HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, Pre PLANNER 8/3/2009
'.
.' RECEIVED
PRE-SUBMITTAL PLAT
DISTRIBUTION LIST:
Date Distributed:
6,3 -0'1
AUG 3 2009
By: j)f-f- f~
I of '--/-<1 fUrS
V Dave Puent - Building
v' Gilbert GordonlMelissa Fechtel- Fire
v Jon Driscoll, Traffic
V' , Matt Stouder- Public Works/Engineering
V Dennis Ernst/Chris Moorhead, Surveying
V'Bart McKee, Spfld UtilityBoard (Water)
~Tamara Johnson, Spfld Utility Board (Electric)
Thomas Jeffreys, Emerald People's Utility District
Planner, _ .<J:A:;r ~ -
.
. :City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
.
.
LAND DIVISION PLAT
PRE-SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Subdivision
Project Name: River Heights
Project Proposal: 59 lot subdivision
Case Number: PRE2009-00021
Project Address: Marcola Rd and 42nd Street
Assessors Map and Tax Lot Number(s): 17-02-30 TL700 and 800
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Overlay District(s): Hillside Development (HD)
Applicable Refinement Plan:
r
Refinement Plan Designation:
Metro Plan Designation:
Tentative Decision Date: May 2, 2006
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: August 7, 2009
Application Submittal Deadline: February 3, 2010
Associated Applications: Hillside (DRC2006-00005), Tree Felling (DRC2006-00006)
POSITION , REVIEW OF NAME
Proiect Planner Land Use Planninq Steve Hookins 726-3649
Transportation Jon Driscoll 726-3679
Utilities, Sanitary & Storm Eric Walter 726-1034
Sewer
Deputv Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safetv Gilbert Gordon 726-2293
Community Services Manaqer Buildinq Dave Puent726-3668
I APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Owner
Byron Roberts
Breeden Bros.
366 E 40th Ave
Euqene OR 97405
Applicant
Daniel Baker
Baker and Associates Surveyors
1574 Coburg Rd, PMB 144
euqene OR 97401
8/7/2009
1 of 5
The it~ms needed to make! application complete for revi! are incorporated below.
NOTE:
. Conditions of Approval - taken from Notice of Decision dated: 5/2/2006
. Applicant Response - taken from: July 31, 2009
Condition #1:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #2:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #3:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #4:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #5:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #6:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #7:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Condition #8:
Applicant Response:
Staff Finding:
Heads Up Comments:
1. Refer to attached comments dated August 7, 2009.
8/7/2009
2 of 5
.
.
THIS APPLICATION IS:
o COMPLETE FOR PROCESSING
[Z;] INCOMPLETE AND NEEDS MISSING INFORMATION NOTED ABOVE
City Planner
Date
THIS IS NOT A DECISION ON THE PLAT. The plat pre-submittal meeting shall be held within
one year of the date of the Land Division Tentative approval. A complete Land Division Plat
application shall be submitted within 180 days of the pre-submittal meeting. If the applicant has
not submitted the Land Division Plat application within these time framesl the Land Division
Tentative approval shall become null and void and re-submitt~1 of the Land Division Tentative
application shalLbe required per SDC 5.2-140.
I, the owner/applicant, intend to submit all missing items indicated herein to the City
within the lSD-day timeline.
Owner/Applicant's Signature
Date
40
8/7/2009
3 of 5
. . . .
Land Division Plat Application Process (see next page for a di!m of this process)
1. Applicant Submits a Land Division Plat Application for Pre-Submittal
. The application must conform to the Land Division Plat Pre-Submittal Requirements
Checklist on pages 5 & 6 of this application packet.
o The purpose of pre-submittal is to ensure the applicant has all items necessary for a
complete submittal.
o A pre-submittal meeting to discuss completeness is mandatory.
o Pre-submittal meetings are conducted every Tuesday and Friday, from 10:00am -
noon.
o We strive to conduct the pre-submittal meetings within five to seven working days of
receiving the application.
2. Applicant and the City Conduct the Pre-Submittal Meeting
o The applicant, owner, and design team are strongly encouraged to attend the pre-
submittal meeting.
o The meeting is held with representatives from Public Works Engineering and
Transportation, Community Services (Building), Fire Marshall's office, and the Planning
Division.
o The meeting is scheduled for 30 to 60 minutes.
. The Planner provides the applicant with a Pre-Submittal Checklist at the end of the
meeting specifying the items required to make the application complete if it is not
already complete.
o The applicant will then have 180 days to make the application complete for submittal
and acceptance by the City.
3. Applicant Submits a Complete Land Division Plat Application
o When the applicant has addressed all items on the Pre-Submittal Checklist and the
City Surveying Section has notified the applicant's surveyor that the plat and other
documents are sufficiently refined, the applicant can submit a complete application to
the City Survey Section located in the NW Quad of City Hall.
. The application must conform to the Land Division Plat Submittal Requirements
Checklist on page 6 of this application packet.
. If the submittal is deemed complete, the City Survey Section will sign-off on the City
Survey approval sheet and send the applicant to the Development Services
Department for application submittal and fee collection.
. Planning staff checks and signs the mylars.
4. Applicant Records Plat at Lane County & Submits Plat and Documents to City
. After Planning staff checks and signs the mylars, the plat may then be recorded by the
applicant's surveyor at Lane County.
. After plat has been recorded at Lane County, applicant submits five (5) recorded,
rolled paper copies of the plat and three (3) copies of required documents to the
Development Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
.
.
LAND DIVISION PLAT APPLICATION PROCESS
Applicant submits land division plat application for pre-submittal
(See Land Division Plat Pre-Submittal Requirements Checklist)
1
.
City departments review application for completeness and hold pre-submittal meeting to
discuss completeness issues with applicant and applicant's representatives.
~ ~.
Applicant addresses incomplete items. City Surveyor checks application and returns
comments to applicant's surveyor.
Applicant's surveyor corrects plat City Surveyor conducts field check and
and returns to City Surveyor. returns comments to applicant's surveyor
~ /
Applicant's surveyor sets new monuments
and flags existing ones.
"
Once no errors appear on the plat and a current title report is submitted, applicant's
surveyor is given ok to submit complete land division plat application~
After ok given from City Surveyor and applicant has addressed all incomplete items from
pre-submittal, applicant submits complete application to the City Survey Section
(See Land Division Plat Submittal Requirements Checklist)
City Survey Section signs-off on City Survey approval sheet and sends the applicant to the
Development Services Department for application submittal and fee collection.
Planning staff checks and signs mylars and notifies applicant's surveyor of approval.
Applicant takes plat and accompanying documents to Lane County for recording.
Applicant brings copies of recorded plat and documents to Development Services Department.
Revised 9/26/07 Molly Markarian
5 of 5
')
City of Springfield
" Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
541-725-3753 Phone
541-726-3689 Fax
.
.
Pre-Submittal Meeting
Case Number Assigned: PRE2009-00021
Date Submitted:
7/31/2009
APPLICANT: BREEDEN BROS
366 E 40TH AVE
EUGENE
OR
97405
Proiect Name: RIVER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
Project Description: Pre-Submittal Plat - 57 Lot Subdivision River Heights
Application Type: Subdivision Plat
Job Address: Marcola Rd &.42nd St
Assessor's & Tax Lot #: 1702300000800) 100
DISCLAIMER: Applications will not be exempt from Development Code or procedural amendments that may occur
between the time of the Pre-Submittal Meeting and Submittal of the Application for Development Review. Please contact our
office at 541-726-3753 with any questions or concerns.
A Planner will be assigned tbe foUowing bnsiness day and will contact you to confirm tbe meeting date and time.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 ] 2009
PlanJobPrinlrpt
8/3/2009
8:23:33AM
.
.
City of Springfield
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Land Division Plat
Partition, Subdivision
PRE-SUBMIITAl REC'O
JUL 3 1 2009
Com an :
Breeden Bros. Inc.
366 East 40th Avenue, Eu
Phone: 686-9431
Fax:
A licant Name: B ran Roberts
Address:
'Hl.".,:_B:I:;,:L""'KJ4h.~,".!_!:id;"i:j"'_N:,*,""""'_-'&L~'t""*",;",,J+';JR'";.ri~M;,:''f-.ii:t~>0i:.~~X''',
A licant's Re .. Daniel W. Baker
Phone: 343-7243
Com an :
Baker and Associates Surve ors Inc.
Fax:
343-7242
Address:
on 97401
-~OO;;'!"""'ln"."'*'W";;;;~\i'M'w.;<:;<<.",.,~",.!,,-),,",.. '.""'rl",~;~{",,,'" :a'i./'!I-"'''4i''';'M'.H"",;;'~ ,.y,;:;",~'W!...~,;" :.H,".;c;;;:;;.........t,-:<!,Wj, -'.:''-'3r.c,;m:'.!iI:'~-
n.i;t;0,;;'il,1..:i{~~,"l;m;u.y..:;.~'MJ.~\(;;Ol"'~- ,~""'i,~"'illii'l-l;'X'';~;;t:I.;.
Owner: Same as A licant
Phone:
Com an
Fax:
Address:
,","h:.' ,",,-X"~"'^'.i... _,,"j;'..... '.f- U2' '}.,. -"'~~.:J'~>U-- '" ; ~i::fiL .:0.:._.." .,N',,,, _~. L::J~~ _,_..:
.,..:;r....;&r'...."" ,"_''"Y~~~::.=",:.,~ _ J,..._"-.~.."~,. "~jQ:o;;.;''W$L.1.,..:;I~~,", '-', '.r~.>1:,=;
ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 17-02-30-00
TAX LOT NO S : 700 and 800
No Address
33.66
Acres [gJ S uare Feet 0
Pro osed Name of Subdivision: River Hei hts
=.l=4("'hI,i_-:UAl;l.I"'~.;F";;M~=~'C;..:ml~~AiXU:~,1.i'..c:.d~'ill'",=",-"""T;;;j,,1..;'A._1,";:'~ ~;p;;;,t.'_\'>ii:~.~.hnr:,I'.=m='f,VR-"',"ll;:I;~';T",J.r~')..\'l'"';",...::=,~= ;gi;;;;"..""".',,,
,,,,*lim~.M(nt-'<-""
Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application.
Pro osal: Breeden Bros.
Existin Use: Vacant
.. . .
Associated A lications: S'u - OlSDDb
Pre-Sub Case No.: rte-.2.DD -C1XJl-1 Date: 7 I 0'1
Reviewed b : 'C1L
Case No.:
A Iication Fee: $
Date:
Technical Fee: $
PROJECT NUMBER: P~'2-00;- -01)0{1
,"_." ..h~_' ". .' .=~.. "=''''''.'.
