HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 4/7/2006
)'
'.
.,
"
-.
.
J)~~
>
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON)
) ss.
County of Lane )
I. Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Clerk III for the Planning Division of the Development Services
Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2,_1 stateAhaUn my_CaDacit~s lerk III. I prepared and caused to be mailed copies
~ '" .-:>~"""" -~'47'd-~""'~ - · 8.oo",A...4,,~
of....J .~.... .. J _co. ""'5 Tf;tU\tSee attachment "A") on
A l. ' 2006 addressed to (see Attachment B"). by causing said letters to be
placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon.
~~cX~~'
KAREN LaFLEUR \..
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ 1 ,.2006. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Clerk III,
w 0 acknowledged the foregOIng Instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: .
~'mM(J
My Commission Expires: 1111l-log
, I
Date Received: 1{ -1- Dh
Planner: .J P
OFFICIAL SEAL
. SANDRA MARX
.. .. NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
'......-' COMMISSION NO. 385725
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 12, 2008
1lf11U rf6 ~
I of'L4 p~
, I
"
.
.
.
TYPE II TENTATIVE SUBDIVSION REVIEW,
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
SPRINGFIELD
Case Number: SUB2005-00047
Project Name: Legacy Estates Subdivision
Project Proposal: Subdivide one 5.4 acre parcel into 20 residential lots in north Springfield,
Project Location: 3825 16th Street, in
Springfield. (LC Map 17-03-24-31 TL 500)
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR
Associated Applications: PRE2005-00036,
Flood Plain Development SHR2005-0008,
Annexation LRP2004-00032. .
Application Date: September 19,2006
Date of This Decision: April 7, 2006
Appeal Deadline: April 19, 2006
Site Information: The subject site is a flat to gently rolling 5.4 acre parcel of property located at
3285 16th Street, in Springfield. The historical use of the site and surrounding properties was
,filbert orchards and pasture. The property is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) according to
the City of Springfield Zoning Map and is designated LDR on the Metro Plan. Properties to the
east of the subject site are also zoned and designated LDR. Properties to the south and west are
zoned LOR hut are not annexed; property to the north is outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
The northerly fringe ofthe subject site is within the 100 year flood plain ofthe McKenzie River
according to Flood Insurance Rate Map # 41 039C 1153F (See concurrent Flood Plain
Development SHR2005-00008). The subject site has access to public street rights of way at the
tennini of 16th, lth and Vera Streets. '
Decision: Tentative Plan approval, with conditions, as ofthe date of this letter, The
standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of
Subdivisio,n Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes
unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The
submitted tentative plans and the conditions contained herein constitute the tentative
decision. This is a limited land use decision made according to city code and state statutes.
Unless appealed, the decision is final. Please read this document carefully.
OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THIS LETTER: None. Future development will be in
accordance with the provisions ofthe SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable
state, local, state and federal regulations.
.
.
.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
PHONE
736-3660
726-4585
736-1035
726-2293
726-3668
. APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION NAME PHONE MaHin!' Address
Owners: Joe & Patricia Proden 541.746.2134 2290 Hayden Bridge Road
Snrinllfield, OR 97477
Applicants: David Corey 541.338.3316 3956 Mirror Pond Way
Corey Devt. LLC Eugene OR 97408
Consulting Scott Goebel PE 541.687.0542 1762 W. 20d Ave
PLS/CE: Goebel Engineerinu Eugene, OR 97402
Legal Counsel: Bill Kloos 541.3438596 375 W 4'" Street, Ste. 204
Eugene OR 97401
REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type II procedures listed in SDC
3.080 and the subdivision criteria of approval, SDC 35.050. This application was accepted as
complete on September 19,2005. The ORS 120 day timeframe for limited land use decisions was
stayed and extended to May 9,2006 by request of the applicant. This decision is issued with
days of the ORS 120 day time frame remaining.
