Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 12/23/2008 , ~ .l f " AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) " I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared al)d caused to be r , ' mailed copies of '5lJ~ 7lX)~-tY:Y:?39 "tllftiu ~ h.tuo~ A'1Tli - ~ - . (See attachment "A") on \;O-/.:J-..'L; 2008 a dressed to (see 'Ructc.b.&t. Attachment B"), by causing said ----'Ietters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with ~ postage fully prepaid thereon. !l4!,:f:LEu1'f~J~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane , l::xf / .Ir1hA ,.23 ; 2008. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: . OFFICIAL SEAL , ' OEYE'!'TE KElL V \' NOTAl> f PUBLIC. OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420361 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 16, 2011 ",n ~._.__ J:xudiL b jJJU u U My Commission Expires: ~ /Is-I (I ., Date Received: /~~~otr' Planner: AL ~ TYPE II TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Helfrich Family Trust Partition Project Proposal: Partition one uj-ban fringe residential parcel into two residential parcels Appeal Deadline Date: January 7, 2009 Case Number: SUB2008-00039 Project Locatio." 2833 20th Street (Map 17-03-24-00, Tax Lot #500) Zoning: Low Density Residimtial (LDR) with Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (UF-IO) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR (Metro Plan) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: May2, 2008 Application Submitted Date: Aug. 27, 2008 Amended Decision Issued: Dec. 23,2008 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Natural Features: None Density: Approximately 2 units per acre Associated Applicatious: ZON2007-00047; PRE2008-00024; SHR200S-00006; ZON2008-00038 CITY OF'SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM I POSITION I Proi ect Manager L Transportation Planning Engineer I Public Works Engineer I Public Works Engineer I Deputy Fire Marshal I Community Services Manager REVIEW OF Planning Transportation Utilities Sanitary & Storm Sewer Fire and Life Safety , Building I NAME I Andy Limbird Judith Johnduff Clayton McEachern Clayton McEachern Gilbert Gordon , Dave Puent PHONE 726-3784 726-7134 736cl036 736-1036 726-3661 , 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner! Applicant:' Surveyor: Engineer: Dean & Gayle Helfrich 834 Pearl St. Eugene; OR 97401 Jim McLaughlin 2428 Ranch Drive' Springfield, OR 97477 Dan Olmstead EGR & Associates, Inc. 2535 Prairie Road, Suite B Eugene, OR 97402 ,1....".. .,:'.(\ ~ Date f'{eceived: /~/;l ~/d<>O f Planner: IAL .. DECISION:' -Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Partition Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted ,plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for com'pliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE FINAL PLAT, MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a limited land nse 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 16 for a summary of the conditions of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-100. This application was accepted as complete on August 27, 2008. The decision was issued on the 41 ~ day of the i20 days mandated by the state. The applicant appealed the decision seeking to reverse seven conditions of the Director's decision. The Lane County Hearings Official opened an appeal hearing on November 24, 2008; and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2008. During the continuance period, the City and the applicant agreed to modifY certain conditions of approval to satisfY the appeal. On December 10, 2008 the Hearings Official remanded the deci.sion to the Director for amendment. SITE INFORMATION: The subject site is an irregular-shaped lot with a curved, cul-de-sac frontage on the northern tenninus of 20th Street. The' property comprises approximately 44,850 W (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 Metro Plan, The Assessor's description for the subject property is Map 17-03-24-00, Tax Lot 500. Approval of , the proposed partition would create two LDR/UF-1O 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 Limjted 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 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 detennining that criteria A through J of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfY the criteria; the Director shall deny the application. A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. Finding I: . Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, parcels on the bulb portion ofa cul-de-sac shall have a minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet with 35 feet of street frontage, ". Date Heceived: Planner: AL I :L-h.3 /JQoC I 2 J Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcell is approximately 18,380 ft' with about 62 feet of frontage on the cul"de-sac, which exceeds the minimum requirements for parcel size and street frontage. Finding 3: Pursuant to SDC'3.2"2J 5, 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 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 Concep~al Development Pian. ' Finding 5: ,The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diagram. Because the property is not within the Springfield City limits, it is subject to the Urbanizable Fringe Overl\ly District CUF"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 i" vpv,al 