of street frontage,
Finding 4: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcel 2 meets the minimum requirements pan area
and public street frontage.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
J,"
B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram,
Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding 5: The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diagram
and the East Main Refinement Plan. The zoning of the property is LDR, consistent with the Metro Plan
and the adopted Refinement Plan, and the applicant is not proposing to change the zoning designation.
Conclusion: This l'wl'v;al satisfies Criterion 2.
C. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including. but not limited t~, water and electricity;
sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall
not be exceeded and the public improvements shaU be available to serve,: the site at the time of
development, unless otberwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The
Public Works Director or a utility provider shaU determine capacity issues.
-, .
~,~~~~~c~~ed: /:!./,?t7~
3
General Finding 6: For all public improvementS, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil
, engineer to design the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the
current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The, private civil engineer also
shall be required to provide construction inspection services.
General Finding 7: City Building Permits are required for installation of private utilities. Developers are
advised to obtain necessary City permits prior to initiation of construction activity.
General Finding 8: The Public' Works Director's representatives have reviewed the p.vpv,ed partition.
City staff's review comments have been incorporated in fmdings and conditions contained herein.
General Finding 9: Criterion C contains sub-elements and applicable code standards. The partition
application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise
noted with specific findings 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 Sanitary 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)
Public and Private Streets
Finding 10: Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a
proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that
development has any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage
shall be fully improved to City specifications. Exception (i) notes that in cases of unimproved streets,
an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing
improvements until such time as a City street improvement project is initiated.
Finding II: Abutting the subject site to the north, Union Terrace is a 20-foot wide gravel roadway in a
40-foot wide right-of-way. The street is unimproved and lacks paving, curb,. gutter, sidewalk, street'
trees, street lighting and storm sewer improvements. Average daily traffic on this street is estimated to
be fewer than 150 vehicle trips per day.
Finding 12: In accordance with SDC 4.3-140, new street trees are required where development abuts
public street rights-of-way. Where street trees carmot be planted in the right-of-way, existing trees in
the front yard setback can be substituted for street trees in ac'cordance with SDC 4.2-140.B.
Maintenance of street trees on private property is the responsibility of the landowner.
Finding 13: There is an existing spruce tree inside the north property line of Parcel I that is proposed
to be retained as a street tree.
Finding 14: Along a portion of the Parcel I frontage, there is a dense broadleaf evergreen hedge that
appears to be partly within the street right-df-way. The hedge is approximately 8 feet high and would
preclude planting and maintenance of a street tree along most of the Parcel I property frontage.
Removal of the hedge and replacement with a street'tree is not a requirement of this partition decision.
However, street tree installation is to be deferred through an Improvement Agreement.
.:\ ." '.
Date fteceived: /00/>>07
Planner: AL
4
'Finding 15: At such time as street improvements occur in the future, removal of portions of the hedge
that are inside the public street right-of-way may be required. Additionally, the hedge may need to be
cut back along the driveway edges to ensure vision clearance triangles are maint~ined.
Finding 16:, An adjacent resident has submitted a written comment about the lack of streetlights on
Union Terrace. Installation of a street light is possible, and SUB Electric advises the cost would not be
exceptional if shared between the benefiting landowners. The City is prepared to examine the feasibility
of installing one or more streetlights on Union Terrace and/or South 47th Place if the majority of
landowners on these streets petition for this action. However, the applicant is ,not required to install a
streetlight as a condition ofthis decision:
Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and ~!"cord an Improvement
Agreement for Union Terrace for paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, storm sewer and
street trees.
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 marmer.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Finding 17: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each
new development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary
sewers shall provide,sufficient access for maintenance activities. " .
Finding 18: The existing dwelling is served by a private lateral connected to \ffi 8-inch public sanitary
sewer line running east-west within Union Terrace. The applicant is not propOShlg to change the sanitary
sewer,line servin~ the existing house.
Finding 19:, The applicant is proposing to install a new sanitary sewer connecti~n with private lateral to
serve the panhandle parcel (parcel 2). ;:
Finding 20: The existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines are adequate, to serve the proposed
. development.
Stormwater Management
,
Finding 21: Section 4.3-11 O.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authoritr shall grant development
approval only where adequate public and/or private storm water management system provisions have been
made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. .
Finding 22: Section 4:3-IIO.D of the SDC requires that runofffrom:a ~evelopm'mt shall be directed to an
approved storm water management system with sufficient capacity. to accept the discharge.