. WRITTEN COMMENTS
Procedural Finding: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of
.property owners/occupants withiti 300 feetofthe proposed development allowing for a 14 day
comment period on the application (SDC 3.080 and 14.030). 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 3.080 and 14.030, notice (including reduced images.
of the proposal and references to the criteria of approval) was sent to owner/occupants within 300
feet of the subject site on Sept. 28, 2005 and February 22,2006 following the submittal of
additional information to the file by the applicants. Letters were received from the following
parties:
I) Arlen & Marciel Kopperud, 3238 16'h Street, Springfield, OR 97477; 2 Letters: October
13,2005 (with photocopy of boundary survey) and March 9, 2006.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
2
"
.
.
2) Mrs. Gail (Zilkoski) Combs, 1536 Vera Sireet, Springfield, OR 97477; 2 Letters:
October 13, 2005 (with family history of property including irrigation well adjacent
subject site), and March 9, 2006 (including previous history attachment.)
3) Doug Wilkinson, Attorney for the Combs, Thorp Purdy Jewett Urness & Wilkinson,
lOll Harlow Road, Ste. 300, Springfield OR 97477, October 13,2006 (Family History
Attached).
4) Scott Lawson, 2625 17'h Street, Springfield, OR 97477, Via Email, October 6, 2005.
5) Ken & Myrna Hodgkinson, 2587 17th Street, Springfield OR 97477, October II, 2005
The complete transcripts are made a part of this decision by reference and are available for review
at the City of Springfield Planning Division. The residents expressed legitimate concernS
regarding I) public right of way condemnation, 2) public and private ground water protection,
3) impacts of increased density on the surrounding area, 4) safety of proposed street designs,
5) capacity of public sewer facilities, and 6) flooding. The neighborhood concerns are addressed
below:
I) Public Right of Way Condemnation (Combs, Wilkinson, Kopperud)
Staff Response: As stated under Criterion of Approval #8 of this decision, the properties to
the west are not ann~xed to the City of Springfield. A 2/3 street section along 161h Street and a
full street stub at Vera Street are provided for future development. TIle City has deternlined
that no westerly connection to Vera Street is proposed or required to serve the subdivision
proposed at this time. Annexation and land development within the City of Springfield is
done by property owner request. Development of properties to the west will be in accordance
with the Conceptual Local Street Plan Diagram and street construction requirements in effect
at the time an annexation and development request is received from the owners of that
property. The adjacent property will not be annexed and developed without the pernlission of
the property owner.
2) Public and Private Groundwater Protection (Combs, Kopperud)
Staff Response: The existing irrigation well is not constructed to current standards ofthe
Oregon Water Resources Department for structural integrity or groundwater protection. The
well was also constructed or located next to a property line, a practice inconsistent with
standard well construction principles (see "A Consumer's Guide to Water Well Construction,
Maintenance and Abandonment" Oregon Water Resources Department 2004).
The proposed subdivision is a pennitted use in the residential districts of the City of
Springfield subject to compliance with adopted development standards. The applicant
proposes to make street and utility connections to existing and planned public facilities. The
City Engineer has deternlined that the proposed improvements shown on the tentative plans
can be reasonably conditioned to meet the standards of this code and the Engineering Design
Standards Manual under Criteria 3 of this approval. The City Engineer and the Director also
determined that the well (in its current location and condition) is entitled to consideration and
protection under SDC 32.100 and ODEQ requirements. The Director and the City Engineer
have determined that a specific performance based condition which meets SDC 32.100 and
the ODEQ regulations will provide reasonable protection for the well and public facilities and
allow the proposed development to move forward. (See Condition 19 of this report on page'
18).
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
3
.
.
Ultimately, the solution that offers the best protection for the well and the proposed public
. improvements is one that cannot be required pursuant to adopted regulations. The applicant
and the well owners could agree to relocate the well through a private agreement. According
to the Oregon Water Resources Department, a new well meeting current structural and water
quality protection standards could be drilled to a similar depth for approximately $1500-
$3,000. The applicant has stated that he is open to discussion. This alternative is suggested
and strongly encouraged by the City of Springfield. .