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 tbe public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, nnless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. Tbe 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. General Finding 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 City and County permits prior to initiation of construction activity. General Finding 8: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed 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 [mdings 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) . '. Date Received' I~;)~"'''' 3 Planner: AL '.' . Public aud 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: The subject property has frontage on 20th Street, which is classified as a Lane County lo~al 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 property frontage is not paved and lacks curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Average daily traffic on the segment of 20th 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 property frontage and paving of the bulb area, City staff have determined that improvement of the cul-de-sac bulb with a suitable gravel surface will accommodate emergency and service vehicles (such as fire and garbage trucks) making turnaround maneuvers within the bulb. Paving of the cul-de-sac bulb can be deferred through an Improvement Agreement and deed restrictions until the adjacent property with cul- de-sac frOlitage (Tax Lot 503) develops. 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 the front yard, setback can be substituted for street trees iu 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 ofSDC 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 against Parcels I and 2 for future 20th Street improvements, including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street lighting, 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction against Parcels I and 2 for future paving of the cul-de-sac bulb. The deed restriction shall require the parcel owners and their successors to contribute a 45% share of the total paving cost for the cul-de-sac bulb when the adjacent property (Tax Lot 503) is developed. 3. Prior to approval of the, Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction against Parcels I and 2 for futUre, curb and gutter improvements along the property frontages. The deed restriction shall require the parcel owners and their successors to install curb and gutter along the cul-de"sac bulb frontage when the adjacent property (TaX Lot 503) is developed. 4. Prior to ;:tpproval of the Final Plat, the applicant.shall obtain any necessary permits and install suitable all-weather (gravel) surfacing to the 20th Street cul-de-sac bulb. The gravel surface shall be compacted and capable of supporting an 80,000 lb. imposed load in accordance with Section 503.2.3 and Appendix Dl02.! of the Springfield Fire Code, " "..' - . , }'J-I J-.?> 1;}ilO~ Oat6! Received' , i ~!~nner: AL ' 4 " 5., Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant silall install two street trees on the Parcel I frontage as generally depicted on the tentative plan. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional volume of traffic' generated by the, proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Finding 15: 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 16: The property is presently served by a septic system with drain field. The location of the existing septic system and drain field is not shown on the Site Assessment Plan, but it is the understanding of staff that the drain field is located at or near the proposed property line between Parcels I and 2. There are minimum property .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 the Lane County Sanitarian. 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 that the 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 Parcel L 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: 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide written confirmation of on-site septic system decommissioning from the Lane County Sanitarian. 7. 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 8. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit a diagram iIlu'strating the planned location of the septic tanks, drain fIelds and reserve fields serving ~arcels I '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 (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 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- ,..:, Date Received:_h/U/AX?,f- Planner: AL 5 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) appropriate 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 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 23: 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 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 ofportland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS). Finding 25: The applicant is proposing to hard-pipe the rooftop runoff from Parcels I and 2 to an existing drainage ditch running north from the northwest edge of the property. The tie-in detail is depicted on the Stormwater Mana~ement Plan sheet of the applicant's submittaL Finding 26: The applicant is proposing to extend a private 4-inch stormwater drain pipe in a westerly direction from the building envelope area on Parcel I, 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 drain pipe extending from 20th Street. The applicant is