HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 10/7/2008
,'A"
,/
,,/
r
i ~
0~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OCT -7:,Z008
STATE OF OREGON) By:l
)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 T,echnician, I prepared and caused to be
mailedcopiesofSU8:loo8-0DD3Q '-t1tft.bu ~ tw~ - ~ '
(See attachment nAn) on 10/7 - . 200fi addressed to (see ~
Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid 'thereon. '
Y a .JUAI --/
~~N LaFLEUR
'!M~
J \
STATE OF OREGON, County of lane
()('j-;niin '7 . 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur,
Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act. Before me:
. 'OFFICIALSEAL
. DEVETTE KELL V
'.. i NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO, 420351
. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 15, 2011
~.~
f?!Is-/I/
",
MY,Commission Expires:
Date Received:_~/""O!
, Planner: AL
"
TYPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Helfrich Family Trust Partition
Project Proposal: Partition one urb!ll fringe residential "arcel into two residential parcels
. , -. ~~ ('" .' ~ . :'C:'~1~.
;::~';fi~;~'7f )i~~~i<;;~~: . / . ' ,",: ~.'
.:. r'_ ..-.-< __l~'r_~:~'.___..'._..._..-..__,.r:. ~~'tf; .
",,-,,~="~":.J(:'~"',;:':;';'~'i ',. r '.~~' ....,
~:~: ,/~~1~~~:" ~ r .'''~fF ;j\'
" ~'~D.., ',(~:/':~ .'~"'.v: "." ~ ~ SITE
-,:~". :<:.-<~:' -~: *. ".. 'l~ - .~: /...... \=, 'I ~ '" . '-.. .,
'"".~.~~..,; .;,"'...., .....:'"l,'~......,. . :<J.~....t ....'
.' ""', '~~"\' ",l~'.'-'~"\'fl[.."~. "-'';'" .~. .. I.
~,:.J~;~,..,.~. 'l""~"''''~'![':''f'~ j.~l "ti~"~" ., ". .
~~";-;~~~.:"f~~~:: . . '~~.~:'~:'~'::3t~!:,3 LOR I UF:~.'~
'.. ---~ '~".r-- IP~.Il} ",i'l.."", .. ..
!b,~:-: :. ,," ~~f;'!<(D'J....,.:.t:~?;;~<: ., .
~';.-...;, :.-, _:--" ... ':~1: '1:-- ..1_ -';-.0'" ;1"7; b','~:' . :./.... [: f.
~ji~."~jL~rI'~:. ,,' 2:;
, '~:L.:.__J ''').:'''., ::",::CiiaydenIBridge'Road"cE!!:E
. ;-. ~ {!~(.i.J'~~;:~' "H~U~::~,::~r~r ~ !
"'iP.--,,~,'!dg/'r;;~lW r I '~~"'Ii'~,"'.PH ...
'~;"':4:Qi"'~it":':-':;-l""~~,,,~ .~
' ~~t'~~, r ;,,<:e:!.f~~.:-,~,r;. . l' !.t.'~'/_:~:"~.
T.- :.. ",' . _1'--:_.'1- . rn,;1''''I.rn. ,I. ."
,'~ :;s:- ';'ii.,:rnd:~i>;.. :.-;;~~.'. i\~;:,,>:' ::-U.,.: '.!i. :
LOR/UF-.10 Ft'J =ci.t~;.;" lliiP-ill:~~~>' i. r'
..... ''5 (~.. 1'.L {~ .1;'. ::.:;:.:., ~;,~."..:e. -.
'f,...:,..
Case Number: SUB2008-00039
Project Location: 2833 20th Street
(Map 17-03-24-00, Tax Lot #500)
Zouing: Low Density Residential (LDR) with
Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (UF-]O)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR
(Metro Plan) . .
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: May 2, 2008
Application Submitted Date: Aug. 27, 2008
Decision Issued Date: October 7, 2008
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
...
Appeal Deadline Date: October 22, 2008
. Natural Features: None
Density: Approximately 2 units per acre
.:.<:~ -
~e'
UGB
Associated Applications: ZON2007-00047; PRE2008-00024; SHR2008-00006
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
IposmON
I Project ManaJ!;er
I Transportation P]anninJ!; EnJ!;ineer
I Public Works Engineer
I Public Works Eng'ineer
I Deoutv Fire Marshal
I Community Services Manager-
REVIEW OF
PlanninJ!;
Transportation
Utilities
Sanitary & Storm Sewer
Fire and Life Safety
Building
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner/Applicant:
Surveyor:
Dean & Gayle Helfrich .
834 Pearl St.
Eugene, OR 9740]
Jim McLaughlin
2428 Ranch Drive
Springfield, OR 97477
'oO'"
.I.
NAME
Andy Limbird
Judith Johnduff
I Clayton McEachern
I Clayton McEachern
I Gilbert Gordon
I Dave Puent
PHONE
726-3784
726-7134
736-]036
736-1036
726-366]
726-3668
Engineer:
Dan Olmstead
EGR & Associates, Inc.
2535 Prairie Road, Suite B
EUJ!;ene, OR 97402
Datel t'<eceived: /(//7/:#""
I /
Planner: AL
DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the
,
Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Partition Approval are listed herein and
are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted witb findings and conditio.1ll
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 finall
Please read this document carefully.
(See Attachment A and Page 15 for a summary of the conditions of approval.)
OTHER USES AUTHORIZEn BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance wit!
the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations.
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the
partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-100. This application was accepted as complete on August 27, 2008. Thi~
decision is issued on the 41 ~ day of the 120 days mandated by the state.