'. ,~'~... ..
_ ",;;.;;.c", , ..,"~, .. 'F"_''''''
'T''''''
TOTAL FEES: $
Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian
1 of 1
.
.
Owner Signatures
This application form is used for both the required pre-submittal meeting and subsequent
complete application submittal. Owner signatures are required at both stages in the application
process. An application without the Owner's original signature will not be accepted.
Pre-Submittal
The undersigned acknowledges that the information in this application is correct and accurate for scheduling of the
Pre- Submittal Meeting.
owner:~ ~ /
~_ ~ Date:
. Sign e P'
Byron Roberts
Print
Submittal
I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. Consistent with the completeness check
performed on this application at the Pre-Submittal Meeting, I affirm the information identified by the City as
necessary for processing the application is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise
contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the information as
submitted. This statement serves as written noti<;e pursuant to the requirements of ORS 227.178 pertaining to a
complete application.
Owner:
Date:
Signature
Print
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
Revised 1(1(08 Moliy Markarian
2 of 2
.
.
Land Division Plat Pre-Submittal Requirements Checklist
NOTE: If you feel an item does not apply, please state the reason why and attach the
explanation to this form.
o Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee
calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development Services
Department. Any applicable application, technology, and postage fees, are collected at
the pre-submittal and submittal stages.
~/ Land Division Plat Application Form
IT' Letter Addressing Conditions of Approval - lists and addresses each condition of
approval, detailing the actions taken and current status of each item.
o
[8""-
Nine (9) Paper Copies of the Plat stamped and 'signed by the surveyor.
Two (2) Copies of Closure Sheets for the boundary and each lot or parcel and all
common areas, dedicated areas, and easement areas that are not simple parallel offsets.
0" Two (2) Copies of Title Report or Subdivision Guarantee for the parcel being
divided. The title report must be dated within 30 days of submittal at the time of the final
'submittal. An oider report is OK at the pre-submittal stage. .
~. Two (2) Copies of Each of the Reference Documents and Plats listed on the plat.
~ Two (;) Copies of Each of the Supporting Doc~ments - the vesting deed (must vest
title to the owner listed on the plat), existing easement deeds, and documents listed as
exceptions in the title report, etc.
Two (2) Draft Copies of any street dedications.
Two (2) Draft Copies of Any New Easements or Restrictions being created by
separate document, improvement agreements, maintenarice agreements, joint use
ingress/egress and utility easements, sewer hook up in lieu of assessment, and any other
documents that will be recorded together with the plat or that are required by the
Conditions of Approval.
[] Two (2) Copies of a Consent Statement (Concurrence) on the plat (to be signed by
the lender prior to final approval) OR Two (2) Copies of an Affidavit of Consent by
separate document is required from all Trust Deed, mortgage,,,or other secured loan
interest holders against the property to be recorded simultaneously with the plat IF any
public dedications oreasements are being made and/or any other interests are being
transferred to the public per ORS 92.075 (2-4).
o Copies of Wetland Documents as required.
o Copies of ODOT Access Permits as required.
.0 Draft Copy of Bargain and Sale Deed for Reserve Strips - City Survey Section has a
template.
o Verification that Street Tree Agreement is in Progress as required.
o Draft Copy of the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (ccspoo.SijBMITTAl REe'D
required. 2009
JUL 3 1
Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian
5 of 5
.
.
o Post Monumentation Deposit as required for subdivisions only. City Survey Section
has current fee schedule and templates.
o Location of Any Floodways in accordance with SDC 3,3-400.
o Existing Easements Clearly Identified with Their Recorded Reference.
o New Easements and Reserve Strips Referenced in Owner Certificates of
Dedication and Purposes of Easements Identified on Plat.
NOTE: When, as part of the approval process, the application has been conditioned so that the
recordation of a document is required, the applicant shall be responsible for paying the Lane
County recording fee for any such required document. Documents which may require
recordation include, but are not limited to: Development Agreements; Improvement
Agreements; Deed Restrictions; Future Development Plans; Easements; Joint Use Access/
Maintenance Agreements; and Dedications of Right-of-Way.
Land Division Plat Submittal Requirements Checklist
NOTE: If you feel an item does not apply, please state the reason why and attach the
explanation to this form. .
o Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee
calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development Services
Department. The application, technology, and postage fees, where applicable, are
collected at the time of complete application submittal.
o Land Division Plat Application Form
o Two (2) Copies of the Deed
o Two (2) Copies of a Title Report issued within 30 days of the date Lane County will
record the plat.
o Original Plat on Mylar with notarized owner(s) signature(s) and signed surveyor stamp.
o Copy of the Mylar on Bond Paper
o Original and Copy of all Required Documents with signatures where appropriate.
PRE.SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
Revised 1/1/08 Molly Markarian
6.of 6
.
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
VICINITY MAP
PRE2009-00021
Marcola Road & 420d Street (Vitus Butte)
~'1
~
~
ERCE P~I
r-l7~
~t-{{;OlAKD
53
PRE-SUBjV\i'\1Al RECIO
JUL 3 1 2009
SITE
Map 17-02-30-00
Tax Lot 700, 800
North
..
u
.
.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND FINDINGS OF FACT
FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR
RIVER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
APPLICATION DATE:
DRAFT
APPLICANT
Breeden Bros., Inc.
366 East 40th Ave. Suite 250
Eugene, OR 97405
Phone 541-686-9431
PROPERTY OWNER
Breeden Bros., Inc.
366 East 40th Ave. Suite 250
Eugene, OR 97405
Phone 541-686-9431
TENTATIVE SUBDMSION CASE NUMBER
SOO2006-00006.
TENTATIVE SUBDMSION DECISION DATE
,
May 2, 2006 PRE.SUBMITIAl REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 1 of23
.
.
ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS AND DECISIONS
Tree Felling Permit #DRC2006-0006
Hillside Development #DRC2006-005
LOCATION:
Assessor's Map 17-02-30-00, Tax Lot
700 & 800
REQUEST:
Final Subdivision Plan Approval
I BACKGROUND
River Heights is a tentatively approved 59-lot residential subdivision located on tax lots 700 and
800 as shown on tax assessor's map 17-02-30-00. The total project area is approximately 33.5-
acres and includes approximately 23.3 acres ofresidential development and 9.7 acres of future
parks and open space.
II CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Following is the list of conditions of approval for the applicable land use decisions. These
conditions have been extracted from the Attachment "A" included with the City of Springfield
File SUB2006-0006.
Lot numbers listed in the following conditions reference the layout and lot number from the
Tentative Subdivision Plat. The Final Plat lot layout and lot number has been updated to reflect
the conditions of approval and final configuration of the project. For consistency, responses to
the conditions of approval will reference the Tentative Subdivision numbering unless noted
otherwise.
PRE.SUBMITTAL REC'O
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 2 of23
.
.
A Subdivision SUB2006-0006 Conditions of Approval
Signs and/or pavement markings consistent with the Engineering Design Standards Manual and
as required by the Springfield Fire Marshall will be completed during construction of the
improvements for the project. The location of the permanent traffic control signs are shown in
the Public Improvement Plans (PIP) Transportation drawings. This condition will be met at the
time of the final acceptance of the public improvements.
The Final Plat and PIP have been revised to show River Heights Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subdivision. This condition has been met.
The Final Plat and the PIP have been revised to show Vitus Lane extending from River Heights
Drive to the eastern boundary of the project between tax lots 601 and 600. This condition has
been met.
Because the staff report did not reference specific sub-sections of Section 7.05 to address, the
Applicant has addressed all sub-sections of Section 7.05 of the EDSPM herein. Section 7.05 of
the EDSPM states
7.05.1 Temporary Dead End Slreels
The length of a temporary dead end street (due to an approved phasing sequence within a development)
shall not exceed 1000 feet. Temporary dead end streets which are greater in length than allowed by the
City Development Code shall not be allowed without a plan and financial guarantee (bond) that the
street will be completed through to another outlet point within three years. The temporary dead end
street' shall be constructed with appropriate turnarounds for emergency vehicles. In addition,
PRE.$UBMIlTAL REC'D
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Pag~JU<i12'J 1 2009
.
.
temporary dead end streets shall be provided with a temporary, secondary emergeno/ vehicle access
until the completion of the street provides a permanent secondary access.
The only dead end street included in the project is Quarry Ridge Drive. ACity standard cul-de-
sac turn-around has been included in the PIP drawings. Right-of-way will be dedicated to the
site boundary line. This condition is met.
7.05.2 Right-of-Way Dedications
Right-ofway shall be dedicated as required to allow future street connection to abutting lands along
the boundary of the site. These shall be public streets and shall be constructed in conjunction with the
development.
This condition has been met as stated in the repose to Condition 2 and Condition 3.
7.05.3 Slope Easements
Slope easements shall be dedicated along streets as needed for operation and maintenance purposes
proportionate to the angle of repose of slopes and as needed for slope stability and drainage
considerations. .
. .
This condition will be met, adequate slope easements will be provided on the fmalplat.
7.05.4 Local Street Right-of-Way . '.
Right-ofways shall be dedicated for local streets according to SDC Section 32.020, Table 32-1 of the
Springfield Development Code.
This condition will be met, all street right-of-ways will be dedicated with the recording of the
final plat and will be the required 40- feet in width.
7.05.5 Field Measured Cross Sections
Submittals of field measured cross sections, extending a minimum of 20 feet beyond fill and/or
excavation limits, showing the proposed street and the existing ground elevations shall be submitted
with each set of the construction plans for streets.
This condition has been met, cross-sections based on field gathered topography are included in
the PIP drawings.
7.05.6 Details and Typical Cross Sections
Details and typical cross sections with slope control measures shall be submitted with each phase of
development. The development application shall also indicate the location and under what conditions
retaining walls will be constructed. A registered engineer shall design all retaining structures
exceeding 30 inches in height.
This condition has been met. Sheet G2 of the PIP drawings includes the typical street cross-
sections. The Grading Plan included with the PIP drawings includes slope control details. Any
retaining walls constructed as part of the PIP process or home building will be designed by an
Oregon Registered Engineer.
7.05.7 Secondary Access
Secondary access to each phase of a development shall be provided for police and fire response.
This condition is met. The project includes access from V-Street and from 37th Street.
7.05.8 Geometry
7.05.8.A Basic Geometry
Unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer, standard basic engineering geometry shall be
adhered to. For specific design standards, the engineer shall employ the latest edition of the AASHTO 's
A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The location, width and grade of streets shall
be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, and to the
planned use of land to be served by the streets. Grades, tangents, curves and intersection angles shall
be appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the terrain. Construction specifications and
design standards for private streets shall be the same as for public streets.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 4 of23
.