proposing to run the private 4-inch stormwater drain pipe inside a proposed 10-foot wide public drainage easement along the western boundary of Parcel 2. Private utilities are typically excluded from co-locating with public utilities in public easements unless they cross at a perpendicular angle. Therefore, a separate and parallel private stormwater drainage easement will be required for the proposed drain pipe located within Parcel I and serving Parcel 2. Additionally, the private 4-inch 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 is recommended. However, the applicant can vary the private easement width as may be necessary to ensure adequate setbacks are maintained for the proposed house (and eaves) on Parcel2. Finding 28: In accordance with SDC Section 4.3-140.A, the minimum width for all public utility easements (PUEs) shall be 7 feet unless'the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow f~r adequate maintenance. Although a larger easement would be preferred, the proposed 10-foot wide public easement should be adequate to accommodate the existing 36-inch stormwater drainage pipe. Ouantitv Finding 29: Section 4.3-IIO.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management system provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. .:\<, ,'';: Date Received: / 2./z.g / ;)go!, Planner: AL ' 6 Finding 30: Section 4.3-110.0 ofthe SDC requires that runoff from a developmentshall be directed to an 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 management practices that minimize,the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 32: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.0 & E, storm water runoff from the site will be directed to an existing drainage ditch extending north from the northwest comer of the site. The ditch eventually discharges to the McKenzie River system north of the site. Conditions of Approval: 11. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a' private easement across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel 1. The easement shall be sufficiently wide to contain the 4-inch stormwater drainage pipe and allow for maintenance and replacement activities. The [mal configuration of the private easement shall be 'consistent with the selected option for conveying runoff from Parcel I across Parcel 2 to the public drainage system.' ' 12. 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 an approved connection point with the public stormwater system. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposed stormwater management system is adequate to serve the proposed development. Utilities Finding 33: 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 34: The applicant is responsible for the cost of design and installation of utility lines and facilities, In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines shall be placed underground. ' 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 streetside PUE along the frontage of Parcels I and 2; Ii lO-foot wide easement along the south boundary of Parcel I; and a 10- foot wide easement along the eastern boundaries of Parcels I and 2 to the northeast comer of the subject property . " o.;~....., , Date Received; Planner: AL /0y..:>v"cI' . 7 Finding 36: Consistent with the SUB Electric request, the applicant's tentative partition plan depicts a lO-foot wide PUE along the southern and eastern boundaries of Parcel ] and along the eastern boundary of Parcel 2. Provision of a streetside PUE is discussed in a following section (below), Condition of Approval: 13. As depicted on the applicant's tentative partition plan, the Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a to-foot wide utility easement along the southern and eastern boundaries of Parcel] and the eastern boundary of Parcel 2. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies this sub-element of the criterion. Water Service and Fire Protection Finding 37: Section 4.3-130Aofthe SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water system having s!,fficiently 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 2] ~ 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: 'There is an existing fire line stubbed into the cul-de-sac near the intersection with Hayden Bridge Road. SUB Water advises that the existing fire line has sufficient flow and pressure to serve a public fire hydrant. Finding 4]: ,In accordance with the Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix D]02.!, a fire apparatus access road (driveway) must be capable of handling an 80,000 lb. imposed load, The driveway 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 42: In accordance with SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D103,6, "No Parking - Fire Lane" signage is required along fire 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: 14. 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 I and 2. 15. 