SITE INFORMATION: The subject site is an irregular-shaped lot with a curved, cul-de-sac frontage on th~
northern terminus of 20th Street. The property comprises approximately 44,850 ft' (1.03 acres). The Springfield
. ,
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) runs along the northern and eastern edges of the site. The property is zoned and
designated Low Density Residential (LDR) with an Urban Fringe Overlay (UF-IO) in accordance with the Melrd
Plan. The Assessor's description for the subject property is Map 17-03-24-00, Tax Lot 500. Approval. of th~
proposed partition would create two LDR/UF-lO parcels with frontage on 20th Street. Proposed Parcel I would
have approximately 62 feet of frontage on the 20th Street cul-de-sac, and Parcel 2 would take access from a
panhandle driveway onto 20th 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 applicatio~
(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 property owners/occupants
within 300 feet of the subject site on September 3, 2008. No written comments were received.
CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENTATIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Partition Tentative Plan application
upon determining that criteria A through J of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached tc
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 dimensinns.
Finding I: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, parcels on the bulb portion of a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum parcel
size of 6,000 square feet with 35 feet of street frontage.
Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcell is approximately 18,380 ft' with about 62 feei
of frontage on the cul-de-sac, which exceeds the minimum requirements for parc~1 size and street frontage.
Finding 3: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, panhandle parcels shall contain at least 4,500 square feet in the pan
portion with at least 20 feet of frontage for a single panhandle parcel. .
pate! ~~eceived: ID /-,)~!
Pliiln/wr; AL
2
,Finding 4: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcel 2 is approximately 26,555 ft' (including
roughly 23,960 ft' in the pan portion) with 33 feet of panhandle frontage, which exceeds the minimum
requirements for panhandle parcel size and street frontage,
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A.
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.
Because the pwp~"y' is not within the SpringfieJd City limits, it is subject to the Urhanizable Fringe Overlay
District (UF-IO). As such, the zoning of the property is LDRIUF-IO, which is consistent with provisions of
the' Metro Plan. 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,
unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works
Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues.
General Finding 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.
GeneralFinding 7: City Building Permits are required for installation of private utilities. The applicant also
may be required to obtain permits from other agencies such as Lane County for connection to rural water
service and installation of septic systems. Developers are advised to obtain necessary c:ity and County
permits prior to initiation of construction activity.
General Finding 8: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed partition. City
staffs review comments have been incorporated in fmdings and conditions contained herem,
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 fmdings and conclusions. The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C mc1ude 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 hnprovements (SDC 4.3-105)
o Stormwater Management (SDC4.3-110 -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 Ii fully improved street, that street frontage shall be fully improved to
City specifications, Exception (i) notes that in cases of urilmproved streets, an hnprovement Agreement
. '
"
" ~,. " Date. Received: If/.:I-dfJ,f' 3
Planner: AL
shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time as a
C.ity street improvement project is initiated.
Finding 11: The subject property has frontage on 20th Street, which is classified as a Lane County local
access road. South of the cul-de-sac bulb, 20th Street is improved with paving, curb and gutter, and
underground utilities. The cul-de-sac bulb along the proferty frontage is not paved and lacks curb, gutter,
!lld sidewalk. Average daily traffic on the segment of20 Street north of Hayden Bridge Road is estimated
to be fewer than 100 vehicle trips per day. '
Finding 12: Lane County Transportation advises that improvement of the full cul-de-sac bulb is
recommended with the subject partition, including installation of curb and gutter along. the prope~
frontage and paving of the bulb area. City staff agree with the County's recommendation to complete the
cul-de-sac paving for the northern terminus of 20th Street. Paving of the cul-de-sac must provide sufficienl
width for emergency and service vehicles (such as frreandgarbage trucks) to make a turnaround maneuvel
within the bulb. .
Finding 13: In accordance with SDC 4.3-140, new street trees are required where development abuts
public street rights-of-way. Where street trees cannot be planted in the right-of-way, existing trees in th~
front yard setback can be substituted for street trees in accordance with SDC 4.2-140.B. Maintenance of
. street trees on private property is the responsibility of the landowner.
Finding 14: The applicant has proposed two street trees within the frontage of Parcel I, which meets thE
requirements of SDC 4.3-140. As noted above, the property owner will be responsible for maintaining thE
trees.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record ,an Improvement Agreement
for 20th Street for sidewalk, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street lighting.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant. shall' obtain necessary permits and complete stree,
improvements to the 20th Street cul-de-sac bulb, including completion of paving and extending the cur~
and gutter across the property frontage from a. tie-in point on the adjacent property (Tax Lot 4800) to
the western edge of the Parcel 2 panhandle.
3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install two street trees on the Parcell frontage a:
generally depicted on the tentative plan.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate th, :
additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development in a safe and effi~ient manner. .
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Finding IS: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each nev'
development and to connect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewer:
shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. '
Finding 16: The property is presently served by a septic system with drain field. The location of the existinn
septic system and drain field is not shown on the Site Assessment Plan, but it is the understanding of staff thai:
the drain field is located at or near the p>upu,ed property line between Parcels I and 2. There are minirnun/
p,up~';/ line setback requirements for septic systems and drain fields. Therefore, the existing System will
require decommissioning prior to plat. Decommissioning of the old septic system is under the purview of th ,
Lane Comity Sanitarian.
.'\\, \: o.
DatE/ i';'d.Qeive(:Ll~ /7/ auo8
Planner: AI. '
4
.'
. '
Finding 17: The tentative partition plan depicts the location of a new septic system and drain field to serve
Parcel 2, but a proposed septic system for Parcel I is not shown. The Lane County Sanitarian has requested
thatthe applicant show a replacement drain field for Parcel 2. Additionally, the applicant is to apply for a Site
Evaluation to ensure that a septic system and replacement drain field can be installed on Parcell.
Finding 18: Prior to construction of a dwelling on Parcell, the landowner/developer will need.to obtain a
septic installation permit from the Lane County Sanitarian.