.
This condition has been met. The streets proposed in the PIP drawings have been designed to
balance the requirements of providing access to the proposed lots, traversing the required
topography, and meeting the design requirement for very low volume residential streets.
7.05.8.B Comhillalloll Vertical alld Horlzolltal Curves
Whenever a vertical curve, with an algebraic difference in grade of five percent or more, is combined
with a horizontal curve, the engineer shall provide the City with numeric and graphical sight distance
analyses. These analyses shall ine/ude the existing topographic features that are proposed to remain
after development of the street, as well as any futurefeatures that may be expected or anticipated
This condition has been met. This requirement is only valid for crest vertical curves located on a
horizontal curve; and where the critical direction of travel is on the inside of the horizontal curve.
For the River Heights project the only combination curves that meet this requirement are
horizontal curves "A", "B", and "D",(as shown in the PIP drawings). Numerical analysis have
been submitted to the City of Springfield that demonstrate that for each of these combination
curves the design vertical curve has been designed with a greater available sight-stopping-
distance than required for the horizontal curve. Th6 geometric design is sufficient for the very
low volume residential streets proposed.
This condition is no longer applicable. The LCLGBC deemed that an extra-territorial service
extension was not necessary.[BRE EGRI]
This condition has been met. The owner has obtained the required Union Pacific license
agreement for the installation of the required wastewater pipe. This license was issued on
February 7, 2007 by UPRR and requires that the City of Springfield execute the license by
signing the agreement and returning to Union Pacific Railroad. A copy of the executed license is
included as an attachrnent.(BREEGR2]
This condition has been met. The owner has elected to provide public wastewater and storm
drain lines along the north boundary of lots 2-12. A 25-foot wide maintenance access has been
shown on drawings C12, C13, and C14 of the PIP.
PRE.SUBMlTIAl REC'O
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 5 of23
.
.
This condition has been met. All approved public side and rear yard easements will include
restrictions that prevent installation of improvements that would impede maintenance access for
the public system. Specifically, the CC&R's include language that all fences located across
public easements shall include gates to allow access for maintenance vehicles.[BRE EGRJ]
The final plat includes reference to private easements and maintenance agreements for all shared
private sewer lines.[BRE EGR4] .
An 8-inch wastewater pipe is shown on sheet C7 of the PIP, extended to the end ofVitus Lane to
provide a future connection to tax lot 60 I.
An 8-inch wastewater piPe is shown on sheet CIO of the PIP, extended to provide future service
connection to tax lot 802.
Public Improvement plans have been prepared consistent with Section 7.03.9 of the City's
EDSPM. Specific design considerations for steep hillside development such as flow velocity,
energy dissipation, turbulence in manholes and bends, and restraints on pipe movement have
been addressed as described below.
Section 7.03.9 of the EDPSM states;
7.03.9 Hillside Design Considerations .
Sewer design shal! address specific problems and special design considerations for steep hillside
development such as velocity, energy dissipation, turbulence in manholes and bends, and restraints on
pipe movement.
This section of the ESDPM is not specific as to the threshold of when special considerations
need to be made, but section 2.02.9 of the ESDPM defines when additional design considerations
need to be made for steep wastewater pipe slopes;
Section 2.0.2.9 of the EDSPM states;
When pipes are laid at steep grades in excess of ten percent, anchor wal! shal! be installed to prevent
pipe movements due to forces created by high velocity flows....
... Where velocities greater than J 5 feet per second are attained, the pipe material shall be ductile iron
pipes and special provisions shall be made to protect manholes against erosion and displacement by
shock.
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUtpdiet ~P39
.
.
The ESDPM defines that the design engineer shall incorporate special design considerations
when wastewater pipes in excess of 10 percent and velocities in excess of 15 feet per second.
Sections of wastewater collection pipes are proposed to be constnicted at slopes greater than 10
percent. However, the peak design flow in no pipe run will exceed 15 feet per second.
The design for the wastewater collection pipe system has addressed consideration of steep slopes
(greater than 10%) by specifying that the upstream pipe slope shall be carried through the
manhole and changes in pipe slope will occur at the outlet edge of the manhole. Additionally,
pipe slopes steeper than 10% are shown constructed using the City standard concrete pipe anchor
per standard drawing 4-8 with trench drains.
Per section 2.02.2.A-l of the EDSPM the peak design wastewater flow rate from the proposed 59
single family homes is 60,000 gallons per day (0.09 cubic feet per second). Using Manning's.
equation for open channel flow with n=.009 and a slope of 18 percent the maximum velocity for
the project design flow is 7.23 feet per second. All wastewater pipes in the PIP have been
designed at less than 18 percent slope and will have velocities of 7.23 feet per second or less.
PRE-SUBMITIAL REC'D
JUL 3 I 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 70f23
.
.
Public Improvement plans have been prepared consistent with Section 7.03.10 of the City's
EDSPM. Specific trench drainage measures to handle the flow of water in trench backfill have
been incorporated into all trench sections with slopes exceeding 10 percent. The intercepted
flow has been directed into an approved storm water facility. The PIP include instructions to the
contractor that trench slopes greater than 10% shall include a perforated drain pipe that is
connected to the nearest storm drain manhole or pipe. Additionally, City standard detail 4-8 has
been modified to act as a water-stop and pipe anchor block.
The final plat has been revised to include a public right-of-way extension of River Heights Drive
to the adjacent Tax Lot 802 (refer to Condition 2) and a public right of way ofVitus Lane to the
eastern boundary of the River Heights subdivision that is generally centered on the common
property line between Tax Lots 601 and 600 (refer to Condition 3).
Public Improvements within these right-of-ways include storm sewer lines to the subdivision
boundary. Please note, that consistent with staff-clarification of Condition 15, the River Heights
storm drainage and detention system has been designed to accommodate pre-development flows
from adjacent parcels ofland that have ordinarily flowed onto the River Heights project.
This condition will be met when the City of Springfield provides an agreement to be signed by
the owner.
Agreements between the Developer (Owner of Tract A) and the City of Springfield and between
the Developer and Willanlalane Parks and Recreation District (attached) have been completed to
provide for the maintenance requirements of Tract A.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 I 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 8 of23
.
.
The Stormwater system for this subdivision including the detention ponds have been sized to
accommodate 3,500 square feet of impervious surface from each proposed lot as well as pre-
development flows from off-site parcels (specifically including Tax Lots 600 and 801). It must
be noted that all adjacent parcels are downhill from the River Heights project and historically
have not had any defined stormwater runoff flows directed at the project property.
The Stormwater system has been designed to include separate storm sewer laterals to lots 45 and
46, consistent with Section 7.04.2 of the City's EDSPM. .
Lots # 1-# 12 have been provided a back of lot public stormwater consistent with the requirements
of Public Works during the PIP approval.
Lots #19-#21 and #22-#27 were required by COA #24 to have a back of lot private storm drain
pIpe.
A typical detail drawing showing an "individual piped dispersion system" for rooftop runoff for
lots 30-35 is attached.[BRE EGR6]
This condition is no longer applicable. The roof runoff from the proposed lots 1-12 will be
collected in a public stormwater pipe located along the north property line.
A recorded joint use access and maintenance agreement has been placed on all private, shared
stormwaterlines and the lots they serve. (Lots #24-#31 and Lots #12-#13 and #15#16[BRE EGRJ]
Maintenance access consistent with the requirements of Section 4.12 of the City's EDSPM to the
detention ponds has been provided via a perimeter access road as shown on sheet C16 and CI 7
of the Public Improvement Plans.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 9 of23
.
.
The design for the storm drain collection pipe system has addressed consideration of steep slopes
(greater than 10%) by specifYing that the upstream pipe slope shall be carried through the
manhole and changes in pipe slope will occur at the outlet edge of the manhole. Additionally,
pipe slopes steeper than 10% are shown constructed using the City standard concrete pipe anchor
.per standard drawing 4-8 with trench drains.
Public Improvement plans have been prepared consistent with Section 4.04.D of the City's
EDSPM, which states;
4.04.D Pipe Size
1. Pipe from an inlet to the main line in the public system shall be a minimum often-inch in diameter.
2. Main line pipe shall be a minimum of I2-inch in diameter.
3. Service laterals for single family residences hall be six inch diameter. All other service laterals shall
be a minimum of IO-inch diameter.
The Public Improvement Plans have been developed with the minimum inlet to main line pipe
size of 10-inches, a minimum mainline pipe size of 12-inches, and a 6-inch service lateral to each
proposed single family lot.
Consistent with Section 4.04.EI of the EDSPM all storm pipes have been designed to achieve a
minimum velocity of three feet per second at 0.5 part full based upon Table 4-1 and the
associated "n" value. Table 4-1 prescribes a Manning's "n" value of 0.013 for PYC pipes.
Below is the table based on Manning's equation for open channel hydraulics demonstrating the
minimum slope for nominal pipe diameters to meet the requirements of 4.04.EI;
PIPE FLOW Manning's MIN
SIZE DEPTH n-value SLOPE
inches inches n ft/ft
6 3 0.13 0.0111
8 4 0.13 0.0075
10 5 0.13 0.0056
12 6 0.13 0.0044
15 7.5 0.13 0.0032
18 9 0.13 0.0025
21 10.5 0.13 0.0021
24 12 0.13 0.0018
PRE.SUBMITTAl REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 10 of23
.
.
Section 4.04.E2 requires analysis of pipes that exceed critical flow velocities for hydraulic jumps
and the effect on down stream water levels at peak flow. The critical manholes for analysis are
those that are at points where the mainline storm drain pipe is changing from supercritical to
subcritical flow. This change in flow regime condition can result in a hydraulic jump. Critical
manholes are MH3, MH2, MH28, and MH35. The table below shows that at these manholes the
difference in elevation from the energy grade line to the structUre rim exceeds I-foot for the 25-
year storm event. If a hydraulic jump were to occur in the manhole the height would be less than
the energy grade line.
Manhole
, # Storm Event
Supercritical Flow Summery
HGL
Freeboard
Rim Elev (ft) HGL (ft) (ft)
EGL (ft)
EGL
Fre'eboard
(ft)
MH03 25-year 486.73 474.65 12.1 476,75 9.7
MH21 25-year 484.59 478.39 6.2 480.71 3.8
MH28 25-year 481.56 478.70 '2.9 478.72 2.8
MH35 25-year 537.89 524.32 13.57 528.04 9.85
The link and node table included with Amendment #1 to "Stormwater Calculations for the
Privately Engineered Public Improvement Plans, December 2006" includes the water surface
elevations for the storm water system for the 2, 5, 10, and 25-year storm events.