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. ........: .' Q~te Received: /J.I23,/~DJ' Planner: AL ,8 Public and Private Easements Finding 43: Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUBs adjacent to street rights-of"way shall be 7 feet. . The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 7 feet unless the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance, Finding 44: The applicant's tentative plan does not show a 7-foot wide streetside PUB along the frontage of Parcels I and 2. ' Finding 45: The applicant's tentative plan shows two existing EWEB easements affecting the property (#75-22936 and Book 178, Page 158), 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 obtained building permits for construction of a single family dwelling within an existing utility easement area, Finding 46: As previously noted and conditioned (Conditions 9, II and 13), public and private easements will be required to accommodate existing and proposed utilities serving the property. , , Conditions of Approval: 16. The Final Plat shall' provide for 'dedication of. a 7-foot wide PUB along 'the 20th Street frontage of Parcels I and 2. 17. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall effect the release of the EWEB easements affecting Parcel 2 and provide evidence thereofto the City, Conclusion: ' As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies this suh-element of the criterion. Therefore, as noted above and conditioned herein, the proposal satisfies Criterion C. D. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and , construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. General Finding 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 findings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and Code standards of Criterion D include but are not limited to: ' D,I Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4,6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) o Parcel Coverage'and Setbacks (SDC 3.2-215) o Height Standards (SDC 3.2-215) , o Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105) o Screening (SDC 4.4-110) o Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115) o On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC 4.5-100) o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100) Date i!(eceived' /yf.~"tI' Planner: AL \;~~..' " 9 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 Refmement Plan area, o The site is within the Floodplain Overlay District. o The site is within the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) Parcel Coverage and Setbacks Finding 48: 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 49: The building footprint of the proposed dwelling on Parcel 2 is depicted on the tentative 'plan, and should not exceed the maximum lot coverage (45%) ofSDC 3.2-215. Height Standards Finding 50: In accordllI!ce with SDC 3.2-225, the maximum building height in the LDR District is 30 feet, except where modified by solar access standards. Finding 51: 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 52: ,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 53: There is no requirement to install screening between comparable residential parcels, Fence Standards Finding 54: 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 55: It is not expected that outdoor residential lighting for the proposed dwelling will cause light trespass onto adjacent properties. Vehicle Parking Standards Finding 56: 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'g-arage. Get€) Heceived' l.2-fJI/~! PIEinner; AL 10 Finding 57: At,least two paved off-street parking spaces will be required prior to issuance of occupancy for a future house on Parcel I. Condition of Approval: 18. Prior to issuance of Final Occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel I, at least two paved off-street parking spaces shall be de~eloped on the site. . Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion D.l. D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 58: Development Review staff have reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water 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 orthe Metro Plan apply to the proposed partition. Finding 59: The site is not within an adopted Refmement Plan area. , ' Finding 60: The applicant previously obtained a Floodplain Overlay/District (FPO) approval for the property 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 3.3420.B.I, the fmished floor elevation for dwellings on Parcels land 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 the requirements of the applicant's FPOapproval for the property, Finding 61: 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. All 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 flood , damage; c, All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood damage; and d. One hundred-year flood elevation data shall be provided and shown on fmal andsubdivision plats. The boundaries ofthe 100-year flood and floodway shall be shown on the fmal 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 fmal partition map or partition plat; f. Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available, from another authoritative source, itshall be prepared by the applicant's engineer for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is less). Finding 62: The applicant has not shown flood elevation data pn the proposed tentative plan. To meet the requirements of SDC 3.3-420.A.4, 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 information is to be shown on the partition plat and should be listed on the property deed. -''-' ..' Date. Heceived: /0 ~ /.;-."r Planner: AL II , Finding 63: The property is suliject to provisions of the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, SDC 3.3- 800. In accordance with SDC 3.3-820.B, partitions in the UF-IO District are reviewed under Type II procedure. Finding 64: The proposal is consistent with provisions of SDC 3.3-800 for partitions and residential , construction within the UF -10 area. Conditions of Approval: 19. 