HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 3/11/2010
,\
ZON2010-o0002
Development Issues Meeting - Dukes & Dukes Construction
Duplex Development and Proposed Partition -740 28th Street (Map 17-03-36-11, TL 11300)
.
.
Q1.
We have designed the partition to have equal parcels after recording. This will keep the current
density at 14.6 units/acre (non-conforming use) on each parcel, but will not increase the non-
conformity to the density standard. Will the City of Springfield accept this logic and allow the
partition to be approved in regards to density standards?
A: Sure.
However, as stated below the size of the parcels may need to change to meet other Code
requirements. The net density of the project area will not change, but the individual parcels may
have different calculated 'densities depending upon the final partition configuration (eg. west parcel:
4 unitsl0.197 acres = 20.3 upa; east parcel: 4 unitsl0.346 acres = 11.56 upa).
Q2. The existing lot is only 70 feet in width. Therefore, a minor variance would be required to adjust
the minimum lot width requirement in the code. The code requirement is 60 feet, and to keep
this as a minor variance, the maximum adjustment could be an 18 foot reduction (30%). We are
proposing to reduce the width of the frontage 5 feet toa lot width of 55 feet. Would the City of
Springfield support this variance for this proposal?
A: Sure.
The proposed variance would be about 8%. However, the minimum panhandle width requirement
is 20 feet (see below), so the proposal also would require a 25% variance to the panhandle width.
Because each variance is for a different quantity, and would be attributed to a different legal parcel,
they would have to be submitted and reviewed separately.
Alternatively, in accordance with S8C 3.2-220.B the applicant could consider using an irrevocable
joint access easement across the easterly parcel in favor of the westerly parcel (shovyn on the
tentative partition plan as a 26-foot wide joint access and utility easement). Two roughly
rectangular parcels could be created from the existing linear parcel. In this case a panhandle would
not be required, but it is unlikely that the parcels would be comparable in size.
Q3. Since the lot is now LOR, the code only requires a panhandle width of 14 feet. Therefore, we do
not believe a variance would be required for the panhandle width. We still will construct a 20
[foot] wide driveway in the easement that was shown on the site review to maintain safe
ingress/egress and for fire safety. Does the City of Springfield agree that a variance is not
needed for the panhandle as proposed?
A: The minimum panhandle width is 20 feet of frontage in accordance with SDC 3.2-215. The
applicant may be referring to the minimum panhandle access easement width of 14 feet described
in SDC 3.2-220.8.1. Since the panhandle driveway will serve 8 units, it is considered a multiple
panhandle driveway and the paving width will have to be at least 20 feet wide. As noted above, a
minor variance would be required to reduce the panhandle width from 20 feet to 15 feet (a variance
of 5 feet or 25%). The panhandle width is shown as 15 feet wide on the tentative partition plan.
Q4. We did not see any other variances that would be needed to meet code criteria for a partition.
Does the City of Springfield see any other issues with this proposed partition that would
prevent approval?
A: The approved Final Site Plan shows a compliant 10 foot rear yard setback for the westernmost
dwelling. However, on the tentative partition plan this duplex dwelling has a rear yard setback
depicted as 9.4 feet where 10 feet is required. The setback is determined based on the orientation
of the dwelling - which in this case faces east. Therefore, a minor variance will be required to
reduce the rear yard setback 0.6 feet (6%) from 10 feet to 9.4 feet.
.
Date Received:_.?u,IJolo
Planner: AL I 7
~
(
Heads Up Items:
.
.
. The layout of the dwellings does not match the approved Final Site Plan from 2006. As an example,
the easternmost duplex is set back 31.4 feet from the property line, where the setback is shown as 24.2
feet on the approved site plan. As noted above, the westernmost dwelling has a non-compliant rear
yard setback.
. Staff observes that the existing side-by-side single garages in the 3 duplex units facing north may be
inaccessible due to the turning maneuver required for vehicles to make a 90. turn from the site
driveway into the garage opening. Additionally, SDC 3.2-215 requires 18 feet of setback from the
garage face to the inner edge of a panhandle driveway. The proposal does not meet this standard. If
the garage parking is not accessible for vehicles, the site must provide at least 2 surface parking
spaces per dwelling unit to meet the requirements of SDC Table 4.6-2. It appears the duplex at the far
west end of the site has garage openings that are accessible.
. An emergency vehicle access easement will be required across the panhandle driveway and
hammerhead turnaround area.
. Not all public and private easements and utilities appear to be shown on the proposed tentative
partition plan.
. The site currently is being accessed across a vertical face curb and sidewalk. Staff advises that
because the driveway is not paved there is material being tracked out onto the sidewalk and street.
This must be addressed to comply with erosion and sediment control standards. The applicant will
need to obtain a permit .to install a curb cut and driveway to serve the site and replace the existing
(unused) driveway with vertical face curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Date Received: .j//Jl/~
I '
Planner: AL