Public Improvement plans have been prepared consistent with Section 7.03.10 of the City's
EDSPM. Specific trench drainage measures to handle the flow of water in trench backfill have
been incorporated into all trench sections with slopes exceeding 10 percent. The intercepted
flow has been directed into an approved storm water facility. The PIP include instructions to the
contractor that trench slopes greater than 10% shall include a perforated drain pipe that is
connected to the nearest storm drain manhole. Additionally, City standard detail 4-8 has been
modified to act as a water-stop and pipe anchor block
Public Improvement plans have been prepared consistent with Section 7.04.10 of the City's
EDSPM. The standard drawings for development of hillside areas recommended in Appendix A
in the Hillside Pavement Distress Study, 1994, by Dames and Moore have been incorporated into
the Public Improvement plans refer to Sheets G3 and G4.
PRE.SUBMITIAl REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 1l of23
.
.
For the revised lot layout this condition is applicable to proposed Lots 24-31. Storm drainage
from Lots 24 through 31 has been provided via a privately owned, privately maintained piped
stormwater line on property serving lots 24-31. Designs for this piped system may be viewed on
Sheets C 18 and C 19 of the Public Improvement Plans.
Public Improvement plans have been prepared that incorporate the groundwater control
requirements of Section 7.06 of the City's EDSPM into the design. Because the staff report did
not reference specific sub-sections of Section 7.06 to address, the Applicant has addressed all
sub-sections of Section 7.06 of the EDSPM herein. Section 7.06 of the EDSPM states:
7.06.1 Embankment Restrictions
Construction of embankments shall not be allowed on top of soils with a plastic index greater than 30.
Plans for embankments shall show construction details for maintaining drainage to eliminate
shrink/swell problems evident in adjacent developments.
Laboratory testing of the native material demonstrated that the PI values were less than 30.
7.06.2 Persistent Flow Conditions
All persistent flow conditions, except for any identified open water component of the conceptual storm
water plan, shall be directed into the piped storm system.
Preliminary work has not identified any persistent flow conditions. The Public Improvement
Plans contain construction notes 'on Sheets 03 and 04 directing the contractor to direct any
persistent flows encountered during construction to the public stormwater system.
7.06.3 Longitudinal Drainage Systems
The developer shall include longitudinal drainage systems along the uphill side of all streets
constructed on cut slopes for each phase of the development. These drains shall discharge to a piped
drainage facility, not the street gutter.
The Public Improvement Plans contain the standard drawings for hillside development as
recommended by the Dames and Moore "Hillside Pavement Distress Study" and as required by
Condition 23. These drawings are for standard "french drain" and seepage blankets. Sheets 03
and 04 of the Public Improvement Plans direct the contractor to construct these features on the
uphill side of all street cuts and to hard pipe the drains to the public storm water system.
7.06.4 Interception of Springs and Watercourses
Saturation of the street subgrade and of building pads shall be prevented Therefore, the project storm
drainage system shall be designed to intercept and remove from the street structural section and street
subgrade the flows from all known springs and watercourses. In addition, the flow from all springs and
watercourses encountered during street and utility construction' and lot pad grading 'shall be
intercepted and removed with discharge into the project storm drain system. The applicant's design
PRE-SUBMITIAL REC'D
JUL :I 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 12 of23
.
.
engineer shall include an anticipated flow volume and rate from springs and watercourses on the site
and shall size all elements a/the storm drainage system accordingly.
Preliminary work has not identified any persistent flow conditions. The Public Improvement
Plans contain construction notes on Sheets G3 and G4 directing the. contractor to direct any
persistent flows encountered during construction to the public stormwater" system. Any
intercepted groundwater flows will be orders of magnitude less than the storm water design flows
and the proposed public stormwater system will be adequate.
At 12-inch diameter stormwater lateral has been extended to the limits of the existing Rainbow
Water District property (tax lot 801). As described in the staff clarification RWD is responsible
for the design features including velocity dissipation, detention, and de-cWorination.[BRE EGR8]
The Public Improvement Plans include landscaping plans for the proposed detention swales
prepared by the project landscape Architect, Dougherty Landscape Architects. Refer to Public
Improvement Sheet L 1.
The proposed public detention swales will be fully seeded and protected as shown on the Public
Improvement plans. At the time of final acceptance of the Public Improvements if the vegetation
is not fully established the applicant proposes to provide and maintain additional interim erosion
control/water quality measures until such time as the vegetation is fully established and accepted
by the City. .
There are no private vegetative water quality swales proposed as part of the project.
PRE.SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 13 0/23
.
.
Consistent with this requirement and the signing requirements of Condition 1, No Parking Zones
will be posted in accordance with SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix DI03.6. and parking shall only
be allowed on one side of 28 foot wide streets per the Springfield Fire Code (SFC) 503.2.1.
Refer to the Public Improvement Plans sheet Tl for the location of the signs.
The referenced easement is currently of the benefit of SUB who has the ownership and
maintenance of the 18-inch waterline contained in the easement. SUB Water has provided
concurrence verifying that the overlapping placement of the 25-foot Public Utility Easement is
acceptable.[BRE EGR9]
The Final Plat includes a blanket drainage easement across Tract A to allow for the discharge of
stormwater runofffrom lots 30 through 35 (proposed lots #3-39).[BRE EGRIO]
The Final Plat includes a public drainage easement across Tract A for the detention
ponds.[BRE EGRII]
This condition is not applicable as there is no private storm drainage swale or pipe proposed to
be installed in the existing 35-foot wide EWEB easement located on the eastern project
boundary.
This condition is no longer applicable as EWEB\SUB did not install the proposed 30-inch
diameter waterline intertie.
Vision clearance triangles consistent with SDC 32.070 have been provided at all lot driveways.
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
Page 14 of23
.
.
No impacts to the delineated wetland areas were proposed as part of the Tentative Subdivision or
Public Improvement Plan approval processes. The applicant has submitted the wetland
delineation to the USACE and Oregon DSL for concurrence. As required by the condition of
approval the applicant submitted a lPA to the USACE and Oregon DSL indicating no impact to
wetlands. The USACE issued a letter dated February 12,2007 stating that no permit is required
for the proposed project. On February 13, 2007 the Oregon DSL issued a letter stating that a
state removal-fill permit is not required. Both letters are included as an attachment.[BRE EGRI2]
"Tract B" will be dedicated to Rainbow Water District as shown on the Final Plat and Public
Improvement plans; This 40-foot wide tract has frontage on the proposed public street Vitus
Lane.
The southwest comer at the intersection of River Heights Drive and Vitus Lane has been
designed and shown on the public improvement plans to meet clear vision triangle requirements.
This intersection is not the preferred large vehicle path to the existing R WD tanle .
The R WD requested alignment of Tract B will dictate that large vehicles access the existing tank
site via Ambleside Drive to 37th Street to Vitus Lane. To provide the widest possible turning
radius for large vehicle access through the subdivision and to the R WD reservoir site the curb
returns at the intersection ofVitus Lane and 37th Street have been designed with a 35-foot radius..
Parking restrictions consistent with Condition land this Condition have been considered and
designed to the extent practicable, to enhance and protect large vehicle access along the River
Heights/Quarry Ridge Drive route to the RWD site.
PRE.SUBMITIAL REeD
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 15 of23
.
.
A fence meeting these requirements will be constructed consistent with the agreement with
RWD. The timing of this construction and financialresponsibility will occur consistent with the
agreement that has been reached with RWD (attached).[BRE EGRI3]
PRE.SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page]60f23
.
.
B Hillside Development DRC2006-0000S Conditions of Approval
The required Geotechnical Soils and Geology Report has been prepared by Dr. Gunnar
ScWieder. Recommendations of this report have been incorporated into the project designs and
construction drawings.
The required Geotechnical Soils and Geology Reports have been prepared by Dr. Gunnar
ScWieder. Recommendations of this report have been incorporated into the project designs and
construction drawings. Written concurrence with the geotechnical aspects of the project design
and the construction plans were provided by Dr. Schlieder and were submitted to the City with
the Public Improvement plans.
Noted, these requirements were incorporated into design via notes on Sheets ESCPI - ESCP5 of
the Public Improvement plans. Additionally, the applicant has applied for and received an
NPDES l200-C permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 17 of23
.
.
Prior to preparation of the Public Improvement Plans, all proposed street locations were
cross-sectioned and their center-lines staked in the field, to determine the accuracy of
preliminary slope and grade percentages. The proposed street grades and grading impacts shown
on the Public Improvement Plans are based on field collected topographic data. It can be
assumed that the street grades can be constructed as proposed in the PIP within the accuracy of
industry construction practices.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 18 of23
.
.
[BRE EGRI5]A comprehensive Hillside Development Plan and Report is attached.[BREEGRI6]
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 19 of23
.
.
As indicated in the response to Condition 5 above, a comprehensive Hillside Development Plan
and Report will be submitted for review and approval by the Director during the fmal plat
process. The individual plot plans will be included in filed documents and a copy of individual
plot plans shall be attached to each deed upon initial transfer.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
Rive~ Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 20 of23
.
.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
C Tree Felling Conditions of Approval DRC2006-00006
Noted, this requirement was adhered to during the process of acquiring data for the preparation
of the Public Improvement Plans, during the construction activities for the subdivision, and
consistent with this requirement, any tree compromised by construction shall be removed and a
replacement tree shall be planted in accordance with the planting methods described in the
adopted Vegetation and Re-vegetation Plan.
Noted, Notice of Intent to proceed was provided to the City and residents of abutting properties
along the north boundary of the subject site (Arnbleside) 5 days prior to the commencement of
tree removal work. [BRE EGR17)
Noted, prior to tree removal, the applicant's landscape architect provided a written assessment of
the risk of wind throw to the stands of timber to remain on the subject site, including
preservation easement and residential construction areas abutting the R WD property. The wind
throw assessment was completed prior to removal and incorporated into a Revised Vegetation
and Re-vegetation Report.[BRE EGRI8]
PRE.SUBMlTfAL REC'D
JUL 3 I 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 2I of23
.
.
Noted, the CCRs were revised to prohibit fencing within Preservation Easements and limit the
use of fencing within Conservation Easements. Fences within or around tree conservation
easements were placed to avoid root damage, be non-sight obscuring and were colored black to
blend with existing vegetation..
Fences along the north property line were designed to be in accordance with the fencing
standards of SDC Article 16. Fences on the north property line that extend NORTH across the
public utility easements will be required to have gates to allow access for City maintenance
vehicles. The applicable portions of the tree preservation areas have been included in deed
restrictions and CCRs that have been submitted for review and approval by the City of
Springfield.