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. 20. 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.A.4.d. 21. 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 property owner and future successors of the flood elevation data, including the calculated base flood elevation for the parcels. \ 22. 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. ' Conclusi?n: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfIes Criterion D.2. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstahle soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and tbeir associated riparian areas; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740- 760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected features have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. Finding65: The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable soils. Finding 66: The site is not within an identifIed wetland area and does not contain signifIcant trees or shrubs. Finding 67: As noted above, the applicant has obtained a Floodplain Overlay District approval for the property. Finding 68: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Waterco~rse 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. Ifhuman remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class "C" felony to proceed under ORS 97.740. ~ Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion E. F. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been'design'ed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide conn~~;:" :;, within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial ' and public areas; minimm:, driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or .' Qat:., {,eceived; Pl9nner: AL "IU/~"i I I 12 other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. ' Finding 69: 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 70: 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, stormwater drainage, 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 71: In accordance with SDC 42-105,E.I, a dead-end street must terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb, hammerhead, or' other design that provides an adequate vehicle turnaround area. Finding 72: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing dwelling and build a new ,dwelling on Parcel 2. Parcel I would remain vacant. Based on ITE Land 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 1 PM peak-hour vehicle trip onto the surrounding street system. Finding 73: Assumed development also may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips m~y 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 74: As previously noted and conditioned, the proposed partition creates the need for future paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements on 20th Street. Interim improvement of the cul-de-sac bulb with a suitable all-weather (gravel) 'surface is a requirement of this decision. At present, there is no sidewalk along 20th Street north of Hayden Bridge Road, Future paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk and street lighting improvements will be deferred through an executed Improvement Agreement for Parcels I and 2. Finding 75: The nearest regular transit bus service is provided by LTD Routes #18 (Mohawk/Fairview) and #19 (FairviewfMohawk) operating along Q Street and Marcola Road. Finding 76: 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 77: 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 42-120 permits each parcel to have one driveway access. ' Finding 78: 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 79: The appliCant is proposing to install a gravel panhandle driveway to serve the dwelling on Parcel~. As previously noted and conditioned, the applicant will be responsible for improving the street . ,.,. . 4.~ Date f(eceived:~,4~o'" Planner: AL 13 frontage of Parcels I and 2 with,curb and gutter, and for upgi-ading the gravel surface of the cul~de-sac bulb. In accordance with SDC 3.2-220,k5, the panhandle driveway must be paved from the edge of the 20th Street right-of-way 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 pavinK of the driveway must occur prior to issuance of occupancy for the dwelling on Parcel 2. Finding 80: A Lane County Facility Permit may be requir~d to install new or modified driveways on 20th Street and to connect with existing utilities in the public right-of-way. Finding 81: The proposed partition also will create the need for one additional driveway to serve Parcel I. The applicant has not shown a potential location for the new driveway 'on the submitted tentative plan. In accordance with SDC Table 4.2-2, the Parcel I driveway will have to beat least 12 feet wide and paved at least 18 feet into the site, Finding 82: As proposed and conditioned herein, the existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access, driveway, and vision clearance requirements ofSDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130. Conditions of Approval: 23, 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. 24. 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. 25. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners ,of the site driveways in accordance with SDC 4.2-130. 26. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve the future dwelling on Parcel 1. 