Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 7/14/2010 . .. c1~ RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JUL 14 2010 By:l16tu~~ ~~ I oPIS p~ STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of lane ) I, Karen laFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technici~n, I prepare~ and cause~ to b.e ' mailed copies of 506 . - OtJ00 - - Pfl/lli.,uw (See attachment nAn) on 2010 a dressed to (see ~:).., /.,. Attachment Bn), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with ~ 'I-- postage fully prepaid thereon. ~ ~ (~d-~ KAR N LaFLEUR STATE OF OREGON, County of lane ~ J 4- . 2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen laFleur, gram echnician, who acknowledged the foregoing. instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: . OfFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELLY .'. .. NOTARYPUBLIC.OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 My Commission Expires: . . SPRINGFIELD ~ ~OREGON TYPE n TENTATIVE PARTITION REVIEW, STAFF REPORT & DECISION Project Name: Dukes & Dukes Construction Partition Project Proposal: Partition one residential parcel into two residential parcels Case Number: SUB2010-00006 Project Location: 740-756 28th Street (Map ]7-03-36-11, Tax Lot#] 1300) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR (Metro Plan) Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: June 8, 20 I 0 Application Submitted Date: June 14,2010 Decision Issued Date: July 14,20]0 Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Appeal Deadline Date: July 29,2010 Natural Features: None Density: Approximately] 0 units per acre Associated Applications: DRC2005-00072; ZON201O-00002; PRE20]0-00008 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Proiect Mana"er Planning Andv Limbird 726-3784 Transnortation Planning Engineer Transoortation Jesse Jones 726-3720 Public Works Engineer Utilities Eric Walter 736-1034 Public Works Engineer Sanitarv & Storm Sewer Eric Walter 736-1034 Deouty Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safe;:; Gilbert Gordon 726-366] Commun~ Services Manal!er Buildinl! Dave Puent 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Owner! Applicant: Engineer: David & Laurie Dukes Dukes & Dukes Construction 2955 Yolanda Avenue Springfield, OR 97477 Applicant: Aaron Grimes, Sr Olson & Morris Engineering 380 Q Street, Suite 200 Springfield, OR 97477 Scott Morris, PE Olson & Morris Engineering 380 Q Street, Suite 200 Springfield, OR 97477 . . DECISION: Tentative Approval, with conditions, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Partition Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with findings and couditions necessary for compliance. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AS WELL AS THE FINAL PLAT, MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a limited land use decision made accordiug to City code and state statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully. (See Attachment A and Page II for a summary of the conditions of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC 5.1-130 and the partition criteria of approval, SDC 5.12-100. This application was accepted as complete on June 14,2010. This decision is issued on the 30th day ofthe 120 days mandated by the state. SITE INFORMATION: The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot comprising approximately 32,367 It' (0.74 acres). The property has frontage on 28th Street to the east. The subject property contains four existing duplex dwellings approved under Site Plan Review Case DRC2005-000n. The site is zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Metro Plan; the site is not within an adopted refinement plan area. The Assessor's description for the subject property is Map 17-03-36-11, Tax Lot 11300. Approval of the proposed partition would create two LDR parcels: one with frontage on 28th Street, and a 'second (rear) parcel that is accessed via an irrevocable joint access easement. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-day comment period on the application (SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. Procedural Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-1 ]5, notice was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on June 15,2010. No written comments were received. CRITERIA OF PARTITION TENTA TIVE APPROVAL: SDC 5.12-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Partition Tentative Plan application upon determining that criteria A through I of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the criteria, the Director shall deny the application. A. The request conforms to the provisious of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. Finding 1: Pursuant to SDC 3.2-215, parcels on north-south streets shall have a minimum parcel size of 5,000 square feet with 60 feet of street frontage. Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, proposed Parcel 2 exceeds the minimum requirements for parcel size and street frontage. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A. 2 . . B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding 3: The subject property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) by the Metro Plan diagram. The zoning of the property is LDR, consistent with the Metro Plan, and the applicant is not proposing to change the zoning designation. Conclusion: This proposal, satisfies Criterion B. C. Capacity requirements of public improvements, including bnt not limited to, water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater management facilities; and streets and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the public improvements shall be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otherwise provided for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director or a utility provider shall determine capacity issues. General Finding 4: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private professional civil engineer to design the partition improvements in conformance with City codes, this decision, and the current Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The private civil engineer also shall be required to provide construction inspection services. General Finding 5: City Building Permits are required for installation of private utilities. Developers are advised to obtain necessary City permits prior to initiation of construction activity. General Finding 6: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the proposed partition. City staffs review comments have been incorporated in fmdings and conditions contained herein. Staff advises that most of the applicable Code standards have been addressed through Site Plan Review approval DRC2005-00072. General Finding 7: Criterion C contains sub-elements and applicable code standards. The partition application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The sub-elements and code standards of Criterion C include but are not limited to: Public improvements in accordance with SDC 4.2-100 and 4.3-100 o Public and Private Streets (SDC 4.2-105 - 4.2-145) o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 4.3-105) o Stormwater Management (SDC 4.3-110 - 4.3-115) o Utilities (SDC 4.3-120 - 4.3-130) o Water Service and Fire Protection (SDC 4.3-130) o Public and Private Easements (SDC 4.3-140) Public and Private Streets Finding 8: Section 4.2-105.G.2 of the Springfield Development Code requires that whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and that development has any unimproved street frontage abutting a fully improved street, that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications. Exception (i) notes that in cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be required as a condition of Development Approval postponing improvements until such time as a City street improvement project is initiated. Finding 9: In accordance with SDC 4.2-105.G.2.a, when fully improved street right-of-way abuts the property line of the subject property, street improvements shall be constructed across the entire property frontage. 3 . . Finding 10: The subject property has frontage on 28th Street along the east boundary. Along the site frontage, 28th Street is developed as a 36-foot wide paved minor arterial street within a 50-foot wide right- of-way. Average daily traffic on this street is estimated to be 7,000 vehicle trips per day. The street provides one travel lane in each direction and a bi-directional center turning lane. The street is fully improved to urban standards with a. paved surface, curb and gutter, curbside sidewalks, and metal halide street lighting. Finding 11: In accordance with SDC 4.3-140, new street trees are required where development abuts public street rights-of-way. Where street trees cannot be planted in the right-of-way, existing trees in the front yard setback can be substituted for street trees in accordance with SDC 4.2-140.B. Maintenance of street trees on private property is the responsibility of the landowner. Finding 12: The applicant is required to plant street trees along the 28th Street frontage of Parcel 2 in accordance with the approved Final Site Plan (DRC2005-00072). Installation of street trees and other site landscaping is required prior to issuance of final occupancy for the duplex dwellings. Conclusion: As proposed, existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development in a safe and efficient manner. Sanitary Sewer Improvements Finding 13: Section 4.3-105.A of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve each new development and to cormect developments to existing mains. Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for maintenance activities. Finding 14: The applicant obtained site plan approval and installed sanitary sewer cormections to serve the development site in accordance with City building permit requirements. All associated public and private sanitary sewer easements have been provided already or are shown on the proposed partition plan. Therefore, sanitary sewer service requirements have been met. Finding 15: Staff observes that two "existing" sanitary sewer laterals are depicted as originating off-site from Tax Lot 11500 and cormecting with the 8-inch sanitary sewer line that runs east-west. along the northern boundary of the site. One lateral crosses near the midpoint of proposed Parcell, and the second passes to the south and west of the westernmost duplex dwelling. City staff was unable to confirm the presence of the "existing" sewer line passing along the south and west side of the duplex dwelling on proposed Parcel 1. For this reason, it is possible this second sewer lateral is shown in error. The applicant should verify the location of the correct "existing" sanitary sewer lateral serving Tax Lot 11500. Stormwater Management Oualitv Finding 16: Under Federal regulation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the City of Springfield is required to obtain, and has applied for, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. A provision of this permit requires the City to demonstrate efforts to reduce the pollution in urban stormwater to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Finding 17: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules require the City's MS4 plan to address six "Minimum Control Measures". Minimum Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stormwater Management for New Development and Redevelopment", applies to the proposed development. 4 . . . Finding 18: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to develop, implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MEP. The City also must develop and implement strategies that include a combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate for the community. Finding 19: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield to use an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to address post-construction runoff from new and re-development projects to the extent allowable under State law. Regulatory mechanisms used by the City include the SDC, the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the future Stormwater Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). Finding 20: As required in SDC 4.3-IIO.E, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent [with] the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manuaf'. Finding 21: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Public Works Department will accept, as interim design standards for stormwater quality, water quality facilities designed pursuant to the policies and procedures of either the City of Portland (BES), or the Clean Water Services (CWS). Finding 22: In accordance with the approved Final Site Plan for the site, the applicant is directing runoff from the paved driveway serving Parcels I and 2 to a valley gutter and filtering catch basin located in the driveway at the northwest corner of Parcel 2. Runoff from Parcels I and 2 will be directed to a grassy swale located at the southeast edge of the site. Both the stormwater filtering catch basin and the grassy swale tie in to a 10- inch stormwater line that connects to the public stormwater system in 28th Street. Finding 23: The on-site system that manages stormwater for proposed Parcels I and 2 will require a private joint-use access, maintenance and stormwater drainage easement to ensure it is adequately maintained and continues to serve its intended function. A maintenance agreement will be required for the grassy swale on Parcel 2 that manages stormwater originating from both parcels. Ouantitv Finding 24: Section 4.3-IIO.B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater management system provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the EDSPM. Finding 25: Section 4.3-110.0 of the SDC requires that runoff from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge. Finding 26: Section 4.3-11 O.E of the SDC requires new developments to employ drainage management practices that minimize the amount and rate of surface runoff into receiving streams, and that promote water quality. Finding 27: As noted above, the stormwater management systems have been approved under previous land use applications and permits; therefore, subject to the conditions noted herein, stormwater requirements have been met. Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to' or concurrent with recording of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a storm water drainage easement across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I. 5 . . 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a JOInt access and maintenance agreement for the stormwater management swale that is satisfactory to the City's Public Works Department. 3. Prior to or concurrent with recording of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record the joint access and maintenance agreement for the storm water management swale. Utilities Finding 28: Section 4.3-120.B of the SDC requires each developer to make arrangements with the utility provider to provide utility lines and facilities to serve the development area. Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Electric is the provider for electrical service to the subject property. Finding 29: The applicant is responsible for the cost of design and installation of utility lines and facilities. In accordance with SDC 4.3-125, all utility lines installed to serve the development area shall be placed underground. Utilities required to serve the duplex dwellings are to be installed in accordance with the approved Final Site Plan for the site (DRC2005-00072). Finding 30: There are existing overhead power lines that run along the entire southern and western boundary, and along a portion of the northern boundary of the site. The applicant is proposing to record a 5-foot wide utility easement to accommodate the power line and appurtenances. Water Service and Fire Protection Finding 31: Section 4.3-130.A of the SDC requires each development area to be provided with a water system having sufficiently sized mains and lesser lines to furnish adequate supply to the development and sufficient access for maintenance. SUB Water coordinates the design of the water system within Springfield city limits. All new water system facilities and modifications required to serve the proposed partition area must be placed in the public right-of-way and constructed in accordance with SUB Water standards. Finding 32: The water services required to ,serve the development area have been installed in accordance with the approved Final Site Plan (DRC2005-00072). The proposed utility easement described above also will accommodate SUB water service to the dwellings on Parcels I and 2. Finding 33: There is an existing fire hydrant located on the southwest corner of G Street at 28th Street, approximately 100 feet north of the subject site. Public and Private Easements Finding 34: Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments to make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility easements necessary to fully service the development or land beyond the development area. The minimum width for PUEs adjacent to street rights-of-way shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 7 feet unless the Public Works Director requires a larger easement to allow for adequate maintenance. Finding 35: The applicant is proposing to record a 7-foot wide PUE along the 28th Street frontage of the site. Finding 36: There is an existing variable-width public sanitary sewer easement that runs along the west 252 feet of the northern site boundary. The applicant is proposing to extend the easement area along the remaining portion of the northern site boundary - a distance of approximately 90 feet - to the eastern boundary of Parcel 2. 6 . . Finding 37: Three existing 10-foot wide L-shaped utility easements and a linear 10-foot wide utility easement run north-south within Parcels I and 2 and connect with the existing variable-width public sewer easement. The four north-south oriented utility easements accommodate offsite sanitary sewer connections from properties to the south of the subject area. Finding 38: As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to record a 5-foot wide utility easement along portions of the south, west and north boundary of the site to accommodate the existing overhead power lines and SUB water service to Parcels I and 2. Finding 39: The applicant is proposing to record a 10xl0-foot private utility easement near the midpoint of the south boundary of Parcel I to accommodate an existing sanitary sewer lateral originating in Tax Lot 11500. . Finding 40: The applicant is proposing to record a variable-width irrevocable access easement across the driveway and turnaround hammerhead that serves Parcels I and 2. Finding 41: Because stormwater originating in Parcel I is conveyed and managed on Parcel 2, a joint maintenance and stormwater management easement will be required across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel I (Condition I). Finding 42: The existing and proposed easements, and the stormwater drainage easement described in Condition I (above), should be adequate to serve the development area. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion C. D. The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicahle regulations. General Finding 43: Criterion D contains two elements with sub-elements and applicable Code standards. The partition application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each sub-element unless otherwise noted with specific fmdings and conclusions. The elements, sub-elements and Code standards of Criterion D include but are not limited to: D.I Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) o Parcel Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 3.2-215) o Height Standards (SDC 3.2-215) o Landscaping Standards (SDC 4.4-105) o Screening (SDC 4.4-110) o Fence Standards (SDC 4.4-115) o On-Site Lighting Standards (SDC 4.5-100) o Vehicle Parking Standards (SDC 4.6-100) D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements o The site is within the 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone for the Maia drinking water well. o The site is not within an adopted Refmement Plan area. D.1 Conformance with standards of SDC 3.2-200 (Residential Zoning), SDC 4.4-100 (Landscaping, Screening and Fence Standards), SDC 4.6-100 (Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards), and SDC 5.17-100 (Site Plan Review) 7 . . Parcel Coverage and Setbacks Finding 44: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing dwellings on Parcels I and 2. As proposed, the dwellings on both parcels meet the required building setbacks of the LDR District for interior lots. Height Standards Finding 45: In accordance with SDC 3.2-225, the maximum building height in the LDR District is 30 feet, except where modified by solar access standards. Building height