PRE.SUBMITTAl REC'D
JUL 3 1 Z009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 22 oJ23
.
.
III A TT ACHMENTS
I. River Heights Tentative Subdivision Decision SUB2006-00006
2. River Heights Hillside Development Decision DRC2006-00006
3. RiverHeights Tree Felling Permit Decision DRC2006-00005
4. Attachment "A" Springfield File SUB2006-00006
5. Errata & Clarifications SUB2006-00006
6. Horizontal and Vertical Curve Sight Distance Calculations
7. Union Pacific Wastewater Pipe License Agreement
8. United States Army Corps of Engineers Response to JPA
9. Oregon Department of State Lands Response to JPA
10. Oregon DEQ NPDES 1200-C Permit Application
II. Oregon DEQ NPDES 1200-C Permit
12. Development Plan (24x 36)
13. Tree Felling Notice Letter
14. DLA Windthrow Memo
15. GeoScience Inc, Letter Dated July 29th 2006 "Results of Additional Test Pits, Moe
Mountain (River Heights)
16. EGR Report Titled "Stormwater Calculations for the Privately Engineered Public
Improvement Plans for River Heights Subdivision"
17. EGR Memorandum Titled "Amendment #1 to Stormwater Calculations for the Privately
Engineered Public Improvement Plans for River Heights Subdivision"
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
River Heights Final Plat Application Narrative
Page 23 of23
EOO & AssociatefJ, Inc.
Engineers, Geologists and Surveyors
25358 Prairie Road
. Eugene. Oregon 97402
(541) 688-13322
Fax (541) 688-13087
April 18, 2008
City of Springfield
Attention: Jim Donovan, Senior Planner
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
RE: Request for Extension of Final Plat for River Heights Subdivision (SOO2006-00006, DRC2006-00006,
& DRC2006-00005)
Dear Mr. Donovan:
Breeden Bros. Inc., requests an extension for the expiration of Tentative Subdivision SOO2006-
00006, Hillside Development Permit DRC2006-00005, and Tree Felling Permit DRC2006-00006 for
the project commonly referred to as River Heights Subdivision.
The Tentative Subdivision Decision was issued on May 2, 2006 and incorporated the conditions and
requirements of the Hillside Development and Tree Felling Permits. As stated on page 33 of the .
Tentative Subdivision Decision, the approval was valid for 2-years. This approval is scheduled to
expire on May 2, 2008.
From the date of the decision the applicant, and their agents, have been working on the required
conditions of approval. Due to the complexity of the project the Public Improvement Permit
construction documents were approved by Public Works on March 6, 2008. At this time the
applicant, contractor and EGR are working at gathering the remaining documentation to have PIP
Agreement executed by the City and construction will begin in the next few weeks.
Additional work items have come up during the refinement of the development. Specifically, Breeden
is in the process of having a Serial Property Line Adjustment completed with Rainbow Water District.
This application was determined to be mutually beneficial during the concurrence process for the
development. It is preferable to have the SPLA nearer to completion prior to submitting a Final Plat
application for the subdivision. The design tearn has been working in good faith with City staff to
complete all of the conditions for this project and we expect to have a final plat application submitted
this summer.
We request that the expiration date for the Tentative Subdivision Approval SOO2006-00006 and the
associated Hillside Development DRC2006-00005 and Tree Felling DR€2006-00006 Permits be
extended for one year to May 2, 2009. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at
your earliest convenience.
SiQcerely,
EGR &Associates, Inc.
~~
Brent R. Erickson.
Civil Engineer
CC: Byron Robert, Breeden Bros., Inc
Dan Baker, Baker and Associates Surveyors
PRE.SUBMITTAl REC'D
JUL 3 I 2009
E(jR & Associat6t,Inc.
Engineers, Geologists and SUNeyors
25358 Prairie Road
Eugene, Oregon 97402
(541) 688-8322
FaJ( (541).688-8087
Memorandum.
To:
Company:
Address:
Page 1 of6
--,
i Brent R Erickson, P.E.
t July 23, 2008
I
Jim Donovan, Senior Planner
City of Springfield
225 5th St, Springfield, OR 97477
From:
Date:
cc:
Todd Singleton, Construction Inspector, City of Springfield
Byron Roberts, Breeden Bros., Inc.
Gunnar Schlieder, GeoScience Inc.
Shane Hughes, EGR & Associates
File
Project #
Re:
1150-06-0116
River Heights Subdivision - Condition of Approval # 13
o Urgent
o Please Reply
o For Review
r8J Please Comment
Purpose & Back!!round
Public street excavations for the River Heights Subdivision (P30520) are producing sizeable volumes
of excavated material that have been deemed suitable for lot fill by the project Engineering Geologist
(GeoScience, Inc.). The Owner has directed EGR to submit Land Drainage and Alteration Permit
. (LDAP) amendments to address grading oflot areas where suitable.
For this project the underlying land use decisions (SOO2006-00006, Tree Felling DRC2006-00006
and Hillside Development DRC2006-00005) greatly limit the areas available for lot grading and fill
during the public street and utility installations. Specifically, only lot areas that are downhill of the
public street, that do not contain significant trees or other vegetation, and are generally free of
conservation or preservation areas are candidates for lot fill at this time. With these constraints only
three lot fill areas were identified as suitable; lots #24-26, lots #20-#25, and lots #35-#39.
LDAP Amendment #2 showing grading activities on lots #24-#26 has been approved by the City of
Springfield. EGR has submitted LDAP Amendment #3 shows potential fill on lots #35 to #38 and
LDAP Amendment #4 shows potential fill on lots #20-#23.
The purpose of this memorandum of is to provide a narrative describing proposed lot grading during
the public improvement construction on the River Heights Subdivision project. This memorandum
will document how LDAP Amendments #2, #3, and #4 meet the requirements of the underlying
Hillside Development and Tree Felling land use approvals.
LDAP Amendments Consistency with Tree Fellin!! Permit
The River Heights project was issued a tree felling permit (DRC2006-00006) that included staff
findings and conditions of approval. LDAP Amendments #2, #3, and #4 have included the collection
of data showing trees greater than 5" dbh as part of the preparation of the site Plmp~E~BMfffAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 2 of 6
surveys were perfonned in the last month as a confirmation to the original site survey conducted in
2004. The submitted LDAP amendment site plans identify trees not shown on the original site survey.
This inconsistency can be attributed to two factors; in the time between the original site survey and
now, trees that were smaller than 5" 'dbh have grown and significant invasive understory
(blackberries) have been removed during the course of developing the project. allow access to
additional trees.
LDAP Amendments Tree Impacts Summary
LDAP Amendment #2, #3, and #4 will remove a total of22 trees greater than 5" in dbh.
LDAP Amendment #2 removed three (3) trees greater than 5" dbh from Lot #25 and two (2)trees
greater than 5" dbh froin Lot #26. These trees removed are outside of the identified building envelope
areas but are within the grading areas.
LDAP Amendment #3 proposes removing four (4) trees greater than 5" dbh from Lot #35. Threeof
these trees will have critical roots zones that are located in the public street cut bank.
LDAP Amendment #4 proposes removing eight (8) trees greater than 5" dbh from the building
envelope and three (3) trees outside of the building envelope on Lot #22. This plan also proposes
removing two (2) trees greater than 5" dbh from the building envelope of Lot #23.
Table 1 LDAP Amendment Tree Removal Summary
Removed from
Building Removed Outside Building
Amendment # Envelop Envelope Total Removed
#2 0 5 5
#3 0 4 4
#4 10 3 13
None of the trees to be removed are located in Conservation or Preservation areas identified during the
tentative subdivision, tree felling, or hillside development applications and approvals.
Consistency with Tree Felling Permit Findings
"
The Tree Felling Permit issued for the River Heights project included an in depth analysis from staff
on how the proposed project was consistent with the Springfield Development Code Article 38 (SDC
38). As shown in the analysis below, the LDAP Amendment tree felling is conSistent with the staff
analysis and conditions of approval.
In reference to SDC 38.040(1) staff provided the flowing findings;
1. The applicant proposes to remove approximately 355 trees for the construction of public improvements; the
applicant will protect approximately 1045 trees to remain after construction and re-plant approximately 280 trees.
Another 450 trees will be left to the discretion o!.future owners of residential lots.
Trees to be felled during the LDAP amendment activities are in the discretionary grouping described
above. The Owner, Breeden Bros., Inc, will be developing and building single family residential
homes and has made the detennination that removal of the trees outside of the building envelope areas
2535B Pre;ne Road, Eugene, Oregon 97402' Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688-8087 PRE.SUBMITTAL RECID
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 3 016
to allow lot grading results in a better final product. Over the course of the project, the Owner has
elected to leave trees standing as long as practical.
2. Construction requiredfor the development of building envelopes, streets and utilities within the subdivision
warrants the removal of vegetation within these areas (See grading and landscape preservation and removal
plans submitted). Tree felling within these areas may occur during the PIP process after surveying of proposed
cuts and fills and placement of protective fencing around all areas to be protected during construction No trees
are to be felled due to poor health during the construction process.
The LDAP amendments are a refinement of the tentative subdivision grading plan. Significant
volume of material excavated from the street and utility construction has been determined to be
suitable for lot fill. Tree to be protected will be marked with orange fencing prior to grading activities. .
The proposed LDAP amendments will result in approximately a total of 17,000 cubic yard of
excavated material staying onsite. Placement of this material onsite will eliminate over 2,000 truck
trips leaving the site and reduce the construction traffic past adjoining properties.
3. Trees outside of public improvement areas, utility easements, building envelopes and protective easements are left
to the discretion a/fUture owners and may be removed Hazard trees within Conservation Easements can and
should be removed and replaced in accordance with proposed easement language. Removal of 5 or more trees
with a 5 inch or larger diameter requires an independent tree felling permit for each lot.
Breeden Bros. Inc. (Owner) will be the developer and builder of the future single family homes on the
impacted lots. Less than 5 trees are being removed from outside of the identified building envelopes
and will not require an individual tree felling permit for each lot.
In reference to SDC 38.040(3) staff provided the flowing [mdings;
1. The trees proposedfor removal are limited to those necessary to install subdivision improvements.
Removal of trees for the LDAP amendment areas is consistent with this fmding because they are
being removed to allow for lot development.
2. Trees within approved building envelopes may be removed at the time of subdivision development. Removal of
more than 5 trees with a dbh of 5 inches or greater located outside building envelopes and easements will require
a separate tree felling permit pursuant to SDC, Article 38.
Removal of trees in the LDAP amendment areas is consistent with this fmding because as described
above, the LDAP amendments do not propose removinK more than 5 trees from outside of a building
envelope on any single lot.