Finding 23: Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management
practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote
water quality. .
Finding 24: The stormwater drainage, from proposed Parcell currently discharghonto splash blocks and
infiltrates into the ground. There is no available public stormwater system to serve the subject site, and the
applicant is not proposing to change the existing drainage pattern for Parcell.
: :--~. Ip-~~
AL
"
,
,,"-'
,
5
Plallner:
Finding 25: The applicant is proposing to serve Parcel 2 with a drywell to handle rooftop runoff from the
future house. The applicant has submitted the results of a percolation test in support of a drywell.
Finding 26: 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 27: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's
MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Controf Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-
Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the
proposed development.
Finding 28: 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 29: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other
regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the
extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City's
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and 'the future Stormwater Facilities Master
Plan (SFMP).
Finding 30: 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 31: 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).
Utilities
Finding 32: Section 4.3-120:B of the SDC requires each developer to make arrangements with the
utility provider to provide utility lines and facilities to serve the development area. Springfield Utility
Board (SUB) Electric is the provider for electrical service to the subject property.
Finding 33: The applicant is responsible for the cost of design and installation of utility lines and
facilities.
Finding 34: In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, wherever possible all utility lines shall be placed
underground. The proposed development does not meet the exceptions listed in SDC 4.3-125.A-H for
powerlines to remain above-ground. A site inspection was conducted on August 21, 2007, and revealed '
no significant impediments to placing existing and proposed utilities underground.
Finding 35: The existing dwelling is served with overhead electricity, telephone and cable TV from two
separate power poles on the north side of Union Terrace. The applicant is proposing to retain the
overhead utilities to serve Parcel I and provide new underground utilities to serve Parcel 2. The two
power poles serving the subject property are identified in the SUB Electric system as pole #66161
(approximately 55 feet fro~ the northwest corner of the subject property) and pole #65167
(approximately 40 feet from the northeast comer of the subject property).
~9t.e R.eceiVf;d:-L/~~/./~o"')
Planner: AI. 7'-':r'"
6
Finding 36: The tentative plan proposes an electrical connection for Parcel 2 at power pole #65167
located about 40 feet from the northeast comer of the subject site.
Finding 37: SUB Electric advises that power pole #65167 across the street from the proposed Parcel 2
frontage contains a switch mechanism, and therefore a riser or transformer carmot be added to this pole.
Electricity service for Parcel 2 will have to be routed from power pole #66161;or provided through an
alternate configuration satisfactory to SUB Electric. .
Finding 38: SUB Electric advises that electrical service routing.carmot exceed,270 degrees of conduit
bends from the point of connection with the public system to the building envel6pe area on Parcel 2. A
junction box may be required along the frontage of the subject site to avoid excessive conduit bends to
, reach the building envelope area of proposed Parcel 2.
Finding 39: Provision of underground electrical service to the existing dwelling and proposed Parcel 2
will require utility easements along the property frontage and into the site. SUB Electric is also
requesting a 5-foot wide electric easement within the panhandle of proposed Parcel 2 from the northern
boundary to a point approximately 87 feet south (at or near the southeast comer of Parcel I).
Conditions of Approval:
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, all utility lines serving Parcell shall be placed underground.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make arrangements with utility providers for
utility easements as may be required to accommodate the underground electrical and
telecommunication services for. the dwellings on Parcels I and 2.
4. The utility easements required to serve Parcels I and 2 shall be recorded 'prior to or concurrently
with the Final Plat.
5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, all utilities required to serve Parcel 2 shall be extended to the
building envelope area of the parcel as generally depicted on the applicant's tentative plan.
Water Service and Fire Protection
Finding 40: 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., .
Finding 41: The dwelling on proposed Parcel I is already served with water from the existing 6-inch
waterline in Union Terrace. The applicant is not t',vt'v,ing to change ,the water service for the existing
dwelling.
. '.
Finding 42: The applicant is proposing a new lateral and water meter from the existing 6-inch water
line to serve proposed Parcel 2.
Finding 43: There are two existing fire hydrants within 200 feet of the subject site that provide
coverage for fire protection.
Public and Private Easements
Finding 44: Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing <\evelopments to make
arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utilitY easements necessary to
,.
.
~ .".. \ ' '. ..
, .
Date, Received: Irr>>/77
Planner: AL
7
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 45: In accordance with SDC 4.3-140.A, the applicant is proposing to dedicate a 7-foot wide
PUE along the Union Terrace frontage of the site. The PUE can be dedicated on the Final Plat.