Conditions of Approval:
4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide written confirmation of . on-site septic
system decommissioning from the Lane County Sanitarian.
5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall ,provide a copy of the approved Site Evaluation
from the Lane County Sanitarian that confirms septic system viability on Parcell.
6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a diagram illustrating the planned location
of the septic tanks, drain fields and reserve fields serving Parcels 1 and 2.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposed sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve the proposed
development.
Stormwater Management
Oualitv
Finding 19: 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 20: 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 21: 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) al'l'<Ul',;ate for the community.
Finding 22: 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 Siate law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City's
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Storrriwater Facilities Master Plan
(SFMP).
Finding 23: . As required in SDC 43-II0.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'.
.'
Datel Heceived:
Planner: AL
/U,h/;;I1"
, '
1.. 'l.:-...."
5
Finding 24: Section 3.02 'of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim
design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and
procedures of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS).
Finding 25: The applicant is proposing to hard-pipe the rooftop runoff from Parcels 1 and 2 to an existing,
drainage ditch running north from the northwest edge of the property. The tie-in detail is depicted on thf
Stormwater Management Plan sheet oftheapplicant~ssubmittaL
Finding 26: The applicant is proposing to extend a private 4-inch stormwater drain pipe in a wester!)
direction from the building envelope area on Parcell, across the Parcel 2 panhandle to a point near the
western boundary of Parcel 2, and thence northward and parallel with the existing 36-inch stormwater drauJ
pipe extending from 20th Street. The applicant is p,vpv,ing to run the private 4-inch stormwater drain pipd
inside a proposed lO-foot wide public drainage easement along the western boundary of Parcel 2. Privatd
utilities are typically excluded from co-locating with public utilities in public easements unless they cross at ~
perpendicular angle. Therefore, a separate and parallel private stormwater drainage easement will be required
for the proposed drain pipe located within Parcel 1 and serving Parcel 2. Additionally, the private 4_incl1
drainage' pipe will have to be relocated outside the public drainage easement.
Finding 27: The private stormwater drainage easement should be sufficiently wide to accommodate the 4
inch pipe and allow for maintenance and replacement activities. Therefore, a 5-foot wide private easement i,
recommended. However, the applicant call vary the private easement width as may be necessary to ensun
adequate setbacks are maintained for the proposed house (and eaves) on Parcel 2.
Finding 28: In accordance with SDC Section 4.3-140,A, the minimum width for all public utility easemen1:t.
(PUBs) shall be 7 feet unless the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequatd
maintenance. To adequately accommodate the existing 36~inch stormwater drainage pipe, a 14-foot widd
public easement will be required to ensure maintenance and replacement ,activities can be conducted withi11
the easement area.
Ouantity
Finding 29: Section 4.3-110.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant developmen:
approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management system provisions have beel I
made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM.
Finding 30: Section 4.3-11 O.D of the SDC requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to a 1
approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge.
Finding 31: Section 4.3_110.E of the SDC-requires new developments to employ. drainage managemer,t
practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote watf i
quality.
Finding 32: To comply with Sections 4.3-11O.D & E, stormwater runoff from the site will be directed to an
existing drainage ditch extending north from the northwest comer of the site. The ditch eventually discharge;
to the McKenzie River system north of the site.
Conditions of Approval:
7., To accommodate the existing 36-inch stormwater pipe, the Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 14.
foot wide public easement along the western boundary of Parcel 2.
8.' Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised Stormwatf r
Management Plan that shows the 4-inch stormwater drainage pipe serving Parcel 1 relocated outside th :
)4.cfoot. wide. public easement on Parcel 2.
Date Received: .. /01,/1 ;)....r
Planner: At.'"
1',,_.-
9. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a private easement on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I.
The easement shall be sufficiently wide to contain the 4"inch storinater drainage pipe and allow for
maintenance arid replacement activities.
10. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the 4-inch stormwater drainage pipe serving Parcels I and 2 shall be
installed from the Parcel I building envelope to the outfall apron as generally depicted on the tentative
plan.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposed stormwater management system is adequate to serve the
I-Hvpv,ed development.
Utilities
Finding 33: Section 4.3-120.B ofthe SDC requires each developer to make arrangements with the utility
. provider to provide utility lines and facilities' to serve the development area. . Springfield Utility Board
(SUB) Electric is the provider for electrical service to the subject property. .
Finding 34: The applicant is responsible for the cost of design and installation of utility lines and facilities.
In accordanc.e with SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be placed underground.
Finding 35: The applicant is proposing to, extend electrical and telecommunication lines from existing
connection points in 20th Street. SUB Electric has requested the provision of utility easements necessary to
serve the partition area. The requested easements include a 7-foot wide streets ide PUB along the frontage
of Parcels I and 2; a 10-foot wide easement along the. south boundary of Parcel I; and a 10"foot wide
easement along the eastern boundaries ofPareels I and 2 to the noI1heast corner of the subject p<vp",,~j.
Finding 36: Consistent with the suB Electric request, the applicant's tentative partition plan depicts a 10-
foot wide PUB along the southern and eastern boundaries of Parcel I and along the eastern boundary of
Parcel 2. Provision of a streetside PUB is discussed in a following section (below). . ,
Condition of Approval:
11. As depicted on the applicant's tentative partition , plan, the Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 10-
foot wide utility easement along the southern and eastern boundaries of Parcell and the eastern boundary
. of Parcel 2.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposaf satisfies tIiis sub-element of the criterion. '
Water Service and Fire Protection
Finding 37: 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. The subject site is within the service area of Rainbow Water District.
Finding 38: Rainbow Water District has provided written confirmation that water service can be extended
to the two proposed parcels.