3) Impacts ofIncreased Density on the Surrounding Area (Lawson, Hodgkinson,
Staff Response:
Density: The proposal would result in the creation of20 residential lots on 5.4 acres within
the City of Springfield. The Director and the City Engineer have deternlined that, as
conditioned herein, the application complies with the Criteria of Tentative Subdivision
Approval adopted by City Council. The number and size oflots discussed conceptually for
the limited purposes of service availability during annexation procedures (14) and' the number
tentatively proposed and approved by this decision (20) are both within the adopted density
range for the Low Density Residential District (I-I Q). The number oflots approved is
considerably less than the maximum allowable density (50 lots).
Schools: The school district is notified of proposed subdivision during development review
procedures. No comments or concerns were received from the school district in response to
notification. Increases in the number of students generally increases federal funding for the
schools; the school district then determines when new or expanded schools are warranted.
Endangered Species: The wood duck is not listed as an Endangered Species as defined by
the Endangered Species Act according.to the us Department ofFish and Wildlife.
Screening: A request was received for screening along the south boundary of the site.
Review of air photos and field inspections indicate the majority of properties surrounding the
subject site have solid fences or chain link fences with landscape screening. Considering the
surrounding uses and lot sizes, the proposed subdivision is not a land use conflict or
significant adverse visual impact to other single family residential properties and residents.
Perimeter fencing would disturb more existing fencing and landscaping than it would
provide. However, the temporary impacts of right of way construction on surrounding
neighbors will be addressed with construction practices required to reduce noise, dust and
other identified impacts.
4) Safety of Proposed Street Designs (Combs, Kopperud, Lawson)
Staff Response: The Fire Marshall, the City Engineerand the Transportation Engineer have.
reviewed the submitted plans for street design and traffic control. As conditioned herein to
make street connections within existing rights of way, restrict parking, and limit circulation,
the partial street width connection at 16th Street can be made in a safe manner with the
available right of way. All existing private driveway access points will be maintained on 16th
Street with designs approved by the City of Springfield and Lane County. No off-site
intersection improvements were deemed necessary. The Fire Marshall, the City Engineer and
the Transportation Engineer have determined that the proposal meets the Criteria of Tentative
. Subdivision Approval adopted by the City Council as contained in SDC 35.050.
. Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
4
.
.
5) Availability and Capacity of Public Sewer Facilities ( Kopperud, Lawson)
Staff Response: Storm water and sanitary sewer systems have been reviewed and approved
with conditions by the City Engineer to protect the proposed improvements and the
surrounding public and private systems during all operations (See Conditions of Approval #8-
16 contained in this report.) The proposed systems will be guaranteed with construction
bonding during Public Improvement Plan procedures; surrounding systems serving Grand
View Estates and the subject site are slated for construction in August 2006. As part of the
Annexation Agreement signed for the subject site, no new structures will be occupied prior to
connection with an operational system.
6) Flooding
Staff Response: A concurrent Flood Plain Development Pem1it Application has been.
reviewed and approved with conditions (SHR2005-00008). The City Engineer preliminarily
finds that proposed filling of the FEMA flood plain will not increase the water surface
elevation of the base flood by more than one foot at any point. The Engineer of Record shall
prepare an analysis of fill within the flood plain revised to reflect fill amounts approved
during review of construction permits and plans. The analysis shall be used to track the
cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and
anticipated development.
CRITERIA OF SUBDIVISION TENT A TIVE APPROVAL:
SDC 35.050 of the Springfield Development Code states that The Director shall approve or
approve with conditions a Subdivision Tentative Plan application upon determining that criteria
(I) through (8) of this Section have been satisfied. If conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the
criteria, the Director shall deny the application. .