3. The standard is met subject to an approved deveiopment plan (i.e. public improvement plan for the qffected areas).
Removal of trees in the LDAP amendment areas is consistent with this finding because a refmement
plan (LDAP Amendment) has been submitted for approval.
Consistencv with Tree Felling Conditions of Approval
The River Heights project was issued a tree felling permit (DRC2006-00006) that included staff
fmdings and conditions of approval. This decision included four conditions of approval that are
reproduced below.
Condition 1: All public rights of way, easement areas and building envelopes shall be field surveyed and
staked prior to removal of trees allowed in accordance with this decision All trees to be protected shall be
25358 Prairie Road' Eugene, Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688-808fRE-SUBMITIAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 4 of 6
fenced with orange construction barrier to protect root zones. The landscape architect shall inspect all.
protective easement areas after construction activities to verifY the health of all trees along the common
boundary between construction and protected areas. Any tree compromised by construction shall be removed
and a replacement tree shall be planted in accordance with the planting methods described in the adopted
Vegetation and Re-vegetation Plan
The submitted LDAP Amendments comply with this condition of approval. Shown on the submitted
site plans are all recently surveyed trees and the building envelope areas. Trees located inside of the
building envelopes can be removed in accordance with the issued tree felling permit. Prior to grading
activity, LDAP Staff will inspect the liIDits of activity and confirm that trees identified to remain are
. marked with orange construction fencing.
Condition 2: Notice of Intent to proceed shall be provided to the City and residents of abutting properties
along the north boundary of the subject site (Ambleside) 5 days prior to the commencement of tree removal
work
This condition of approval is not applicable to the LDAP Amendments as the work is not adjacent to
the north property line. Prior to right-of-way tree removal notice was sent to the adjacent
developments.
Condition 3: Prior to tree removal. the applicant's landscape architect and aforestry consultant shall provide
a written assessment of the risk of wind throw to the stands of timber to remain on the subject site, including
preservation easement and residential construction areas abutting the R WD property. The wind throw
assessment shall be completed prior to removal and incorporated into a Revised Vegetation and Re-vegetation
Report along with any measures taken to reduce wind throw risks prior to Final Plat Approval.
This condition of approval is not applicable to the LDAP Amendments because no significant stands
of trees are present in the areas to be graded.
Condition 4: The Vegetation and Revegetation Report and CCRs shall be revised to prohibit fencing within
Preservation Easements and limit the use of fencing within Conservation Easements. Fences within or around
tree conservation easements shall be placed to avoid root damage. be non-site obscuring and be constructed,
coated or painted black to blend with existing vegetation Fences shall not extend south of the h'ee
conservation easement at north property line across utility easements. Fences along the north property line
shall be in accordance with the fencing standards of SDC Article 16. The applicable portions of the tree
preservation easements shall be included in deed restrictions and CeRE subject to reviel1l and approval by the
City of Springfield
.
This condition of approval is not applicable to the LDAP Amendments and is project specific. This
condition will be addressed at the time of final plat processing.
Consistency with Tree Felling Conclusion
All trees to be removed during the LDAP Amendment work is the minimum to allow for lots fill to be
placed in project acceptable areas. This tree removal is consistent with the issued tree felling permit
because the removal will be either from the building envelopes and no more than 5 trees from outside
of the envelope for any individual lot.
The proposed LDAP amendments will result in approximately a total of 17,000 cubic yard of
excavated material staying onsite. Placement of this material onsite will eliminate over 2,000 truck
trips leaving the site and reduce the construction traffic past adjoining properties.
PlUUBMlIIAl REC'D
25356 Prairie Road' Eugene. Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688-8087 JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 5 of6
LDAP Amendments Consistencv with Hillside Development Approval
The River Heights project included a Hillside Development approval because portions of the site are
located above the 670 foot elevation mark and include slopes exceeding IS%. The proposed LDAP
Amendments were developed to be consistent with the underlying Hillside Development approval.
Springfield Development Code Article 26 provides the requirements for Hillside Development. The
City of Springfield issued a decision with staff analysis for the Hillside decision (DRC2006-0000S).
Section 26.0S0 Development Density Options, 26.060 Street Grade Standards, and 26.090 Fire
Protection Standards are not applicable to the LDAP Amendments.
The LDAP Amendments are consistent with SDC 26.070 Reports Required as described in the
following analysis.
SDC 26.070(1)
SDC 26.070(1) requires that a soils and geology report be prepared for the site that includes
reconunendations for grading and development of the project. GeoScience Inc., has prepared
geologic reports that included design reconunendations in July of 200S, July of 2006, and August of
2007. Additionally, GeoScience has continued to be involved during street and utility construction to
observe and provide reconunendations. These observations have determined that material excavated
from areas of the streets and utilities is suitable for lot fill. As described in EGR's July 14, 2008
memorandum, GeoScience will observe, report and provide a final certification or reconunendations
for all lot fill placed. The LDAP Amendments have been prepared in accordance with GeoScience's'
reconunendations.
SDC 26.070(2)
SDC 26.070(2) requires a grading plan report that include existing and proposed grades, details of the
terrain and area drainage, location of existing structures, direction of drainage flow and approximate
grade of streets, and finished contours to be achieved by grading.
The LDAP amendment site plans prepared by EGR & Associates include all of the required
information and are a refinement of the grading plan submitted with the tentative subdivision.
Specifically, these site plans show the lot area, future building envelopes, S:'[oot interval existing and
proposed contours, significant vegetation, and erosion control requirements. The proposed grading
activities will not alter the surface water drainage patterns and are consistent with the stormwater
management plan prepared for the development.
LDAP Amendments Hillside Development Conclusion
Submitted LDAP amendments are a refinement of the original subdivision and hillside development
approvals. The Owner and EGR have developed the LDAP amendments for consistency with the
underlying land use approvals and balancing the goals of the project.
PRE.SUBMITIAL REC'D
JUL 3 I 2009
25358 Prairie Road, Eugene. Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688-8087
.
.
Memorandum
Page 6 016
Summary
The submitted LDAP amendments will result in approximately 17,000 cubic yards of material
excavated from the public streets and utility construction to be safely placed on private lot areas.
Grading work will be consistent with the project geology reports and GeoScience will be providing
onsite recommendations, observations, reporting and final certifications or recommendations.
EGR has prepared the submitted LDAP amendments to be consistent with the underlying land use
approvals. The submitted amendments are a refinement of the conditionally approved tentative
grading plans. Twenty-two trees will be removed from outside of the public street and utility
construction. As demonstrated above, not more than five trees will be removed from outside of a
building envelope on any single lot. The proposed grading activities will not alter the surface water
drainage patterns as documented in the approved stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas
will be stabilized by the methods and schedule established for the LDAP.
If you have any questions, comments, or additional concerns please contact me at your earliest
converuence.
PRE-SUBMIITAl REC'D
JUL 3 ] 2009
25358 Prairie Road' Eugene. Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688-8087
E~R & Associat~, Inc.
25358 Prairte Road
Eugene, Oregon 97402
(541) 688-8322
Fax (541) 688-8087
Engineers, Geologists and Surveyors
Memorandum
To:
Company:
Address:
. Jim Donovan, Senior Planner
Page 1 012
From: Brent R Erickson, P.E/' ":I7-.g:J
Date: July 14, 2008
City of Springfield
225 5th St, Springfield, OR 97477
cc:
Billy Curtiss, Engineering Tech. IV, City of Springfield
Byron Roberts, Breeden Bros., Inc.
Gunnar Schlieder, GeoScience Inc.
Brad Carlsen, Pacific Excavation
Shane Hughes, EGR & Associates
File
Project #
Re:
1150-06-0116
River Heights Subdivision - LDAP Amendments Lot Fill Procedures and Plan
o Urgent
o Please Reply
o For Review
o Please Comment
Purpose & Back2:round
The purpose of this memorandum is to document the owners intended procedure for placement of fill
on lot m:eas, propose a method of future builder notification, and clarifY the responsible professional
parties.
Public street excavations for the River Heights Subdivision (P30520) are producing sizeable volumes
of excavated material that has been deemed suitable for lot fill by the project Engineering Geologist
(GeoScience, Inc.). The Owner has directed EGR to submit Land Drainage and Alteration Pennit
(LDAP) amendments to address grading ofJot areas where suitable.
For this project the underlying land use decisions (SUB2006-00006, Tree Felling DRC2006-00006
and Hillside Development DRC2006-00005) greatly limit the areas available for lot grading and fill
during the public street and utility installations. Specifically, only lot areas that are downhill of the
public street, do not contain significant trees or other vegetation, and are generally free of conservation
or preservation areas are candidates for lot fill at this time. With these constraints only three lot fill
areas were identified as suitable; lots #24-26, lots #20-4125, and lots #35-#39.
LDAP Amendment #2 showing grading activities on lots #24-#26 has been submitted and is being
reviewed by the City of Springfield. EGR will be submitting two additional LDAP aniendments to
address the lot areas identified above concurrently with this memorandum.
Procedures for Lot FiU
The project Engineer (EGR & Associates) will be responsible for the production of grading plans for
inclusion into the LDAP amendments. These grading plans will be developed consistent with the
underlying land use decisions and project requirements. . The Project Engineer will submit the
PRE-SUBMITTAL REe'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 2 012
proposed LDAP Amendments for approval by the City. When approved, the Project Engineer will
coordinate the installation ofESC BMP's, LDAP Staff Inspections, and project Engineering Geologist
observations and reporting.
The project Engineering Geologist (GeoScience, Inc.) has been retained by the owner to provide
onsite recommendations, inspections, and reporting of fill to be placed in building pad areas and on
private lots. Onsite observations and construction reporting will include determination of suitable
material, observation of fill placement, and a fmal report documenting the construction activities.
Certification of Lot Fill
The project Engineering Geologist will provide a fmal report for the placement of fill in all approved
lot fill areas. This certification report will include recommendations for future structure foundation
requirements. At this time, it is anticipated that not all lot fills will be suitable for "standard" spread-
footing construction. The fmal report will detail the recommendations and requirements for these lots.
Hillside Develooment Reoort
As required by DRC2006-00005 a final Hillside Development Report is required prior to final plat
approval. Included in the final Hillside Development Report are individual lot notification sheets,
fmal geotechnical recommendations, final vegetation re-vegetation requirements, and the project
CC&R's. It is the Owners intent that the Final Hillside Development Plan and/or CC&R's will
require that, prior to foundation construction, every lot have a site specific geological investigation and
report with foundation recommendations.
For lot areas that included grading activities allowed under an LDAP amendment during the street
construction, the Owner and/or Project Engineer will coordinate and make sure that the individual lot
figures include notification that fill was placed during the street construction and summarize the
geotechnical recommendations or requirements for these lots.