Finding 39: There is an existing fire hydrant at the southeast corner of Hayden Bridge Road and 21" Street.
However, the hydrant is more than 600 feet away from the furthest points of the proposed house on Parcel
2 when taking the shortest approved route between the hydrant and the subject property. Therefore, a .fire
hydrant will be required with this proposed development.
Finding 40: IIi accordance with the Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D I 02.1, a fire
apparatus access road (driveway) must be capable of handling an 80,000 lb. imposed load. The driveway
\" .,', ,.' - \ .~, ' Oat" {<"wivec!: /~/~/~I' 7
Planner:' AL
also needs to provide at"least 20 feet of clear width, for emergency access.. The applicant haS not provided a
plan detail for the panhandle driveway serving Parcel 2. .
Finding 4]: In accordance with SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D] 03 .6, "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage
is required along' fITe apparatus access routes and within the cul-de-sac turnaround bulb: Spacing of fIre
lane signs must be consistent with recommendations of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
and the Traffic Control Devices Handbook.
Conditions of Approval:
12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install an operating public fIre hydrant within the
public street frontage of 20th Street. The hydrant shall be constructed to City specifications and be located
so as to provide adequate protection for structures on Parcels] and 2.
13. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage around
the cul-de-sac bulb and along the Parcel 2 panhandle driveway in accordance with SFC requirements.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfIes this sub-element of the criterion.
Public and Private Easements
Finding 42: Section 4.3-]40.A of the ,SDC requires' applicants proposing developments to make
arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the' dedication of utility easements necessary to
fully service the development or hmd beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUBs
adjacent to street rights-of-way shall'be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements
shall be 7 feet unless the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate
maintenance.
Finding 43: The applicant's tentative plan does not show a 7-foot wide.streetside PUB along the frontage
of Parcels ] and 2.
Finding 44: The applicant's tentative plan shows two existing EWER easements affecting the property
(#75-22936 and Book] 78, Page ]58). The applicant proposes to vacate the easements and record alternate
utility easements to serve the development area. However, verifIcation that the easements have been
vacated has not been provided with the applicant's tentative plan. Additionally, the applicant has obtainec
building permits for construction of a single family dwelling within an existing utility easement area.
Finding 45: As previously noted and conditioned (Conditions 7, 9 and ] I), public and private easement!
will be required to accommodate existing and proposed utilities serving the property.
Conditions of Approval:
14. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 7-foot wide PUB along the 20th Street frontage o'
Parcels I and 2.
15. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall effect the release of the EWEB easemenb
affecting Parcel 2 and provide evidence thereof to the City.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this' proposal satisfIes this sub-element of the criterion. Therefore, a:
noted above and conditioned herein, the proposal satisfIes Criterion C.
"
Dat€'lRecelved: /r,/#o,f>
Planner: AL
,
,
D. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in this Code and other applicahle regulations.
General Finding 46: 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.l Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping,
Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking
Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review)
o Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3.2"215)
o. Height Standards (SDC 3.2-215)
o Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105)
o Screening (SDC 4.4" II 0)
o Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115)
o On-Site Lighting'Standards (SDC 4.5-100)
o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-IQO)
D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements
o The site is within the Zone of Contribution for Springfield drinking water wells.
o The site is not within an adopted Refinement Plim area.
o The site is within the Floodplain Overlay District.
o The site is within the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District
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)
Parcel Coverage and Setbacks
Finding'47: The applicant is proposing to construct a dwelling on Parcel 2. As proposed, the dwelling on
Parcel 2 meets the required building setbacks of the LDR District.
Finding 48: The building footprint of the proposed dwelling on Parcell is depicted on the tentative plan,
and should not exceed the maximum lot coverage (45%) ofSDC 3.2_215.
Height Standards
Finding 49: In accordance with SDC 3.2-225, the maJ<llnumbuilding height in thci-LDR District is 30 feet,
except where modified by solar access standards.
Finding 50: The property to the north of Parcel 2 is in the mapped FEMA floodway and is outside the
City's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Therefore, the property to the north is not considered developable
residential land for the purpose of determining height standards and solar access requirements.
Landscaping Standards
Finding 51: 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 52: . There is no requirement to install screening between comparable residential parcels.
Date I'~eceived' /~h/,;It>....p
Planner: AL
9
I~' ..
Fence Standards
Finding 53: ,The Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts.
However, there is no requirement for fencing between comparable residential parcels. Fencing is at the
discretion of the two abutting landowners.
On-Site Lighting Standards
Finding 54: It is not expected that outdoor residential lighting for the proposed dwelling will cause light
trespass onto adjacent properties. .
Vehicle Parking Standards
Finding 55, 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 2 can be accommodated with the proposed
driveway and garage.
Finding 56: At least two paved off-street parking spaces will be required prior to issuance of occupancy for
a future house on Parcel 1.
Condition of Approval:
16. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, 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 Applicable Refinement Plan 'Requirements
Finding 57: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Watel
Protection Overlay District and Refmement Plan requirements. The subject site is within the combined
10/20 Year Time of Travel Zones/Zone of Contribution for the Pierce wellhead. No specific policies of thE
DWP Overlay District or the Metro Plan apply to the proposed partition.
Finding 58: The site is not within an adopteil Refmement Plan area,
Finding 59: The applicant previously obtained a Floodplain Overlay District (FPO) approval for thE
'Hvp""~f to facilitate construction of a house on Parcel 2 (Case SHR2008-00006), The established BasE
Flood Elevation (BFE) for the property (prior to partition) was calculated to be approximately 452.1 feet
In accordance with the FPO approval and, SDC 3.3-420.B.1, the fmished floor elevation for dwellings or
Parcels I and 2 must be elevated at least I foot above the BFE. A deed restriction or similar mechanism
will need to be recorded against Parcels I and 2 to ensure the finished floor elevations meet th,
requirements of the applicant's FPO approval for the property.