Finding 46: As stated previously, utility easements will be required to provide underground electrical
and telecommunication service to the subject site.
Condition of Approval:
6. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication ofa 7-foot wide PUE along the frontage of Parcels I and
2 as depicted on the applicant's tentative plan.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion C.
D. Tbe proposed development sball comply witb all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in tbis Code and otber applicable regnlations.
General Finding 47: Criterion D contains two elements with sub-elements and applicable Code standards.
The partition application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element
unless otherwise noted with specific fmdings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements' and Code
standards of Criterion D include 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, Loading and Bicycle Parking
.Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review)
o Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3.2-215)
o Additional Panhandle LotlParcel Development Standards (SDC 3.2-220)
o Height Standards (SDC 3.2-215)
o ,Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105)
o Screening (SDc 4.4-110)
o Fence Standards (SDc 4.4-115)
o On-Site Lightfug Standards (SDC 4.5-100)
o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100)
,-
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements
o The site is not within' a Time of Travel Zone for Springfield drinking water wells.
o The site is within the East Main Refinement Plan area.
D.l Conformance witb standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC4.4-100 (Landscaping,
Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vebicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking
Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) .
Parcel Coverage and Setbacks
Finding 48: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing dwelling on Parcel I. The dwelling would
meet the required front, side and rear yard setbacks of the LDR District with the exception of the garage.
In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, the minimum front yard setback for garages is 18 feet measured from
the front property line. The applicant's tentative plan indicates the' existing garage door opening is set
back 15.5 feet from the south edge of the Union Terrace right-of-way. This is considered an existing,
!Jete! Received:_Li/~Y~tJL
F"~J1ner: AL /
8
non-conforming situation for the purpose of this review. However, the proposed land partition does not
increase the degree of non-conformity for the garage entrance, and a variance would not address the
issue of vehicle parking on the driveway surface.
Finding 49: In the event a public sidewalk is constructed along the south side !Jf Union Terrace in the
future, the driveway will not provide sufficient space for a vehicle to be parked in front of the garage
door and remain entirely off the public right-of-way. The back end of a vehicle would likely cross the
sidewalk and obstruct pedestrian movements. To address this situation, a cayeat or deed restriction
should be recorded against Parcel I notif'ying current and future landowners oftne potential constraint.
Finding 50: The applicant has depicted a conceptual building envelope for a house oriented east-west
on proposed Parcel 2. As proposed, Parcel 2 will meet the required setbacks for the front and rear yards,
garage entrance, and the southern side yard.
Finding 51: The applicant has identified three existing accessory structures (sheds) on the subject site
that are to be removed prior to partition platting.
Additional Panhandle LotlParcel Development Standards
:'
Finding 52: The applicant is proposing to construct a gravel driveway to serve the panhandle parcel
(parcel 2).
Finding 53: In accordance with SDC 3.2-220.A.5.a, panhandle driveways abutting an unimproved street
shall be at least 12 feet wide and paved from the property line to a point at fleast 18 feet inside the
property line.
Condition of Approval:
7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install a paved panhandle driveway at least 12
feet wide by 18 feet long as measured from the north property line of Parcel 2.
Height Standards
. .
Finding 54: In accordance with SDC 3.2-225, the maximum building height i~ the LDR District is 30
feet, except where modified by solar access standards. '
Finding 55: Prior to issuance of building permits for a house on Parcel 2, the'd~veloper will be required
to demonstrate compliance with the solar access standards of SDC 3.2-225. '
Landscaping Standards
Finding 56: In accordance with SDC 3.2,215 footnote (5), all building setbacks shall be landscaped
unless the setback is for a garage or carport.
Screening
Finding 57:. There is no requirement to install screening between comparable LDR parcels.
. Fence Standards
, I
Finding 58: The Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts.
However, there is no requirement for fencing between comparable LDR parcels;
"\-.:
Date Received' r~j
Planner: AL
9
On-Site Lighting Standards
Finding 59: It is not expected that outdoor residential lighting for the existing and proposed dwelling
will cause light trespass onto adjacent properties.
Vehicle Parking Standards
Finding 60: In accordance with SDC 4.6-100, a minimum of two off-street parking spaces are required
for each dwelling unit. The parking requirement for Parcel I can be accommodated with the double
garage. As stated previously, the driveway is not counted for the off-street parking provision due to an
insufficient setback from the Union Terrace right-of-way.