Summarv
If you have any questions, comments, or additional concerns please contact us at your earliest
convenience.
PRE.SUBMITTAl REeD
JUL 3 1 2009
25358 Prairie Roed . Eugene, Oregon 97402 . Phone (541) 688-8322 . Fax (541) 688-8087
. . .
EuR & ASSOcIates, Inc.
Engineers, Geologists and Surveyors
25358 'Prairie Road
Eugene, Oregon .97402
(541) 688-i3:m
Fa~'(541) 688'8087
Memorandum
~~~______J Jim_ Dono~_~~~~~or Planner
Company: I City of Springfield
Address: T225-5'hSt~S;;;~fi~ld, OR 97477
P-age-1-of6--:---________~
From: Brent R Erickson, P.E. --R v1 ~
_._-_._---_._------_.&'?/~---
Date: July 23,2008
cc:
- ---
I Todd Singleton, Construction Inspector, City of Springfield
I
i Byron Roberts, Breeden Bros., Inc.
i Gunnar ScWieder; GeoScience Inc.
I Shane Hughes, EGR & Associates
I File
~
Project# JJI50-06-0116 ,
-"---- ---.,--.--.-.-----,- --------------
Re: River Heights Subdivision - LDAP Amendment #3 & #4 Narrative
------- ------.-...--..---------------
D Urgent
U'f For Review
D Please Comment
D Please Reply
Purpose & BackJ:!:round
Public street excavations for the River Heights Subdivision (P30520) are producing sizeable volumes
of excavated material that have been deemed suitable for lot fill by the project Engineering Geologist
(GeoScience, Inc.). The Owner has directed EGR to submit Land Drainage and Alteration Permit
(LDAP) amendments to address grading of/ot areas where suitable.
For this project the underlying land use decisions (SUB2006-00006, Tree Felling DRC2006-00006
and Hillside Development DRC2006-00005) greatly liniit the areas available for lot grading and fill
during the public street and utility installations. Specifically, only lot areas that are downhill of the
public street, that do not contain significant trees or other vegetation, and are generally free of
conservation or preservation areas are candidates for lot fill at this time. With these constraints only
three lot fIll areas were identified as suitable; lots #24-26, lots #20-#25, and lots #35-#39.
LDAP Amendment #2 showing grading activities on lots #24-#26 has been approved by the City of
Springfield. EGR has submitted LDAP Amendment #3 shows potential fill on lots #35 to #38 and
LDAP Amendment #4 shows potential fill on lots #20-#23.
The purpose of this memorandum of is to provide a narrative describing proposed lot grading during
the public improvement construction on the River Heights Subdivision project. This memorandum
will document how LDAP Amendments #2, #3, and #4 meet the requirements of the underlying
Hillside Development and Tree Felling land use approvals.
LDAP Amendments Consistency with Tree Felling' Permit
The River Heights project was issued a tree felling permit (DRC2006-00006) that included staff
findings and conditions of approval. LDAP Amendments #2, #3, and #4 have included the collection
of data showing trees greater than 5" dbh as part of the preparation of the site plans. These tree
PRE.SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 2 of6
surveys were performed in the last month as a confirmation to the original site survey conducted in
2004. The submitted LDAP amendment site plans identify trees not shown on the original site survey.
This inconsistency can be attributed to two factors; in the time between the original site survey and
now, trees that were" smaller than 5" dbh have grown and significant invasive understory
(blackberries) have been removed during the course of developing the project allow access to
additional trees.
LDAP Amendments Tree Impacts Summary
LDAP Amendment #2, #3, and #4 will remove a total of22 trees greater than 5" in dbh.
LDAP Amendment #2 removed three (3) trees greater than 5" dbh from Lot #25 and two (2)trees
greater than 5" dbh from Lot #26. These trees removed are outside of the identified building envelope
areas but are within the grading areas.
LDAP Arllendment #3 proposes removing four (4) trees greater than 5" dbh from Lot #35. Three of
these trees will have critical roots zones that are located in the public street cut bank.
LDAP Amendment #4 proposes removing eight (8) trees greater than 5" dbh from the building
envelope and three (3) trees outside of the building envelope on Lot #22. This plan also proposes
removing two (2) trees greater than 5" dbh from the building envelope of Lot #23.
Table 1 LDAP Amendment Tree Removal Summary
Removed from
Building Removed Outside Building
Amendment # Envelop Envelope Total Removed
#2 0 5 5
#3 0 4 4
#4 10 3 13
None of the trees to be removed are located in Conservation or Preservation areas identified during the
tentative subdivision, tree felling, or hillside development applications and approvals.
Consistency with Tree Fellin!! Permit Findin!!s
The Tree Felling Permit issued for the River Heights project included an in depth analysis from staff
on how the proposed project was consistent with the" Springfield Development Code Article 38 (SDC
38). As shown in the analysis below, the LDAP Amendment tree felling is consistent with the staff
analysis and conditions of approval.
In reference to SDC 38.040(1) staff provided the flowing findings;
1. The applicant proposes to remove approximately 355 trees for the construction of public improvements; the
applicant will protect approximately 1045 trees to remain iIjler construction and re-plant approximately 280 trees.
Anather 450 trees will be left to the discretion offuture owners of residentiallols.
Trees to be felled during the LDAP amendment activities are in the discretionary grouping described
above. The Owner, Breeden Bros., Inc, wilL be developing and building single family residential
homes and has made the determination that removal of the trees outside of the building envelope areas
2535B Prairie Road, Eugene. Oragon 97402. Phone (541) 668-8322. Fax (541) 688-8087
PRE.SUBMIITAl REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 3 ot6
to allow lot grading results in a better final product. Over the course of the project, the Owner has
elected to leave trees standing as long. as practical.
2. Construction requiredfor the development a/building envelopes, streets and utilities within the subdivision
warrants the removalo/vegetation within these areas (See grading and landscape preservation and removal
plans submitted). TreeJelling within Ihese areas may occur during the PIP process after surveyingoJproposed
cuts and fills and placement oj proteclive Jencing around all areas 10 be protecled during construclion. No trees
are 10 be felled due 10 poor heallh during the construction process.
The LDAP amendments are a refinement of the tentative subdivision grading plan. Significant
volume of material excavated from the street and utility construction has been determined to be
suitable for lot fill. Tree to be protected will be marked with orange fendng prior to grading activities.
The proposed LDAP amendments will result in approximately a total of 17,000 cubic yard of
excavated material staying onsite. Placement of this material onsite will eliminate over 2,000 truck
trips leaving the site and reduce the construction traffic past adjoining properties.
3. Trees outside oj public improvemenl areas, utility easements, building envelopes and prolective easemenls are left
to the discretion oJfuture owners and may be removed Hazard trees within Conservalion Easements can aiui
should be removed and replaced in accordance wilh proposed easemenllanguage. RemovaloJ5 or more trees'
with a 5 inch or larger diameler requires an independenltreeJelling permil Jor each 101.
Breeden Bros. Inc. (Owner) will be the developer and builder of the future single family homes on the
impacted lots. Less than 5 trees are being removed from outside of the identified building envelopes
and will not require an individUal tree felling permit for each lot.
In reference to SDC 38.040(3) staff provided the flowing fmdings;
1. The trees proposedJor removal are limiled to those necessary 10 ins/all subdivision improvements.
Removal of trees for the LDAP amendment areas is consistent with this finding because they. are
being removed to allow for lot development.
2. Trees within approved building envelopes may be removed Ol the lime oj subdivision developmen!. Removal oj
more Ihan 5 trees with a dbh oJ5 inches or greOler localed outside building envelopes and easements will require
a separOle tree Jelling permit pursuanllO SDC, Arlicle 38.
Removal of trees in the LDAP amendment areas is consistent with this fmding becaUse as described
above, the LDAP amendments do not propose removing more than 5 trees froln outside of a building
envelope on any single lot.
3. The slondard is met subjecllo on approved developmenl plan (i.e. public improvement planJor Ihe affecled areas).
Removal of trees in the LDAP amendment areas is consistent with this finding because a refinement
plan (LDAP Amendment) has been submitted for approval.
Consistency with Tree Felling Conditions of Approval
The River Heights project was issued a tree felling permit (DRC2006-00006) that included staff
fmdings and conditions of approval, This decision included four conditions of approval that are
reproduced below.
Condition I: All public rights oj way, easement areas and building envelopes shall be field surveyed and
Slaked prior 10 removal oj trees allowed in accordance with this decision. All trees /0 be protected shall be
25356 Prairie Road' Eugene, Oregon 97402' Phone (541) 688-8322' Fax (541) 688-8087
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 4 016
fenced with orange construction barrier to protect root zones. The landscape architect shall inspect all
protective easement areas (l/ier construction activities to verify the health of all trees along the common
boundary between construction and protected areas. Any tree compromised by construction shall be removed
and a replacement tree shall be planted in accordance with the planting methods described in the adopted
Vegetation and Re-vegetation Plan. .
The submitted LDAP Amendments comply with this condition of approval. Shown on the submitted
site plans are all recently surveyed trees and the building envelope areas. Trees located inside of the
building envelopes can be removed in accordance with the issued tree felling permit. Prior to grading
activity, LDAP Staff will inspect the limits of activity and confirm that trees identified to remain are
marked with orange construction fencing.
Condition 2: Notice of Intent to proceed shall be provided to the City and residents of abutting properties
along the north boundary of the subject site (Ambleside)" 5 days prior to the commencement of tree removal
work
This condition of approval is not applicable to the LDAP Amendments as the work is not adjacent to
the north property line. Prior to right-of-way tree removal notice was sent to the adjacent
developments.
Condition 3: Prior to tree removal, the applicant's landscape architect and aforestry consultant shall provide
a written assessment of the risk of wind throw to the stands of timber to remain on the subject site, including
preservation easement and residential construction areas abutting the RWD property. The wind throw
assessment shall be completed prior to removal and incorporated into a Revised Vegetation and Re-vegetalion
Report along with any measures taken to reduce wind throw risks prior to Final Plat Approval.
This condition of approval is not applicable to the LDAP Amendments because no significant stands
of trees are present in the areas to be graded.
Condition 4: The Vegetation and Revegetation Report and CCRs shall be revised to prohibit fencing within
Preservation Easements and litnit the use of fencing within Conservation Easements. Fences within or around
tree conservation easements shall "be placed to avoid root damage, be non-site obscuring and be constructed,
coated or painted black to blend with existing vegetation. Fences shall not extend sOUlh of the tree
conservation easement at north property line across utility easements. Fences along the north property line
shall be in accordance with the fencing standards of SDC Article 16. The applicable portions of the tree
preservation easements shall be included in deed restrictions and CCRs subject to review and approval by the
City of Springfield
This condition of approval is not applicable to the LDAP Amendments and is project specific. This
condition will be addressed at the time of final plat processing.
