HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 5/26/2010
.
.
~~
RECEIVED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
MAY 26 2010
STATE OF OREGON)
)ss.
County of Lane )
y:~f!;iL$~
I () q f~
. I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say r follows:
1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the
Development Services Department, City of Springfield, O~egon.
2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I preplred and caused to be .
mailed copies of~Ub-1...Dlh- ~ ~{f(1'" Ii' 7'vJ; If/~ - PtUd. ~ - mc~
(See attachment "A") on l' . 010 addressed to (see ,
Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed i~ a U.S. mail box with
postage fully prepaid thereon.
~Li\~~
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
" 2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur,
Program echnician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrumeht to be their voluntary
act. Before me:
.,
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEVETTE KELLY
NOTARY PUBliC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011
);y~iflJjJfri
My Commission EXPires! '? /;S-/ II
I I
.
.
Notice of Decision - Partition Tentative Plan
.
Project Name: McKinney
Project Proposal: divide one lot into two parcels
Case Number: SUB2010-00002
Project Location: 6595 Main Street
Map and Tax lot: 17-02-34-44 TL 1200
Property size: 17,800 sf
Base Zone: MDR (Medium Density Residential)
Overlay District(s):
Metro Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Refinement PlanfDesignation:
Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: April 2, 2010
Application Submitted Date: April 8, 2010
Decision Issued Date: May 26, 2010
Appeal Deadline Date: June 10, 2010
Other Application(s): DRC2005-00007 (four-plex, two duplexes); SUB2008-00016 (partition).
,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENl REVI!':WTJ?AM
POSITION REVlEW OF
Project Manager
Plannlng
Transportation
Utilities, Sanitary &
Storm Sewer
Public Works
Deputy Fire Marshall
Fire and Life Safety
'1\PPLICANr'SDEVELOPMENT,REVIEW
,'. . :" _" ""',"'-"~',,.,"' 'c ;~""., '" ,:" :~j. < .": "-'... .;.y;" '''-'" . '-"';"h)$,;:',;. .c"'!;, '.,,,,. '" '. ""\1'
Owner/Applicant:
Andrea McKinney, Trustee
Shalace MB Arnor Trust, UA 6/28/02
PO Box 1352
Springfield OR 97477
Representative:
Renee Gough
Branch Engineering
310 Fifth Street
Springfield OR 97477
McKinney
Case Na. SUB20 I 0-00002
I
NAME
I
I
Steve Hopkins
I
I
Jon Driscoll
I
Gilbeh Gordon
I
I
','
PHONE
726-3649
726-3679
726-2293
Site:
McKinney
.
.
f
Case Na. SUB20 I 0-00002
2
.
.
I
Summary of proposal: The property has been divided into 3 parcels (5002008-00016). All
parcels are identified with a single tax parcel number (1200). This applitation will further
divide Parcell, which is most northern of the thr~e parcels. I
The northern half of tax lot 1200 has a delineated wetland, as well as a single-family detached
I .
house, a four-plex, and two duplexes, all of which take access from a driveway off Main Street.
These existing structure and associated site development, including thelrequired recreation
area, were approved in Site Plan Review case No. DRC 2005-00007. There are also two rights-
of-way that have been reserved for future dedication: Aster Street on th~ northern half of the
property, and Dogwood Street on the southern half of the property. Th~ property is
encumbered by a deed restriction prohibiting future development beyohd the existing
development until such a time as one or both of the rights of way are cdnstructed and provide
location street access to the southern half of the property.
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 approval are listed
herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifitally noted with findings
and conditions necessary for compliance. The Final Plat must confor~ to the submitted plans
as conditioned herein. This is a limited land use decision made according to city code and state
statutes. Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this documJnt carefully.
Other Uses Authorized by the Decision: None. Future development Jill 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,
the Tentative Plan Criteria of Approval, SDC 5.12-125, and the Lan~ Division Standards of
Article 5.12-100.
Procedural Findings:
. Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/ occupants within 300 feet of the subject property I allowing for a 14 day
comment period on the application (SDC Sections 5:1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant
and parties submitting written comments during the notice pbriod have appeal rights
and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. I
. Notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject
site on April 14, 2010. I
. On April 27, 2010, the City's Development Review Committe~ reviewed the proposed
plans. City staff's review comments have been reduced to findings and conditions only
as necessary for compliance with the Tentative Plan Criteria <If Approval contained in
SDC 5.12-125. This decision was issued on the 48th day of the 120 days mandated by the
state. I
. In accordance with SDC 5.12-145, the Final Plat shall comply with the requirements of
the SDC and the conditions imposed by the Director in this Idecision. The Final Plat
McKinney
Case No. SUB20 I 0-00002
3
.