Finding 60: The applicant is' proposing a land division that triggers, the requirements of SDC 3.3-420.AA
Subdivision Prooosals. which states:
a. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage;
b. AIl subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, including, but not limited to
sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located, constructed and maintained to minimize flom
damage;
c. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood damage; and
Date ~'{eGeived' /r~""Ptf
Planner: AL
I(
d. One"hundred-year flood elevation data shall be provided and shown on ,final and subdivision plats.
The boundaries of the 100-year flood and floodway shall be shown on the final subdivision plat;
e. A permanent monument shall be established and maintained on land subdivided, showing the
elevation <in feet above mean sea level. The location of the monument shall be, shown on the [mal
partition map or, partition plat;
f. 'Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from'another authoritative
source, it shall be prepared by the applicant's engineer for subdivision proposals and other proposed
developments which contain at least 50 lots or5 acres (whichever is less).
Finding 61: The applicant has not shown flood elevation data on the proposed tentative plan. To meet the
requirements .of SDC 3.3-420.AA, a survey monument will need to be installed for each of the two parcels
showing the elevation in feet above mean sea level. Additionally, the floodplain inforniation is to be shown
on the partition plat and should be listed on the property deed.
Findmg 62: The property is subject to provisions of the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, SDC 3.3-800.
In accordance with SDC 3.3-820.B, partitions in the UF-I 0 District are reviewed under Type IT procedure.
Finding 63: The proposal is consistent with provisions of SDC 3.3-800 for partitions and residential
construction within the UF" I 0 area.
Conditions of Approval:
17. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall have a survey monument establishing the
, elevation above mean sea level installed for each of Parcels I and 2.
18. The Final Plat map shall note the location of the survey monuments on Parcels I and 2 and shall
contain flood elevation data as required by. SDC 3.3-420.AA,d. '
19. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record a deed restriction or
similar mechanism against Parcels I and 2 advising the,p,up~';f owner and future successors of the flood
elevation data, including the calculated base flood elevation for the parcels.
20; Prior to issuance of a residential building permit for Parcel I, the flood elevation information shall be
provided to confIrm the dwelling is constructed with a [mished floor elevation at least one foot above the
base flood elevation.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfIes Criterion D.2.
E. Pbysical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes witb unstable soil or geologic conditions;
areas witb susceptibility.to flooding; significant clusters oftrees and sbrubs; watercourses sbo~n on tbe
,Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and tbeir associated riparian areas; other riparian areas aud
wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of bistoric and/or
arcbaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and
390.235:-240, sball be protected features bave been evaluated and protected as specified in tbis Code or
in State or Federal law.
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.
........y,~ '.
"-.' """el'ved'
I..~,.,\ : j , .......... .,
"I'''' "'I" AL
1~ i::~IHk. .
/t/0tJN
11
Finding 66: As noted above, the applicant has obtained a Floodplain Overlay District approval for the
property.
Finding 67: 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 pre'served 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 pwpu,al 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, wit"in the development area and to
adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood' activity centers, and commercial, industrial and
public areas; minimize driveways on arterial and coUector streets as specified in this Code or other
applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways.
Finding 68: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 2-lot partition at a meeting on
September 2, 2008. As noted and conditioned herein, the existing and proposed driveways are sufficient to
serve the proposed parcels. As previously conditioned, provision of off-street parking will be required for a
future dwelling on Parcell (Condition 16), '
Transportation System Impacts
Finding 69: The portion of 20th Street north of Hayden Bridge, Road is a Lane County local access road
with a 32-foot wide asphalt-paved roadway within a 60-foot wide right~of-way. The asphalt paving,
stonnwater'dniinage, and curb and gutter ends near the southwest corner of the property, At the southern,
edge of the subject property, 20th Street becomes a gravel cul-de-sac bulb with a 46-foot radius,
Finding 70: In accordance with SDC 4.2~105.E.I, a dead-end street must tenninate in a cul-de-sac bulb
hammerhead, or other design that provides, an adequate vehicle turnaround area,
Finding 71: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing dwelling and build a new dwelling on Parcel
2. Parcel] would remain vacant. Based on ITELand Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing:
full development of Parcel I with a single-family residential use'would generate 10 additional vehicle trips
per day and I PM peak-hour vehicle trip onto the sUrrounding street system.
Finding 72: 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 of
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'73: As previously noted and conditioned, the proposed partition creates the'need for paving, curb
and gutter, sidewalk 'and street lighting improvements on 20th Street. Paving, curb and gutter is ~
requirement of this decision, and at present there is no sidewalk along 20th Street north of Hayden Bridg~
Road. Therefore, the future sidewalk and street lighting improvements can be deferred through an execute,'
Improvement Agreement. ' '
Finding 74: The nearest'regular transit bus service is provided by LID Routes #18 (Mohawk/Fairview I
and #19 (Fairview/Mohawk) operating along Q Street and Marcola Road.
~,...., 1
DatsReceived' /1304,,,,
Planner: Al . 7 '/ <7'
1:',
Finding -75: ' As proposed and previously conditioned herein, existing transportation facilities would be
adequate to accommodate the additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development.
Site Access and Circulation
.
Finding 76: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number. of traffic conflict points. A greater
number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 4.2-120 permits each parcel to
have one driveway access.
Finding 77: As stated previously, the driveway serving Parcel 2 will need to be designed to handle an
,80,000 lb. imposed load,' Additionally, the driveway will need to provide at least 20 feet clear width for
emergency vehicles.