Finding 61: At least two paved off-street parking spaces will be required prior to issuance of occupancy
for a future house on Parcel 2.
Condition of Approval:
8. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for 'a dwelling on Parcel 2, at least two paved off-street
parking spaces shall be developed on the site.
Conclusion: AS.conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.l.
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicahle Refinement Plan Requirements
Findmg 62: Development, Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water
Protection Overlay District and Refmement Plan requirements. No policies of the DWP Overlay
District or East Main Refinement Plan apply to the partition.
Finding 63: The developer or future landowner will be required to abide by the solar setback
requirements ofSDC 3.2-225 when applying for building permits on Parcel 2.
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; watercourses shown on
the ,Water Qnality 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, shaD be
rpotectedeatnrcs have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code 'or other applicable
regnlations.
Finding 64: The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable soils.
Finding 65: The site is not within an identified wetland area and does not contain significant trees or
shrubs.
Finding 66: 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.
~ '.' .
OatEI Received:
Planner: AL
1/ /;r/ ;Qcr;
/
10
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion E.
'I
F. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate v~hicular traftic~ bicycle
and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide, connectivity within the de:velopment area and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and I~ommercial, industrial
and public areas; minimize driveways on arterial and coUector streets as s~ecified in this Code or
other' applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access managem~,nt standards for State
highways. il
"
Finding 67: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 2-lot partition at a meeting on
October 23, 2007. The existing and proposed driveways are sufficient to serve the proposed parcels. As
previously conditioned, additional off-street parking is required for proposed Parcel 2 (Condition 8).
'. P
Transportation System Impacts
'Findmg 68: Abutting the subject site to the north, Union Terrace is a 20"foJt wide gravei roadway
witl1in a 40-foot wide right-of-way. The street is unimproved and lacks pkving, curb and gutter,
sidewalk, street lighting and street trees.
Finding 69: Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Hous\ng) full development of
an additional parcel with a single-family residential use would generate 10 additional vehicle trips per
day and I PM peak-hour vehicle trip onto the surrounding street system. I' '
, ,
Finding 72: Installation of driveways on. a street increases the number of tr~ffic conflict points. A
greateLnumber of ,conflict points increases the probability of traffic crasIies. SDC 4.2-120.A.I
stipulates that all developed parcels shall have "an approved access..." I,
~, .
Finding 73: The applicant proposes to access Parcel I vi'a an existing dri~eway located along th~
western portion of the northern boundary. Access to Parcel 2 would be via t<<~ panhandle drivewal at
the northeast comer of the site. ,
!
Finding 74: As proposed and conditioned herein, ingress-egress points will ;be plarmed to facilitate
traffic and pedestrian safety,. avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on pubiic streets as specified in
SDC 4.1 to 4.3,5.15 and 5.17, applicable zoning and overlay, district Articles, ahd applicable refinement
plans. I:
Condition of Approval:
I~'
,
,9. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the comers of tl1e
site driveways in accordance with SDc 4.2-130. !,
Conclusion: As cOliditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F.
":....':0 ~,,"':..
Date Received:
Planner: AL
I
/1~07
"
I
II
G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same, ownership can be accomplished as
specified in this Code.
Finding 75: 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 wiD allow its development as specified in
this Code. .
Finding 76: Adjacent land is currently developed with residential dwellings and has access to public
streets.
Conclusion: This p' ~p~,al satisfies Criterion H.
I. Where the Partition of property that is ontside of the city limits bnt within the City's urbanizable
area and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shall also
apply.
Finding 77: The property involved in this proposal is inside the City limits. Therefore, this condition
does not apply.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I.
CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A-I of
SDC 5.12-125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted may not be substantively changed during
platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12-145.
What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to one vear from the date of this letter to meet the
applicable conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a ,Final partition Plat. Please
refer to SDC 5.12-135 & 5.12-140 for more information. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
IMPROVEMENTS AND THE FINAL PLAT MUST BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH
THE TENTATIVE PLANS AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
The Final Plat is required to go through a pre-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 Plarming Department, the Plat may be submitted to Lane
County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until the plat is
recorded and five (5) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development Services Department.
by' the applicant.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement for
Union Terrace for paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, 'street lighting, storm sewer and street trees.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, all utility lines serving Parcell shall be placed underground.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall make arrangements with utility providers for utility
easements as may be required to accommodate the' underground electrical and telecommunication services
for the dwellings on Parcels I and 2.