was addressed through Site Plan Review for the duplex dwellings (Case DRC2005-00072). Landscaping Standards Finding 46: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, footnote (5), all building setbacks shall be landscaped unless the setback is for a garage or carport. A site landscaping plan was approved with the Final Site Plan (Case DRC2005-00072). Screening Finding 47: There is no requirement to install screening between comparable LDR parcels. Fence Standards Finding 48: The Development Code regulates the height and style of fencing in residential districts. However, there is no requirement for fencing between comparable LDR parcels. The applicant is not proposing to change the existing fences that run along the north and east property lines. Adjustment to the fence at the northeast corner of the sitc may be necessary to meet vision clearance triangle requirements. On-Site Lighting Standards Finding 49: It is not expected that outdoor residential lighting for the existing dwellings will cause light trespass onto adjacent properties. Vehicle Parking Standards Finding 50: In accordance with SDC 4.6-100, a minimum of two off-street parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. The off-street parking requirement for Parcels I and 2 are met by the single garages and designated surface parking spaces. The parking layout for the development area is depicted on the approved Final Site Plan (DRC2005-00072). Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D.I. D.2 Overlay Districts and Applicable Refinement Plan Requirements Finding 51: Development Review staff has reviewed the application in regard to the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District and Refinement Plan requirements. The subject site is within the mapped 5-10 year Time of Travel Zone for the nearest drinking water well (Maia wellhead). Because the proposal is a low-density residential development, there are no specific policies of the DWP Overlay District or the Metro Plan that apply to the partition. Finding 52: The developer and future landowner(s) is required to abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 through the building permits issued for dwellings on Parcels I and 2. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D.2. 8 . . E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility to flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas; wetlands; rock .outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be rpotectedeatures have been evaluated and protected .as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations. Finding 53: The site does not contain steep slopes or unstable soils. Finding 54: The site is not within an identified wetland area and does not contain significant trees or shrubs. Finding 55: The Metro Area General Plan, Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Map and the list of Historic Landmark sites have been consulted and there are no features needing to be protected or preserved on this site. If any artifacts are found during construction, there are state laws that could apply; ORS 97.740, ORS 358.905, ORS 390.235. If human remains are discovered during construction, it is a Class "c" felony to proceed under ORS 97.740. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion E. F. Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate vehicular traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety to avoid congestion; provide connectivity within the development area and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable regulations and comply with the ODOT access management standards for State highways. Finding 56: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 2-lot partition at a meeting on July 6, 2010. The existing driveway is sufficient to serve the proposed parcels. Transportation System Impacts Finding 57: Abutting the subject site to the east, 28th Street is a 36cfoot wide minor arterial street within a 50-foot wide right-of-way. The street is fully improved to urban standards with paving, curb and gutter, bi- directional center turning lane, and metal halide street lighting. Finding 58: Assumed development also may generate pedestrian and bicycle trips. According to the "Household" survey done by LCOG in 1994, 12.6 percent of household trips are made by bicycle or walking and 1.8 percent are by transit bus. These trips may have their origins or destinations at a variety of land uses, including this site. Pedestrian and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks, bicycle parking and bicycle lanes. Finding 59: The nearest regular transit bus service is provided by LTD Route #11 (Thurston / Springfield Station) operating along Main Street. Finding 60: Existing transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate the additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed partition should have no significant traffic impacts to the surrounding street system. Site Access and Circulation Finding 61: Installation of driveways on a street increases the number of traffic conflict points. A greater number of conflict points increases the probability of traffic crashes. SDC 4.2-l20.A.1 stipulates that each parcel is entitled to "...have an approved access provided..." 