Finding 78: The applicant is proposing to install a gravel panhandle driveway to serve the dwelling on
Parcel 2. As previously noted and conditioned, the applicant will be responsible for improving the street
frontage of Parcels I and 2. In accordance with SDC 3.2-220.A.5, the panhandle driveway must be paved
from the edge of pavement on 20th Street to the pan portion of Parcel 2. Therefore, at least 65 feet of the
Parcel 2 panhandle driveway (as measured from the south property line on 20th Street) is to be paved.
Installation and paving of the driveway must occur prior to issuance of occupancy for the dwelling on
Parcel 2.
Finding 79: A Lane CountY Facility Permit may be required to install new or modified driveways on 20th
Street and to connect with existing utilities in the public right-of"way. '
Finding 80: The proposed partition also will create the need for one additional driveway to serve Parcell.
The applicant has not shown a potential location for the new driveway on the submitted tentative plan. In
accordance withSDC Table 4.2-2, the Parcell driveway will have to be at least 12 feet wide and paved at
least 18 feet into the site.
Findin'g 81: As proposed and conditioned herein, the existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access,
driveway, and vision clearance requirements of SDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130.
Conditions of Approval:
21. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant, shall provide a pavement detail for the Parcel 2
driveway confirming that it can support an 80,000 lb. imposed load,
22. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel 2, the panhandle- driveway shall be paved at
least 65 feet into the site as measured from the south;property line on 20th Street. '
23. The applicant shall obtain Lane County permits as may be required to install new or modified
driveways to serve the development site and to connect with public utilities in the street right-of-way.
Wherever necessary, the applicant shall provide evidence of approved Lane County permits when
, requesting City Building Permits for the development site,
...
24. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the comers of the site
driveways in accordance with SDC 4.2-130,
25. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve the future dwelling on Parcell. The driveway,
shall be paved at least 18 feet into the site as measured from the 20th Street right_of-way.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F;
'~~~
, "
. '\\
.' ...
Date f{8Ceived:
Planner: AL
l.y;/~"'?
13
G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be 'accomplished as
specified in this Code.
Finding 82: The adjacent parcel to the north, which is outside the UGB, is also owned by the applicant. To
ensure legal and physical access to Tax Lot 505 can be maintained, an access easement across Parcel 2 will be
required. Aside from Tax Lot 505, there is no other property under the same ownership that can be further
developed.
Condition of Approval:
26. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of an access easement across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Tax
Lot 505, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that legal and physical
access to Tax Lot 505 can be provided through an alternate mechanism.
Conclusion: As conditioned herein, 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 83: Adjacent land to the east and west is currently developed with residential dwellings and has
access to public streets. Tax Lot 505 is almost entirely within the floodway, and therefore has .limited
development potentiaL As previously conditioned (Condition 26), provisions have been made in this decision
to maintain legal and physical access to Tax Lot 505.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H.
I.. Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city limits but within the City's urbanizable are.
and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shall also apply.
1. The minimum area for the partitioning ofland in the UF-lO Overlay District shall be 10 acres.
2. EXCEPTIONS:
a. Any proposed new parcel between 5 and 10 acres shall require a Future DevelopmentPlal\
as specified in Section 5.12.120.K for ultimate development with urban densities as require<
in this Code.
b. In addition to the stimdards of Subsection 2.a., above, any proposed new parcel that is les: ;
than 5 acres shall meet 1 of the following standards:
i. ,The property to be partitioned shall be owned or operated by a governmenta'
agency or public utility; or '
ii. A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property to be partitioned shall
be smaller than 5 acres.
iii. No more than 3 parcels shall be created from 1 tract of land while the propert;,'
~mains within the UF-I0 Overlay District.
EXCEPTION: Land within the UF-lO Overlay District may be partitioned mor ~
than once as long as no proposed parcel is less than 5 acres in size.
Finding 84: The property involved in this proposal is outside the City limits. Ther~fore, provisions of th"
&-10 District apply to this site.'
.'
, '. ~ l
Date f~eceived: If} h / #tfr
Planner: AL 'I
1-1
Finding 85, In accordance with SDC 5.12-125.I.2.b.ii, the majority of parcels within 100 feet of the subject,
site are less than 5 acres in size. Therefore, the proposal meets this requirement.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion I.
CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as submitted and conditioned, coni plies 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 Planning 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 Improv.ement Agreement for 20th
Street for sidewalk, 'sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street lighting.
2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain necessary permits and complete street
'improvements to the 20th Street cul-de-sac bulb, including completion of paving and extending the curb and
gutter across the property frontage from a tie-in point on the adjacent property (Tax Lot 4800) to the western
edge of the Parcel 2 panhandle. ,
3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install two street trees on the Parcel I frontage as
generally depicted on the tentative plan,
4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide written confirmation of on-site septic system
decommissioning from the Lane County Sanitarian,
5. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Site Evaluation from the
Lane County Sanitarian, that confirms septic system viability-on Parcel' L
6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a diagram illustrating the planned location of the
septic tanks, drain fields and reserve fields serving Parcels I and 2.
7.. To accommodate the elcisting 36-inch stormwater pipe, the Final Plat shall provide'for dedication of a 14-foot
wide public easement along the western boundary of Parcel 2.
8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised Stqrmwater Management Plan
that shows the 4-inch stormwater drainage pipe serving Parcel I relocated outside the 14-foot wide public
easement on Parcel 2. '
9. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a private easement on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I. The
easement shall be sufficiently wide to contain the 4-inch stormater drainage pipe and allow for maintenance and
replacement activities.
o ~,"'~~\}o~ \.' >0'
, .-dz/"'"
, i. ...-el'ved. , '
'-"1"'" I'" 'vV
\.,;,.)\\.~ .. L
\?\anner: A ,
15
10. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the 4"inch stormwater, drainage pipe serving Parcels 1 and 2 shall be installed
from the Parcell building envelope to the outfall apron as generally depicted on the tentati:-e plan.