.' :.
O/;lta Received: ///~/;Mtl7
PIl:mner: AL
12
;j-
4. The ,utility easements required to serve Parcels I and 2 shall be recorded prior to or concurrently with the
Final Plat.
5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, all utilities required to serve Parcel 2 shall be extended to the building
envelope area of the parcel as generally depicted on the applicant's tentative plan.
6. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 7-foot wide PUE along the frontage of Parcels I and 2 as
depicted on the applicant's tentative plan. .
7. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install a paved panhandle driveway at least 12 feet
wide by 18 feet long as measured from the north property line of Parcel 2.
8. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel 2, at least two p~ved 9ff-street parking spaces
shall be developed on the site. , .
9. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at, the comers of the site
driveways in accordance with SDC 4.2-130.
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 c9pies are av~ilable for a fee at the
Oevelopment Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. .
Appeal: This Type 11 Tentative Partition decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be
appealed to the Plarming Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department 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 Plarming
Commission approves the appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.3-1 15 which provides for a IS-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision,expire~ at 5:00 p.m. on
November 29, 2007. i
Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at
(541) 726-3784 or email alimbirdlalci.sorinl!field.or.usifyou have any questions regardip.g this process.
,
Prepared By:
;/2:/
Encl: Attachment A - Tentative Partition Plan
I.
. .,\\;.: '\ \
Datf\ ~f\l"ejvli:ld:,. / :i/fl ~7
PlafH,;:;L AL I:
13
~
A I I ACHMENT A
lil
p,i .. .,'"
, . ...... ~li
.~ ...'"
II!;' CC
....'" -"'- g ...
m~~ .,~ g~~ c
,,:;: t.I)(I'Io"",_ !!: u...... "
,~ ~>-CJ\N . ~ai;:t.I)~ 0,
S~1!i =l::5f;WC 0
R::I!~ '" '"
~~ . ;' "'''''''~Z
ii!i .::l ~ '. a.~ d
? "">~ -.....
",,,,,,, , ;f5f5!!' ....
...,,'" "'.l.tJ..... '"
.....c i~g; .. 0 .,
-",=> " , o~::.c", is
..-... ::.t:\D.....'8 ... ! CL>~iE~
I '" =>
C c
I ;=
;=
I ~
..
I ~ 00 ~
'" z ..
;= c
i ,. !i! C ...
c ... ;= ;=
.... >
'" ~ ~ c :l "'
~ ~ ;= ....
=> ~
z
::5
0...
Z
o
(/)
>
o
o
z
::5
I,'
I'
iI
I'
, ,
i I .
I ' i I
'~ I I' I t
I "-'JII'-
II I" " .'
~ " ...~
LH... :' '. - ..-..-..-..
.... .
1 ~'.::..~ -- .-:-..:="-- _A.
I I". .1.. ~
~ "': ' .
... . ~l ~
I ~. ~... w
I,..t;;, l!~
I .~..jf ", '. ; II
i ' '~ ill~' ~
I I' :~'1- ".: ..
i.:.. '-. ~
II' Y "..
. I . ... .
I r: ':-"..,. ill ....
I . ~. Ii '
. I I.. _ .. . r,' ~.'. :,,'
t' .' "\_~'"
I ' ',. . ..'. '.-,,*-
.- . ' '.
I .. ,...:.. ; ~/.'_...i'_
, 1 .."01I,Dt>: ,"
I 1/
I /
\~: I//'l I
J' '
" I
,) !'
,,/
I ,//
~C/
m
I
I.
~L...oo.Hl.OS
R'III,]I ..QO.tO.O N I
i
-t;
i~
'"
~t)
~
Ii
w
>
~
Z
W
I-
;
!i!
Iii
13,
w
I
i I .
~ ~ ~
% I ·
Ii ~ i
is ·
!!l ~
0....
I~ ~
:!I >>SLI~ .,P
8tllGL .3 .oo.toD N
~ i
6 IO"lQI; - -A1'U ... ao'U
, ....... - 1lllI1'<O:rn'"
"mOt 31DHtMlI ID1W. 31SVJI
I
.~
t
i!
I
!
t;t;
Nlillil I
~~
l:i~' ~
2i! ~I
I
Date, Received: 111;"&07
Planner: AL ~n
II
~
'"
I
\ ,
\ m
\
\
i
\
,
\
i
~
a
!!