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. G. Development of any remainder of the property under the saine ownership can be accomplished as specified in this Code. . Finding 83: The adjacent parcel to the north (Tax Lot 505) is outside the DGB, and the property is held in cominon title with the subject development site (Tax Lot 500). Aside from Tax Lot 505, there is no other, property under the same ownership that can be further developed. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion G. H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this Code. Finding 84: 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. Concluston: This proposal satisfies Criterion H. ~t' \ , ~. - O!'lte; P(e~ni,,\....:r Planne~ ..;L /dn/~"'" / " 14 I. Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city limits but" within. the City's urbanizable area and no concurrent aunexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shall also apply. 1. The minimum area for the partitioning ofland in the UF-I0 Overlay District shall be 10 acres. 2. EXCEPTIONS: a. Any proposed new parcel between 5 and 10 acres shall require a Future Development Plan as specified in Section 5.12.120.E for ultimate development with urbau densities as , required in this Code. b. In addition to the standards of Subsection 2.a., above, any proposed new parcel that is less than 5 acres shall meet 1 oCthe following standards: i. The property to be partitioned shall be owned or operated by a governmental 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 Iimd while the property remains within the UF -1 0 Overlay District. EXCEPTION: Land within the UF-I0 Overlay District may be partitioned more than once as long as no proposed parcel is less'than 5 acres in size. Finding 85: The property involved in this proposal is outside.the City limits. Therefore, provisions of the UF-IO District apply to this site. Finding 86: In accordance with SDC 5.12-125,L2,~.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 L 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 S.12~14S. 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. "l... ~ "". '. . ,. Date Received: Planner: AL /y2-!-/..20Q, 15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record an Improvement Agreement against Parcels I and 2 for future 20th Street improvements, including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street lighting. ' 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction against Parcels I , and 2 for future paving of the cul-de-sac bulb. The deed restriction shall require the parcel owners and their successors to contribute a 45% share of the total paving cost for the cul-de-sac bulb when the adjacent property (Tax Lot 503) is developed. 3. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a deed restriction against Parcels I ( and 2 for future curb and gutter improvements along the property frontages, The deed restriction shall require the parcel owners and their successors to install curb and gutter along the cul-de-sac bulb frontage when the adjacent property (Tax Lot 503) is developed. ,4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall obtain any necessary permits and install suitable all- weather (gravel) surfacing to the 20th Street cul-de-sac bulb. The gravel surface shall be compacted and capable of supporting an 80,000 lb. imposed load'in accordance with Section 503.2.3 and Appendix 0102.1 of the Springfield Fire Code. 5. 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. 6. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide written confirmation of on-site septic system decommissioning from the Lane County Sanitarian, ' 7. Prior to approval ofthe 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 I. 8. 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. 9. The Pinal Plat shall provide for dedication of a IO-foot wide public easement along the western boundary of Parcel 2 as depicted on the applicant's tentative plan. , , 10. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a revised Stormwater Management Plan that shows the 4-inch stormwater drainage pipe serving Parcel I relocated outside the 10-foot wide public easement on Parcel 2. Alternatively, the drainage pipe serving Parcel I may be connected directly to the existing 36-inch public storm water pipe in Parcel 2. If a direct connection option is selected, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from Lane County'agreeing to a connection of the private stormwater pipe to the public,stormwater line. 11. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a private easement across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I, The easement shall be sufficiently wide to contain the 4-mch stormwater drainage 'pipe and allow for maintenance and replacement activities. The fmal configuration of the private easement shall be consistent . with the selected option for conveying runoff from Parcel I across Parcel 2 to the public drainage system. 12. 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 an approved connection point with the public stormwater system. ~~. .'"... ',' . Date. ReC~IV~Q:/l~1~~.r Planner: AI-, 16 13. 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 Parcel I and the eastern boundary of Parcel 2. 14. 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 fo~ structures on Parcels I and 2. 