11. As depicted on the applicant's tentative partition plan, the Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 10-foot wide
utility easement along the southern and eastern boundaries of Parcell and the eastern boundary of Parcel 2.
12. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant- shall install an operating publicfrre hydrant within the public
street frontage of 20th Street.' The hydrant shall be constructed to City specifications and be located so as'to
provide adequate protection for structures on Parcels I and 2.
13. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall install "No Parking:- Fire Lane" signage around the cul-
de-sac bulb and along the Parcel 2 panhandle driveway in accordance with SFC requirements.
14. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 7-foot wide PUB along the 20th Street frontage of Parcels 1 and
2.
15. Prior to 'approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall ,effect the release of the EWEB easements affecting Parcel
2 and,provide evidence thereof to the City. '
16. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for a dwelling on Parcell, at least two paved off-street-parking space~
shall be developed'on the site.
17. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall have a surVey corner monument establishing the elevation
above mean sea level installed for each of Parcels 1 and 2.
18. The Final Plat map shall note the location of the survey monuments on Parcels 1 and 2 and shall contain flood
elevation data as required bySDC 3.3-420.AA.d.
19. Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record a deed restriction or similro
mechanism against Parcels 1 and 2 advising the property owner and future successors of the. flood elevation data,
including the calculated base flood elevation for the parcels.
20. Prior to issuance of a residential building permit for Parcell, the flood elevation information shall be provided to
confIrm the dwelling is constructed with a fInished floor elevation at least one foot above the base flood elevation.
21. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shan- provide a' pavement detail for the Parcel 2 driveway
confIrming that it can support an 80,000 lb. imposed load.
22. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel 2, the panhandle driveway shall be paved at least 6:
feet into the site as measured from the south property line on 20th Street.
23. The applicant shall obtain Lane County permits as may be required to install new or modified driveways tc
serve the development site and to connect with public utilities in the street right-of-way. Wherever necessary,
the applicant shall' provide evidence of app~oved Lane County permits when requesting City Building Permit!
for the development site. '
24. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of the site driveway!
in accordance with SDC 4.2-130. '
25. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve the future dwelling on Parcell. The driveway shall bi
paved at least 18 feet into the site as measured from the 20th Street right-of-way.
, .-
.,
Datel'l.eceived: /~/~/;;.,"'tl' '
Planner: AL
H
26. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of an access easement across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Tax Lot 505,
unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that legal and physical access to Tax Lot 505
can be provided through an alternate mechanism.
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the
applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a,fee at the Development
Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. \
Appeal: This Type II Tentative Partition decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be
appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development ,Services Department by an
affected party. The appeal mus(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-]]5 which provides for a ]5-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures,
Rule ]O(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on October 22,
2008.
, .
Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541)
726-3784 or email alimbirdiaki.snrinl!field.oLus if you have any questions regarding this process.
. Prepared By:
~J
End: Attachment A - Tentative Partition Plan
"
t.,.; ...
Date Heceived:-4'/7/ ,,;>t?t>L
Planner: AL
]7
Please be advised that the following is provided for inf9rmation only and is not a component ofthe
partition decision.
FEES AND PERMITS
Svstems Develonment Charl!es:
The applicant must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when building permits are issued for
developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. The cost relates to th.
amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield Cod.
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 th.
subject site'. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings or sit.
improvements on each portion or phase of the development.
Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected at time of building permi'
issuance for a future house on Parcel 2, and would be based on the SDC policy in effect at that time. Willamalan. ,
,Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recreation improvements is presently $2,513 fOI
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 connection fees if the property or
portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost oj
a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge if
applicable, [Ord. 5584]
Public Infrastructure Fees:
It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the
property.
Other City Permits:
. Building Permits - In addition to standard requirements, the developer shall abide by the solar setback
requirements ofSDC 3.2-225 when submitting for,building permits for the dwelling on Parcel 2.
. Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit - Required for working within a right-of-way or public
easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitary sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate
is $135 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits.
. Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for new home construction. Contacl
the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements.
Additional nermits/annrovals that mav be necessary: '
. Plumbing Permit to install stormwater drain pipes and connect the future house to a drywell system
. Electrical Permit
. Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
. Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands)
. US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands)
", \.
18
Date r>,eceived:
Planner: AL
loh/.Jootf
I I
<(I
1-1
Z!
WI
::2:i
~I
<(I
~II
<( .!
,
!
'i
,
,~
II
1
U
d
i;
!
"
.!
Ll'
.'
.~
U~
:~~:
r ~~._'w
"-.....JJTI',LOC.It.lnI
Y""NDAAvt:.
~
IlAYOJ!NWllIXIEWAY
,
!
r--'
.
j ----
ASTl:AMAL
~
(
VICINITY MAP
'/V:T.s'- -
~
4.-
..~
GO'
#
'y'
_ _ ~L=;::~~ _ ~
...- .-- .-. -.- --- ---~.. --.. - --.--.--':
--~-.
WU ROCK OARllEN~
1A~ ~Mr 11-f1l-~4-(J(1
TA'tLlH,W
~_~ ,\C
LEGEND
-'- -- -'U,1.'SI)___-,'-._
~GRDwmBOIJNDAll.Y
""'-""
IlDOEOPa1AVEL
>ENCB
EDGEOl'PAVI!tdENT
HXlSTINOS'J'OllWDRAlNl'D'1l
EXISTINOWAT1!llMl!TIlll
HlC/STlNO STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN
EXInINO I'OWI!Jll'OLI!
IDClSTINO. PROPOSED UNDl!ll.OllOUND
POWIIRLlNBS
SBmACKUNf!3 pmz SDC
PROJ'OSl!Dlfll1I1LlTYBASBMI!NT
I!l.ECf1UCntANSFOIlMBRBOX
..