.
otherwise shall be in substantial conformance with the tentative plan reviewed. Portions
of the proposal approved as submitted during tentative review cannot be substantively
changed during Final Plat approval.
Comments Received: The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the
notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. No
comments were received.
SDC 5.12-125 Tentative Plan Criteria
The Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Tentative Plan application upon
determining that all applicable criteria have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to
satisfy the approval criteria, the Director shall deny the application. In the case of Partitions
that involve the donation of land to a public agency, the Director may waive any approval
criteria upon determining the particular criterion can be addressed as part of a future
development application.
A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and
dimensions.
Finding: The proposed parcels comply with the dimensional standards of the MDR
(Medium Density Residential) Zone. Parcell contains 8400 sf with 84 feet of frontage to
Main Street. Parcel 2 contains 9400 sf. In accordance with SDC 3.2-220(B), access is by
an irrevocable access easement.
Finding: SDC 3.2-220 A.4. states that no more than four lots/ parcels or eight dwelling
units shall take primary access from one multiple panhandle driveway. The proposed
land division would result in the nine existing dwelling units taking primary access
from a multiple panhandle driveway. However, given that the driveway was approved
to serve nine dwelling units as part of Site Plan Review Case No. DRC2005-00007 and
the panhandle standards are only being triggered due to the division of the existing
developed land, SDC 3.2-220(A)(4) will not be applied to the subject land division.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(A).
B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement
Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. '
Finding: The Metro Plan designates this area as Medium Density Residential and the
site is zoned MDR.
Finding: This proposal will place the existing dwelling and four-plex on separate lots.
The proposal will not alter the existing density.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(B).
McKinney
Case No. SUB20 I 0-00002
4
.
.
C. Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not limited to,
water and electricity; sanitary sewer and stormwater managem1ent facilities; and streets
and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and the publif 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 Wotks Director or a utility
provider shall determine capacity issues.
Transportation System Impacts
Finding: Abutting the subject site to the north, Main Street (a major arterial) is a 66-foot
wide, five-lane street within 80 feet of right of way. The street isl,fully improved with
curb/ gutter, sidewalks and metal halide street lighting. Averagk daily traffic along this
street is estimated to be 20,000 vehicle trips per day. I '
Finding: Existing off-site transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate
additional trips that would be generated by the proposed development.
Finding: Sanitary sewer is already approved and installed unde~ previous applications
and permits; therefore, sanitary sewer service requirements are ket.
Finding: Storm water management systems have already been Jpproved and installed
under previous applications and permits; therefore, storm water requirements are met.
I
Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.'l2-125(C).
D. The proposed land division shall comply with all applicable public and private
design and construction standards contained in this Cod~ and other applicable
regulations. I
Finding: SDC Section 4.3-125 requires all utility lines to be placed underground,
I
including those lines serving existing dwellings. Overhead utilities for the parcel that
contains the existing single family dwelling will be placed unde~ground when that
parcel is redeveloped. The other parcel is currently served withl underground utilities.
Finding: Section 4.3-140.A of the SDC requires applicants prop~Sing developments
make arrangements with the City and each utility provider for the dedication of utility
easements necessary to fully service the development or land bJyond the development
area. The minimum width for public utility easements adjacent1to street rights of ways
shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility e~sements shall be 7 feet.
The plans submitted show compliance with this requirement.
Conclusion: The proposal 'complies with SDC 5.12-125(D).
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or
geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; sibtificant clusters of trees
and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and theirlassociated riparian areas;
wetlands; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of histqric and/or archaeological
significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and
390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law.
McKinney
Cose No. SU820 I 0-00002
5
.
.
Finding: The Natural Resources Study, the National Wetlands Inventory, the Springfield
Wetland Inventory Map, and the list of Historic Landmark Sites were consulted. No
historic or cultural resources have been identified on this site.