Consistency with Tree Felling Conclusion
All trees to be removed during the LDAP Amendment work is the minimum to allow for lots fill to be
placed in project acceptable areas. This tree removal is consistent with the issued tree felling permit
because the removal will be either from the building envelopes and no more than 5 trees from outside
of the envelope for any individual lot.
The proposed LDAP amendments will result in approximately a total of 17,000 cu~ic yard of
excavated material staying onsite. Placement of this material onsite will eliminate over 2,000 truck
trips leaving the site and reduce the construction traffic past adjoining properties.
25358 Prairie Road. Eugene, Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688-8087 PRE.SUBMITIAL RECID
JlIL 3 J 2009
.
.
Memorandum .
Page 5 016
LDAP Amendments Consistency with Hillside Development Approval
The River Heights project included a Hillside Development approval because portions of the site are
located above the 670 foot elevation mark and include slopes exceeding 15%. The proposed LDAP
Amendments were developed to be consistent with the underlying Hillside Development approval.
Springfield Development Code Article 26 provides the requirements for Hillside Development The
City of Springfield issued a decision with s~ analysis for the Hillside decision (DRC2006-00005).
Section 26.050 Development Density Options, 26.060 Street Grade Standards, and 26.090 Fire
Protection Standards are not applicable to the LDAP Amendments.
The LDAP Amendments are consistent with SDC 26.070 Reports Required as described in the
following analysis.
SDC 26.070(1)
SDC 26.070(1) requires that a soils and geology report be prepared for the site that includes
recommendations for grading and development of the project. GeoScience Inc., has prepared
geologic reports that included design recommendations in July of 2005, July of 2006, and August of
2007. Additionally, GeoScience has continued to be involved during street and utility construction to
observe and provide recommendations. These observations have determined that material excavated
from areas of the streets and utilities is suitable for lot fill. As described in EGR's July 14, 2008
memorandum, GeoScience will observe, report and provide. a final certification or recommendations
for all lot fill placed. The LDAP Amendments have been prepared in accordance with GeoScience's
recommendations.
SDC 26.070(2)
SDC 26.070(2) requires a grading plan report that include existing and proposed grades, details of the
terrain and area drainage, location of existing structures, direction of drainage flow and approximate
grade of streets, and finished contours to be achieved by grading.
The LDAP amendment site plans prepared by EGR & Associates include all of the required
information and are a refinement of the grading plan submitted with the tentative subdivision.
Specifically, these site plans show the lot area, future building envelopes, 5-fo'ot interval existing and
proposed contours, significant vegetation, and erosion control requirements. The proposed grading
activities will not alter the surface water drainage patterns and are consistent with the stormwater
management plan prepared for the development.
LDAP Amendments Hillside Development Conclusion
Submitted LDAP amendments are a refinement of the original subdivision and hillside development
approvals. The Owner and EGR have developed the LDAPamendments for consistency with the
underlying land use approvals and balancing the goals of the project.
25358 Prairie Road, Eugene, Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 668-8087
PRE.SUBMITIAt REC'D
JUL 3 ] 2009
.
.
Memorandum
Page 6 016
Summary
The submitted LDAP amendments will result in approximately 17,000 cubic yards of material
excavated from the public streets and utility construction to be safely placed on private lot areas.
Grading work will be consistent with the project geology reports and GeoScience will be providing
onsite recommendations, observations, reporting and fmal certifications or recommendations.
EGR has prepared the submitted LDAP amendments to be consistent with the underlying land use
approvals. The submitted amendments are a refinement of the conditionally approved tentative
grading plans. Twenty-two trees will be removed from outside of the public street and utility
construction. As demonstrated above, not more than five trees will be removed from outside of a
building envelope on any single lot. The proposed grading activities will not alter the surface water
drainage patterns as documented in the approved stormwater management plans. All disturbed areas
will be stabilized by the methods and schedule established for the LDAP.
If you have any questions, comments, or additional concerns please contact me at your. earliest
convenience.
PRE-SUBMITIAl REe'D
JUL 3 1 2009
25356 Prairie Road' Eugene. Oregon 97402. Phone (541) 688-8322. Fax (541) 688.8087
.
.
River Hei~hts Subdivision Conditions of ADDroval Matrix SUB2006-00006
Condition No. Aareement Easement Permit or Final Note
I'Subdivision) Required Required Report ReQ Part of PIP's Plat Addressed?
1 X ves SiQns and carkinQ restrictions
2 X ves Extend River Heiohts to east boundary of proiect
3 X ves Quarrv Ridne to Tax Lots 601 and 600
4 X X ves Transnortation reouirements of EDSPM 7.05
5 X nartial Annlication submitted tb the City planninq department on January 4 2007
6 X X X X nartial License issued bv UPRR City needs to execute.
7 X X X ves Sewer maintenance access to lots 1-12
8 X nartial CC&R's to be updated to unclude retrictions reQuirino oates.
9 X X nartial No private sewers proposed can be met at time of final olat.
10 X nartial Service orovided to 601 can't crovideservice to 802
11 X yes Steep sewer desian considerations
12 X yes Steep trench drainaoe
13 X ves Storm sewer service to Tax Lots 802 and 601
14 X NEEDED Maintenance aaeement for Tract A
.15 X yes Detention/stormwater desians
16 X yes Storm sewer desain to lots 45 and 46
17 X X NEEDED Private stormwater disoersion desian detail
18 X - X NA Stormwater collection swale desian detail lots 1-12
18a X X NEEDED Joint use/maintenance aareements for private storm sewers
19 X ves Maintenance access to detention ponds
20 X NEEDED Steeo storm sewer desiQn considerations
21 X nartial Storm sewer desian requirement
22 X ves SteeD trench drainane
23 X ves Hillside navement desiqn requirement
24 X ves Lot 19-27 drainaae reauirement
r . dVli HAL
'D
JUL 3 I 2009
.
.
Condition No. Aareement Easement Permit or Final Note
1Subdivision) Required Required Re~ort Re~1. Part of PIP's Plat Addressed?
25 X X yes Need to reference PI testina results.
26 x yes RWO overflow desian
27 X yes Veaetation nlantina alan for detention oonds
28 X yes Veaetation/erosion control reauirements
29 X yes Slonaae
,
30 X X X NEEDED RWD concurrence on easement overlaooina
31 X X NEEDED Tract A blanket drainaae easement
32 X X NEEDED Public drainaae easements over detention oonds
33 X X X NA EWES concurrence on easement overlaooina
34 X X NEEDED EWES easements to connect to RWD
35 X NA Vision clearance trianales
36 X X X X yes 404 Joint oermit for outfall into wetlands
37 X yes 40 feet af frantane to RWD
38 X yes Vision clearance trianales on Quarru Ridee Drive
39 X X yes Parkin;' restrictions to the RWD site
40 X NEEDED Fence costs around RWD site
PRE-SlJBMIITAI. REeD
JUL :I 1 2009
~, "
.
.
River Heiahts Subdivision Conditions of Approval Matrix SUB2006-00006
Condition No. Agreementl Easement Permit or I I Final I I Note
Subdivisionl Reauired I Required Report Rea I Part of PIP's I Plat I Addressed? I
1 X ves Sians and narkioa restrictions
2 X ves Extend River Heiahts to east boundaN'of oroiect
3 x ves Quarru Ridne to Tax Lots 601 and 600
4 X X ves Transnortation reauirements of EDSPM 7.05
5 X Dartial Aoolication submitted to the City olannina deoartment on Januarv 4 2007
6 X X X X oartial license issued bv UPRR City needs to execute.
7 X X X ves Sewer maintenance access to lots 1-12
8 X oartial CC&R's to be undated to unclude retrict/cns reouirina aates.
9 X X cartial No orivate sewers orooosed can be met at time of final olat
10 X oartial Service orovided to 601 can't orovide service to 802
11 X ves Steeo sewer desian considerations
12 X ves Steen trench drainaae
13 X ves Storm sewer service to Tax Lots 802 and 601
14 X NEEDED Maintenance aaeement for Tract A
15 X ves Detention/stormwater desians
16 X ves Storm sewer desain to lots 45 and 46
17 X X NEEDED Private stormwater disoersion desion detail
18 X X NA Stormwater collection swale desinn detail lots 1-12
18a X X NEEDED Joint use/maintenance anreements for private storm sewers
19 X yes Maintenance access to detention ponds
20 X NEEDED Steeo storm sewer des inn considerations
21 X partial Storm sewer desinn renuirement
22 X ves Steen trench drainane
23 X ves Hillside navement des ion reauirement
24 X yes Lot 19.27 drainaae reauirement -
rt(I::.~UDIVIIII,'\L I-<tL..
'D
JUL 3 1 2009
.- .
.
.
~
Condition No. Agreement Easement Permit or I I Final Note
(Subdivision) Reguired Required Re(lort Reg I Part of PIP's I Plat Addressed?
25 x X ves Need to reference PI testina results.
26 x ves RWD overflow desian
27 X ves Veoetation olantina clan for detention Donds
28 X ves Veoetation/erosion control reauirements
29 X ves Sianaae
30 X X X NEEDED RWD concurrence on easement overlaooina
31 X X NEEDED Tract A blanket drainaae easement
32 X X NEEDED Public drainaae easements over detention Donds
33 X X X NA EWES concurrence on easement overlaooino
34 X X NEEDED EWES easements to connect to RWD
35 X NA Vision clearance trianales
36 X X X X ves 404 Joint oermit for outfall into wetlands
37 X ves 40 feet af franlaae to RWD
38 X ves Vision clearance trianales on Quarrv Ridee Drive
39 X X ves Parkina restrictions to the RWD site
40 X NEEDED Fence costs around RWD site
PRE-SUBMIITAl REC'O
JUL 3 1 2009
.
.
Pre-Submittal Meeting
Development Services Department
Room 615/616
PRE-SUBMITIAL MEETING DATE: Friday, August 7, 2009
1. PRE-SUBMITI AL MTG #PRE2009-00021 (SUB PLAT) BREEDEN BROS $346
Assessor's Map: 17-02-30-00 TL 700, 800
Address: Marcola Rd & 42nd Street (Vitus Butte)
Existing Use: Vacant
The applicant submitted plans to plat a 57-lot subdivision, River Heights Subdivision
Meeting DatefTime: Friday, August 7, 2009 11:00 - noon DSD 616
Planner: Steve Hopkins .
PRE.SUBMI1TAl REC'D
AUG 3 2009