15. 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. 16. The Final Plat shall provide for dedication of a 7-foot wide PUB along the 20th Street frontage of Parcels I and 2. 17. 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. 18. 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, 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 property owner and future successors of the flood elevation data, including the calculated base flood elevation for the parcels. 22. pfior to issuance of a residential building permit for Parcel I, the flood elevation information shall be provided to confmn the dwelling is constructed with a fmished floor elevation at least one foot above the base flood elevation. 23. Prior to issuance of occupancy for a dwelling on Parcel 2, the panhandle driveway shall be Pllved at least 65 , feet into the site as measured from the south property line on 20th, Street 24. The applicant shall obtain Lane County peimits 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. 25. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the corners of the site driveways in accordance with SDC 4.2-130. 26. A maximum of one driveway will be permitted to serve the future dwelling on Parcel I. The driveway shall be paved at least 18 feet into the site as measured from the 20th Street right-of-way. ' 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 IT 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 . . ,J",,_' -;;",CeI1/80: nfY~l)1' 17 Planner: AL an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals, An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a 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 expires at 5:00 p.m. on January 7, 2009. ' Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the, Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird!iV.ci.sorino:tield.oLus if you have any questions regarding this process. End: Attachment A - Tentative Partition Plan J ~ *' ). Delle, i",oceived' '/~I .2Yd-Ood", Planner: AL 18 Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the partition decision. FEES AND PERMITS Svstems Develooment 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 the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield Code Chapter II, Article II). Some exceptions 'apply to Springfield Urban Growth areas., Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements within the subject site. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. ' Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected ,at time of building permit issuance for a future house on Parcel 2, and would be based' on the SDC policy ,in effect at that time. Willamalane Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recreation improvements is presently $2,513 for each new single-family dwelling. ' SanitarY Sewer In-LieucOf-Assessment: Pay a Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property or portions of the properly being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise'participated in the cost of a public sanitary sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable. lOrd, 5584] , Public Infrastructure Fees: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the property. Other City Permits: . Building Permits - In addition to standard requirements, the developer shall abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 when submitting for building permits for the dwelling on Parcel 2. . Encroachment Permit or Sewer 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. Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements. , Additional oermits/aoDrovals that mav be necessary: . Plumbing Permit to instali stormwater drain pipes and connect the future house to a drywell system . Electrical Permit . Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands) . Department of Environniental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands) . US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands) j,"',' i;",,,t,',/ed' /y6y9''''d', Planner: AL 19 ;", , ,,__...-.-.._.lJ..........I_--...~".~ ..,.- -....,...., ,.,_.'~ 'c. , , . " ,~>:' "~'::' ,,:.;::~~.~J::~!.:,;~j!~,'~;t~;~:?":t}~j~' .~' .j" CITY',OF;SP,RINGFIElO; ~,-.tl ,,_ ' . . '" ',; ,,.. ~"',"'-'" ~",",.;<fI ,... ", ",{~'.- "._~ .., "OEVELOPMENTSERVICESDEPARTM " : :"-'<~.. :~:",::::-:-~2?'~[~~h:,~ItJ..~~;":~:~. SPRINGFI ~Lr:i;' OR'9? II 77 ;;t~, .' , . " . ,-:~ ;?';'(';:\-q~:",~ "~";,";,:,;':~:~:(~, J< N1ti, ,-' , ~~~':Z','''t~\~. ,~.' o~. Dean & Gayle Helfrich 834 Pearl Eugene, OR 97401 Jim McLaughlin 2428 Ranch Drive Springfield,OR 97477 '. ,:" 'I --- . . .J ":f~",\\'.!j~':<;;f");."'.;. r.i~;l 'ij1 J.. > , '.I.,..',:c\~\lll~t/",,~.'fl" " , ,"', ~.,t,\~'" ." i"';Pf~':...'IJ lh T. "IJ; l~e.i.. ,,' ,": ',CITY OF. SPRINGFIEIlO,"ff " .... _. '. .. _ '", '.1." ,.,'. .~l:., ....~ ".< . _, ',".~' -, T",~. OEVELOPMENT.SERVICES-,OEPARTM , ~.;, :," '~". ;-";:225'5th~S."f-~):~FflfilJ~:,~': . . .J...... .' -. -'.' <.' ..",,.' "\! ;~( "."~ " "SPRINGFIELO,\OR9747ir' '",,0. ,,\ . .,i. _l,"\j";->,"r.;-,,"~; W<o"'.t>f'l!'l.~'I,~.,... .'" '-"ji!(:I.,;t..';r"'9i<;,~'(h',t"I-""~"~'I' . ~ - _; ,'~',i:"'" ',.,. '4,;f;: '~'~~('l~,j!;~:,:;l~; d..." " , ::'~ - .i,' ":<;" , '!>.. ,,'" ~ j '" .-"~' ,\ . . '".. _........."c.." , . I ~ ,I~, II..", . ~ I"" " Dan Olmstead EGR & Associates 2535 Prairie Rd,Ste B Eugene, OR 97402, -~ ! . . . , i . . d' I2-P S);It7t!' uate, Receive .- . / / ' 'Planner: AL ' b,