Finding: The Metro Plan and any applicable refinement plans, Water Quality Limited
Watercourses Map, State Designated Wetlands Map, Hydric Soils Map, Natural
Resources Map, Wellhead Protection Zone Map, FEMA Maps, Willamalane Park and
Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and the list of Historic Landmark sites have been
consulted, and there are features needing to be protected or preserved on the subject
property.
Finding: A wetland was delineated and Department of State Lands (DSL) permits were
obtained for the subject property as part of Site Plan Case No. DRC2005-00007. The
wetland, identified as M3 and not locally significant on the City's Local Wetland
Inventory, is located on the northern half of the property, south of the southernmost
existing dwelling units. Since the subject application involves only land division and no
actual structural development, no additional protection of the wetland is required at this
time beyond that which was previously required at the time of Site Plan Review.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(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: As per SDC 4.2-130, vision clearance triangles (shaped with 10 feet triangle
"legs" as shown in SDC Table 4.2-A) at the comers of.all site driveways must be
maintained, keeping all obstacles out of the area between 2.5 and 8 feet above the
established height of curb.
Finding: Transportation made a sight visit on April 26, 2010, and found a large address
sign in the vision clearance triangle.
Condition: Prior to approval of the plat, move the address sign as well as any other
trees, on-site vegetation, and/ or other obstacles to vision to maintain adequate vision
clearance triangles at the comers of the driveway per SDC 4.2-130.
Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(F).
G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be
accomplished as specified in this Code.
Finding: The remainder of the property contains wetlands and significant slopes. These
constraints significantly diminish the development opportunity on the remainder of the
property .
Finding: No evidence has been presented that the proposed partition will not preclude
further development of the property.
McKinney
Case No. SUB20 I 0-00002
6
.
.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(G).
H.
Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development
as specified in this Code. , I
Finding: The surrounding properties are developed with single family dwellings. The
proposed partition will not preclude further development of adj~cent properties.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(H).
I.
Where the Partition of property that is outside of the city limi,ts but within the City's
urbanizable area and no concurrent annexation application is submitted, the
standards specified below shall also apply.
Finding: The site is inside the city limits.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(1).
J.
Where the Subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is
proposed, the following approval criteria apply: I
Finding: This is not a subdivision of a manufactured home parkl.
Conclusion: The proposal complies with SDC 5.12-1250).
DETERMINATION: Based on the evidence in the record, the Director determines the
proposal complies with SDC 5.12-125(A)-(J), subiect to the Conditiorts of Approval attached
to this report. I
What Needs To Be Done? I
SDC 5.12-140 states: The subdivision Plat pre-submittal meeting shall be held within 1 year
of the date of Tentative Plan approval (the date of this letter). The m~lars and application fee
shall be submitted within 180 days of the pre-submittal meeting. if the applicant has not
submitted the Partition Plat within these times, Tentative Plan app~oval shall become null
and void and re-submittal of the Tentative Plan shall be. required. I
A Final Plat application is charged upon submittal of the complete application and all required
documents, and after all conditions of approval are met, including t1l.e construction of public
and private improvements and extension of utilities required through this decision. Upon
signature by the City Surveyor and the Planning Manager, the Plat mylar may be submitted to
Lane County for recordation. No individual lots may be transferred Until the Plat is recorded
and the mylar copy of the filed Partition is returned to the City Surv~yor.
Summary of Conditions of Approval I
Condition: Prior to approval of the plat, move the address Si~ as well as any other
trees, on-site vegetation, and/ or other obstacles to vision to maintain adequate vision
clearance triangles at the comers of the driveway per SDC 4.2-130.
McKinney
Case No. SUB2010-00002
7
.
.
. .
Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the
applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are
available for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield,
Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Tentative decision 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, Section 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(B) 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 June 10, 2010.
Questions: Please call Steve Hopkins in the Planning Division of the Development Services
Department at (541) 726-3649 if you have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared by:
5~
Steve Hopkins, AICP
Planner II
Development Services - Urban Planning Division
McKinney
Case No. SUB2010-00002
8
f . ...
..
,
, ,.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
>
SPR'NG""D~
~-t;J:I"'[~'.']:/~ ,
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ~ ~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
.
Andrea McKinney, Trustee
Shalace ME Arnor Trust, UA 6/28/02
PO BOx 1352
Springfield. OR 97477
Renee Clough
Branch Engineering
310 Fifth Street I
Springfield, OR 974777