Procedural Finding: Criteria of Subdivision Approval listed below are satisfied by the submitted
plans unless specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. Final Plats
and public and private improvement plans must conform to the provisions of the Springfield
Development Code and the submitted tentative plans as approved and conditioned herein. The
submitted
. Procedural Finding: On , the City's Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed
tentative plans ( 7 Sheets, Goebel Engineering dated September 8, 2005 and supporting
information received September 19, 2005; additional information received February 1,2006 and
reviewed with staff and affected agencies). City staffs review comments have been reduced to
findings and conditions only as necessary for compliance with the Subdivision Criteria of SDC
35.050.
(1) The request conforms to the requirements of this Code pertaining to lot size and
dimensions.
Lot Sizes and Frontage.
Finding: The application is for a residential subdivision in the LDR District. SDC Section
16.030 provides minimum lot size and dimension standards for residential lots.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
5
.
.
Finding: All lots proposed within the subdivision exceed the minimum standards of SDC
16.030. The proposed density is approximately 4 lots per acre, which is within the
allowable density range of 1-10 units per acre for the Low Density Residential District
(SDC 16.010).
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 1.
(2) The zoning is consistent with tbe Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement
Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan.
Finding: The Springfield zoning for this property is Low Density Residential. It is
designated Low Density Residential in the Metro Plan. The Plan and the local zoning
designation are consistent indicating no conflict. No change to the zoning designation or
-boundaries is proposed.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 2.
(3) Capacity requirements of public improvements, iucluding but not limited to, water
and electricity; sauitary sewer aud storm water management facilities; aud streets
and traffic safety controls shall not be exceeded and tbe public improvements shall
be available to serve the site at the time of development, unless otberwise provided
for by this Code and other applicable regulations. The Public Works Director ora
utility provider shall determine capacity issues.
General Finding: For all public improvements, the applicant shall retain a private
professional civil engineer to design the subdivision improvements in conformance with
City codes, this decision and the current Engineering Design Standards Manual. The
private civil engineer shall also be required to provide construction inspection services.
General Finding: The Public Works Director's representatives have reviewed the
proposed subdivision. City staffs review comments have been incorporated in findings
and conditions contained herein. Except where noted below, the proposed public and
private inlprovements are sufficient to serve the proposedparcels.
General Finding: Criterion 3 contains elements with applicable code standards. The
subdivision application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each
element unless otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements and
code standards of Criterion 3 include but are not limited to:
Public and Private Improvements in Accordance with SDC 31 and 32
o Public Streets and Related Improvements (SDC 32.020-32.090)
o Sanitary Sewer Improvements (SDC 32.100)
o Storm Water Management (SDC 32.110, 31.240)
- 0 Water and Electric Improvements (SDC 32.120(1))
o Fire and Life Safety Improvements (SDC 32.120(3))
o Public imd Private Easements (SDC 32.120(1) and (5))
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
6
.
.
Streets
Finding: Approval of this proposal would allow platting of a 20-lot residential
subdivision on property located at 3285 161h Street (Map 17 03 24 31, Tax Lot 500). The
development site is approximately 5.42 acres situated north of the dead ends of 16th and
I ih Street, and is abutted on the east by the dead end of Vera Street.
Finding: Abutting the subject site, Vera Street is a 32-foot wide fully improved city street
in a 50-foot wide right of way and is classified as a local street.
Finding: Both e~isting sections of 161h and I ih Streets are outside the Springfield city
limits and are Lane County Roads. Each street currently serves six to seven residences,
and existing traffic volumes are estimated to be less than 80 trips per day. The existing
section of I ih Street is a 32-foot wide local street in a 50-foot wide right of way and is
improved with paving, curb and gutter only. The existing section of 161h Street is a 32-
foot wide local street in a 60-foot wide right of way and is improved with paving, curb
and gutter only.
Finding: Based on ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Detached Housing), trip
generation from the 20 dwelling units allowed by this subdivision would be as follows:
. Average Weekday = 20 dwelling units x 9.57 trips per dwelling unit = 191
trips,
. PM Peak Hour = 20 dwelling units x 1.0 I trips per dwelling unit ~ 20 trips.