9 . . Finding 62: The access to the subject site will be provided by a 26-foot wide curb cut and driveway onto 28th Street. All four duplex dwellings within the development area will derive access from this driveway. Site access was reviewed at the time of Site Plan Review pursuant to Case DRC2005-000n. Finding 63: In accordance with SDC 4.2-130, vision clearance triangles with 10-foot triangular "legs" (as depicted in SDC Table 4.2-A) must be maintained at the comers of all site driveways. All obstacles between 2.5 and 8 feet above the established curb height must be kept out of the vision clearance area. Finding 64: Transportation staff conducted a site visit on June 11,2010 and observed a chain link fence with screening slats along the north property line. The fence encroaches within the vision clearance triangle for the site driveway. Reducing the height of the fence or removing the screening slats could address the vision clearance concerns. Finding 65: As proposed and conditioned herein, the existing facilities are adequate to meet the site access, driveway, and vision clearance ,requirementsofSDC 4.2-120 and 4.2-130. Condition of Approval: 4. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the comers of the site driveway in accordance with SDC 4.2-130, including but not limited to proper placement of fences, street trees and other features to ensure vision clearance areas are unobstructed. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F. G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can he accomplished as specified in this Code. Finding 66: There is no other property under the same ownership that can be further developed. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion G. H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this Code. . Finding 67: Adjacent land is currently developed with residential dwellings and has access to public streets. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion H. L Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city limits but within the City's urbanizable area and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the standards specified below shaD also apply. Finding 68: The property involved in this proposal is inside' the City limits. Therefore, this condition does not apply. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 1. CONCLUSION: The tentative partition, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria A-I of SDC 5.12-125. Portions of the proposal approved as submitted cannot be substantively changed during platting without an approved modification application in accordance with SDC 5.12-145. What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to one vear from the date of this letter to meet the applicable conditions of approval or Development-Code standards and to submit a Final Partition Plat. Please refer to SDC 5.12-135 & 5.12-140 for more information. THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE ]0 . . FINAL PLAT MUST BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY WITH THE TENTATIVE PLANS AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Final Plat is required to go through a pre-submittal process. After the Final Plat application is complete, it must be submitted to the Springfield Development Services Department. A separate application and fees will be required. Upon signature by the City Surveyor and the Planning Department, the Plat may be submitted to Lane County Surveyor for signatures prior to recording. No individual lots may be transferred until tbe plat is recorded and five (5) copies of the filed partition are returned to the Development Services Department by the applicant. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to or concurrent with recording of the Final Plat, the applicant shall execute and record a storrnwater drainage easement across Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcell. 2. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall prepare and submit a joint access and maintenance agreement for the storrnwater management swale that is satisfactory to the City's Public Works Department. 3. Prior to or concurrent with recording of the Final Plat, the applicant shall record the joint access and maintenance agreement for the storrnwater management swale. 4. The applicant shall provide and maintain adequate vision clearance triangle~ at the comers of the site driveway in accordance with SDC 4.2-130, including but not limited to proper placement of fences, street trees and other features to ensure vision clearance areas are unobstructed. Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Appeal: This Type 11 Tentative Partition decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a 15-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 10(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on July 29, 2010. Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird@cLsoringfield.