I'
, .
Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of
the subdivision decision.
FEI:S AND PERMITS
Svstems Develooment Char!!:es:
The applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when building I:permits are issued for
devdopments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary! The cost relates to the
amount of increase in impervious s~rface area, transportatidn trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield
Code Chapter II, Article II). Some exceptions apply to Springfield Urban Growth area~,
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
II
or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. ! '
. . . . r
Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected athime of building permit
issuance for a future house on Parcel 2, and would be based OIi the SDC policyl: in effect at that time.
WiHamalane Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recr~ation improvements is
presently $2,303 for each new single"family dwelling. ::
SanitarY Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment:
Pay a Sanitary Sewer In"Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connecti~n fees if the property or
portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwis~ participated in the cost
of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is
applicable. lOrd. 5584] f.
I
,
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the
property. I,
Other City Permits: , , I,
. Building Permiis - In addition to standard requirements, the developer shall abiae by the solar setback
requirements of SDc 3.2-225 when submitting for building permits for the dwelling Ion Parcel 2.
f
o Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit - Required for' working within fl, right-of-way or public
easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting ~ manhole. The current
rate is $130 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits.
. Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for new home construction.
Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate appli6ation requirements.
Additional oermits/anoTOvals that mav be necessarY:
. Plumbing Permit to install stormwater drain pipes and connect the future house to adrywell system
. Electrical Permit
c
.
Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetla~ds)
. I .
.
o
US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
O,,,,t"l m,,~p'.'ved'
l-;I... . j -" ..
Planner: AI.
IYr.>>'L
I
I
14
...",---
,...,.,-
I
:
l
~,
t
,
~ .0-
,
I
J
'.
i
,
"
- -'"' -....... ........
..
i",--
.
.' ,.,::." 'il,':' I' :~~
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ',' .';..:,,:",>:~'
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTM~NT}~~. :~j ,
225 5th ST '.:/i.~~;[;l)!"~:
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477' .', .... ;',l:"Y.,\J:::;V; ;
~- <. - ~",:=<~~~~~y::-'"~:::~~,:';r~I~~
.
i
Marvin Krush
Krush & Associates
607 Hwy 99 North
Eugene, OR, 97402
;
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD . ..:,;,~.L;;~~:,';~AI
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ('.i:11~':~1, =
225 5th ST ' ,; ':"'. .~., ,""; ,.,~" .
. ',' ;.~J:'.,:-.:.t:.II, ",,:~. J
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477, ..',. ....;."..,-:;,,;.. ,..."~'.. .
. . .' ,,{;':~/"~;'}'~\'I~t'.',1 -
~!,:~ "d:Ai';f!~: j.t\\.;~w~:n,\ti.H ~
," '" ,n',',. '.'..; D:~"''..;lll;,'
,
----_.. ---'-~- ..~ ,----
4\1', _
" ~~I
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD " " ". .- .~;. .
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTME~!, :,:.:/ -.:..J',
225 5th ST , ' . '.,' '., ";"'il',
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477. . '. " ,..,*..1..: " >::!9~:.
.. ~.. '---''''=.:==o~~' ,:;,..~:!.'t~'Tl'
~
,
Bradley Myers
Mortier Engineering
1245 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
~
~'
,-=,
-...
~
~
~
':-j
'"
"-
,..\
~'~
,-,,)
\.\
.>
.",)
,..:,\
d
'0
Q)
>....J
'm <(
()
Qli..;
,:1"" Q)
,~ <=
<D
-<=
ell..!!!
00..
.
~~,..~.,,,...._~". _,_~_a........._ ".a.......'.. ~......a .'.
.
--,. -'
.,..,
.
I
.. _...... .
Luke Syrios
Stewardship Properties
1247 Villard Street
Eugene, OR, 97403
. . ;'.,'"
. . ";~",:'> .,,>.l}i'
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. .,,:,;f.~.!.':.'~;,t~'*
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENJ."h1~::t~;,
. \ ';,.~. I, ~~';'I'~'(,~1
225 5th ST . ' . ' , ,.~ '>, '~:/<V!;J
SPRINGFIELD', OR 974!7. '\"'~:i;An::.".,(~~)lti
. ,oJ..... .,fi" (' ,\. ''''''~ ".Jr
., ','. '".__r.,.fi,\::'" !..,',~h"';
Donna Carpenter .
4740 Union Terrace
. OR 97477
Springfl.eld,
~