..
""
._(-
.
HELFRICH FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
MAPIHll_24-00n.,OO
Date Received:
AUG 2 7 2008
i I
Original SUbmitta'-.Q,~
I i
LAND DIVISION TENTATIVE PLAN
SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
AUGUST 200*
/
MIClll..-\~$KIJM;nj.
TAX~I.'1'17.(lJ.Hi.j
',!\Xl<}T-lIl1
11.~-: lIC
{IUIII
,
I
I
I
(~=I
. lIO'IU'll"W I "lIlI"lIrll"W
F-r+.= -=-~- -,/= 11 f fS- - ~ ~~,.- -=-=:;"
./ I'j" 111'1 tRlc'H I'AMlL\ " ~
, ' RF.V(...AblI- rl'.lNblIHIS7 I ~
I TAX'{API1-0l2~!1O l . I,
i 1...____ :.-_.'- TA:~I.lJT~(Iu . I:l .!;l ~-. !' /~"~~.:.i'l\':'[)['i!<I!t_._
. I ~"---. I. ~ .1 :5 . I . Tt.XZ'~~'~~~J~~l"'l 'i.'_".:~~':,:~'r~~~;:';
EnfTIN~~~r /1 ,,'- / // tL: I'~ "_-II~ ~ l~-','O~}~"U"" rA".;iU;c".....
IJElFRlCHF.o\lI.IILY TllBEVM:AlW ;' i ~ I I 1 I ~ ~ 11JJ~l (IDil.
Rf'.\~~::~~.I;~~~o~~~l.)~l . / E ~ I I 1 ~ '.O~~~~:,:f,"'tL' _ ..., __~ '+_~____
To\~,~:~~:iO\ EXI~~~,~-........ I \' I I ~ L
TOoev.u:A~ ~ ~ ~ ~/~! ~ 1"0
. 'ii . '/ . lt~~W_'~~='-=-T-=r:--===~--=q~:~ ':
, I . ~1li<lS~PM~O-l.' ,,<ii'''''::.. - -NO"llI'OCr'II ...., \ ._' UMVR-Il.~- -- ti".. lOTiHSTllEET 1
..II-I~A(:'~:~~';~~:t~~"'-f::_-'<:~.~.,~ - _fI1-1~f...... _/-. ,. \ --.l _~ .{i>
..---:: *i..... '\!~ .::.' ,- . -::.. -~/"1\:.,::.~.~~~- ,~".::!-~.=~ -'"--4------=--=~~,;~~;I--(F--~;:-
~ .J ;1 /__l.'-.~__________- I I
t /'1 rllOKllt'D'~ l ~~~~~~;;J I ~ "-""~~~'::"~:;';:UH I I
uc TOOEVACATE> ....... ~_' __ l"X/.\....I'-"J.~'...,
:;U~ >1 1A.~wr'600 I
, I .,',':'~.u. ..,/ .-n'f~'_'l"JT' ,'lllll
... ~ ./- "'('1,,",,;,;-:.,..1 CI
It' COUNfY (l1'1'llLII(,llEII1"1C / I l.\XI<n,'i<, -<
I i rj ~ TAX ~I,\r 17.uJ.24./l!l ,wo, '"
. _"','. .. / : lAX L0T 5<)J I ,11..,.. +11__ ~o
.~1AC --,-'
, oLOKI /. I 0/.-1' I III
~. ffi
/ I , 0
n _ _ ---:lL// / / .: /~__ ___ J_ ->//L ~
I SO"06'U"W
,
,
I
I
-TJ
"
,
\
\
\
\
'J'SEIlLIHHJERfKhlLY
'IA,XMAI' I'.Ol"2~'('lI
TAXI.Ol....-13
7,~ ..\C
(U)R'
SITE INFORMATION
LONlNr. ... PI_'" N DESIGNA nON.
\>~j;Nr: LUW DENSrIY
WIOENTlAL(LOR)
URBANIZED fRINGE (Uf.lll)
PHONE;
Q",,",
CABLE,
COMCAST
C'~
AU"
rTiGROSS ACRES
FLOOD INFORMATION.
B1'E~j.jl' }fAZ.ARDZONll:AE
FIRM MAP jj 410l9C1 Ulf
SANITARY:
ON SITE SEPTIC
-
,
ELECTRlC:
",.-
'40'
<0'
"'.
WATER:
RAINBOW
.",
~
~
("
"
~'
'-
'0
Q)
>...J'
.~ <(I
Q)
~
i...:'
Q)!
C'
<Il C I
m~
Cc...
!,
j
,~
:~
I~
I
3
.~~ ~
~ I~Ui
..., ~h1im
..,~~"'~
o .
~ .
~tf8
,
~n: ;:;
zo_ i ~
i~i . ;ifi ~
~g. "!
!
,- ~
~-
i
.
~
c
~
~
~
~
6
.
6
8
c
o
Z
z ~
! ~ z
. . C
~ ~ , ~
~ .
~ .~ z 0
~ ~ ~
v, w
-; N ~
~
c
~
5
z
~
1>
~
c
1>
~
~
o
j!
J;
U
c
ShaetNlJmbef'
1ff!.I.I '4.' J;iJ.. i:J:1 J l' 1 t1;: I ~ _.IM 'J:I::t. ~.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING ,DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
. .-.----............ ...,...,.,..","I'IL.'VI
225 FIFTH STREET
'SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
. .mms~
~
Dean & Gayle Helfrich
2587 19th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Jim McLaughlin
, 2428 Ranch Drive
Springfield, OR 97477
I\R!llIlt ~ ~
Dan Olmstead
EGR & Associates
2535 Prairie Rd, Ste B
Eugene, OR 97402
Date Received' 10/,;"o?,r
Planner: AL
~~_6