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process. Prepared By: Encl: Attachment A - Tentative Partition Plan 11 . . Please be advised that the following is provided for information only and is not a component of the subdivision decision. FEES AND PERMITS Svstems Development Charges: The applicant' must pay applicable Systems Development Charges when building permits are issued for developments within the City limits or within the Springfield Urban Growth BoundaI)'. The cost relates to the amount of increase in impervious surface area, transportation trip rate, and plumbing fixture units (Springfield Code Chapter n, Article II). Some exceptions apply to Springfield Urban Growth areas. Systems Development Charges (SDCs) will apply to the construction of buildings and site improvements within the subject site. The Charges will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of permit issuance for buildings or site improvements on each portion or phase of the development. Among other charges, SDCs for park and recreation improvements will be collected at time of building permit issuance for a future house on Parcel 2, and would be based on theSDC policy'in effect at that time. Willamalane Park and Recreation District advises that the SDC for park and recreation improvements is presently $2,858 for each new single-family dwelling. Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment: Pay a Sanitary Sewer In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge in addition to the regular connection fees if the property or portions of the property being developed have not previously been assessed or otherwise participated in the cost of a public sanitaI)' sewer. Contact the Engineering Division to determine if In-Lieu-Of-Assessment charge is applicable. [Ord. 5584] Public Infrastructure Fees: It is the responsibility of the private developer to fund the public infrastructure required to provide utilities to the property. Other City Permits: . Building Permits - In addition to standard requirements, the developer shall abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 when submitting for building permits for the dwelling on Parcel 2. . Encroachment Permit or Sewer Hookup Permit - Required for working within a right-of-way or public easement. Example: a new tap to the public storm or sanitaI)' sewer, or adjusting a manhole. The current rate .is $139.50 for processing plus applicable fees and deposits. . Land & Drainage Alteration Permit (LDAP) - An LDAP will be required for new home construction. Contact the Springfield Public Works Department at 726-5849 for appropriate application requirements. Additional permits/approvals that mav be necessarv: . Plumbing Permit to install stormwater drain pipes and connect the future house to a drywell system . Electrical Permit . Division of State Lands (stormwater discharge, wetlands) . Department of Environmental Quality (erosion control, stormwater discharge, wetlands) . US Army Corps of Engineers (stormwater discharge, wetlands) 12 6L6-c;OS (TI>S) LLI>L6 HO 'Oi3I..:IaNIHdS '.LS" 6 -'~_. ~_._._._~Tr~C~~EHT A i-'. I d ! ~.. ~ ~' ~ ~~;:. , ~ ,: '':~'~-:~-'\rCI! : B! I: III~! I~~ i ~ ~ r!l~".-?1\." ~,,~:~, :::"1 ,.J7~" IlIil; h~ h ill ~ ~ ~IUk~!I - \ '.~?~'~~J ~ '~;-i i II I ~ 1 :E ....10 li" , . " - .'.",. Sf, .: .... ,," I !l'1 I S I Z ". ..', ,.' ~ -'...-' , . ... li .10. 0 . ~ . ~ ---- - -^- -- -.:/ . ~. -.. ~ a 0 r.......y-,C_J . -- ~ n IIII ,-g = ~ ';1 " I .=:: c; i...U n I -II" ~ If :I l! i ~ :: ~ Ii I 'I ri I I I a Q) -E ~ I ~~ ..., I I a:: :z .0 .. ',' U!l I !! ~i -* ~ ~ I ;~ :1~lIi ~~i .~ ---=-z- ~ I ! ,I !li!xiif;!I!lil : :~ ~ ! !l '- ~.I lira iii II' a .. ~al \ _ "," I lIiauuUCUBl1 II "i ':'~'l: !I~i' ; !I \\'Ifrr 'In' &1 I : ')'(,~'" \ i .Itl " I 11> I I '. · l. ' IQ ;'.':.bJ ....-:~Ui- . -;. / ~'.., n II ~ l. ~ I.Jflfo 61 ",:;. :~.'i.J Illt! I / ~ I I ((.1 '1'1 11 : ~I U' ' , i ~ :':i~'d------t---.. . / ::s I \ \ 0'''. I . ~:~~,:;'~.:'L~~_ 'I=-'-T- A IS, I - 'FJt~/--~-1 " ! i Ii! ! IIII ~'; ':1,:": it; I I I IItl b &' R II In '--'- ~;;illi]>I!I- -Lf~. -:.I;! !! II! li!i ~I!~ ! \ I ~~'':l~.~1 ~ ~: ,I il B ~I all I d ~ ",.,,;,!Ji;!JL -.J I I El @ I" I .~ ~~ III U " .J .. 'I - I a!! ,. lr "III 8' :',:'l~~:'-- ______J ..; ei .. II II = ~If~ ~ " ,'P", - b a I ~ II I "U iii ,-, -'~~-' I~ -V I i I I!I i iillll ! Ii;! li~ . i :~li 'i~ '_ !! !I! ,lii!!!l illlil '\,-;. ~--{-JF-~ 7' II! 11!lgl~ ,~;;;! 1I;ltll --...=...- L...- Ii .~"!l1!1 !!lrilra III III l! Ii r--~\~~/i?' {~' i~ ,- ~i; IjU!h !Ulil, Ii i!lt, ig I ~ I r -- J IIiU :~ -111';~II~I!iii;1 .!!;!i i: '~!Iir~~i f " ;t ~ II Ilhid!l!h!:i:~I~!!li;i~I!! !i II !; I t II : I i ~ IlllriUlrl -:UI!mi !li!;llcilee e, I ~-- -~-~ i i'" ~I~l~!. is.:~~lrll t &,v II IIi .=:- =----- .. - .-i! _h~tH i i=trin h ,''' -' I ;~i=~ .!:ft~ '~~lr~~!!~::!!!!~!!!!!:t~~I: , it =-~ .c::i ~:~~ ~ ~ <1~'!il i::: ~ ~ . t::: ~ '::::;"" II:: l::::l ~~!ol ~'!; ",,,;1:: ~~fo.:!ol~ ~... .:i!:; t::: ~~~f.ii ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~CIj~~ &.;; &::::l~!Oi:::::; "'~~ "';1: ...~ ~CIj .,: ,'-~ ,. - .' ',.. ',... . . "--...... _.-. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD; OR 97477 David & Laurie Dukes Dukes and Dukes Construction 2955 Yolanda Avenue Springfield, 6R 97~77 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Aaron Grimes, Sr Olson and Morris Engineering 380 Q Street. Suite 200 Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Scott Morris, PE Olson and Morris Engineering 380 Q Street, Suite 200 Springfield, OR 97477 ....~~C\....I\bu...