In addition, the assumed development would 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 use. Pedestrian
and bicycle trips create the need for sidewalks, pedestrian crossing signals, crosswalks,
bicycle parking and bicycle lanes.
Finding: The applicant proposes to extend existing streets into and through the
subdivision as follows:
. 171h Street would be extended approximately 440 feet northward as a 28-foot
wide street in a 50-foot right of way,
. Vera Street would be extended approximately 120 feet westward as a 32-foot
wide street in a 50-foot right of way, forming a TEE intersection with 17th Street,
. 161h Street would be extended approximately 420 feet northward as a 22.33-foot
wide, one way partial street in a 33.33-foot right of way, and
. Vera Street would be extended approximately 250 feet to connect the north ends
of 161h and 1 ih Streets.
. The proposed streets would form a loop system through the subdivision and provide all
subdivision lots with street access via full street frontage.
Finding: Only the easternmost 30 feet of the existing 161h Street right of way abuts the
south boundary of the development site; the western 30 feet of right of way abuts an .
adjoining parcel, which takes direct access to the street dead-end at that location. The
combination of restricted right of way and adjacent driveway operations makes it
necessary to extend 161h Street across the property boundary in a manner that would serve
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005.00047
7
.
.
the subdivision, provide adequate emergency services access, and maintain safe driveway
operations. The applicant proposes a design that would:
. Restrict subdivision traffic to entrance (northbound) only via a 12-foot wide lane
along the east side of 16th Street,
. Construct a mountable island along the west side of 16th Street, which
emergency services vehicles could drive over as' necessary, and
. Revise the aligrunent of drivewa~s serving adjacent properties.
Finding: As conditioned below, existing and planned transportation facilities would be
adequate to accommodate additional trips that would be generated by the proposed
development in a safe and efficient manner:
Condition 1: Applicant shall install painted markings and/or si!,'l1ing as necessary to
implement any parking restrictions required by the Fire Marshall.
Condition 2: Final design of street improvements at the 16th Street entrance to the
subdivision shall be ",ithin public rights of way and shall be subject to approval of both
the Springfield Traffic Engineer and Lane County Traffic Engineer.
J
Condition 3: The applicant shall acquire right of way improvement pelmits from Lane
County for construction activities within the abutting 16th Street and 17th Street public
rights of way.
Public and Private Easements
Finding: Section 32.120 (3) of the Springfield Development Code 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. Springfield Utility Board coordinates the design of the water system within
Springfield city limits.
Finding: Section 32.120 (5) of the SDC requires applicants proposing developments
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 public utility easements adjacent to street rights of ways
shall be 7 feet. The minimum width for all other public utility easements shall be 14 feet.
Finding: The applicant has proposed 7 foot public utility easements along the frontage of
the proposed streets within the subdivision, satisfying Section 32.120 ofthe SDC.
Additionally, a 14 foot public utility easement has been proposed between the property
lines of lots 7 and 10, and 8 and 9, to accommodate the proposed public sewer line.
Finding: The applicant has proposed a 40 foot Public Drainage Easement to cover the
proposed open channel drainage swale and associated 48 inch piped system located on
tax lot 400. The signed and recorded annexation agreement states that the easement
width for the open channel portion of the storm water system shall be determined based
upon the design width of the channel plus 10 feet on one side and 25 feet on the other
side to accommodate maintenance and access by City personnel and equipment.
Finding: The proposed 24 inch storm pipe exiting the subdivision to the north (between
lots 16 & 17) is shown to be located in a proposed 20 foot public utility easement. This
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
8
.
.
storm line will connect to the existing manhole located on tax lot 400. Maintenance
access to the existing manhole on tax lot 400 will be required such that routine
maintenance at the manhole can be accommodated. Thus, an access way, sufficient to
support maintenance vehicles, will be required, but has not been proposed.
Finding: Section 4.07.D of the City's EDSPM requires that access roads or other suitable
access ways formaintenance purposes shall be provided when channels do not about
public right-of-way. Thus, an access way, sufficient to support maintenance vehicles,
will be required, but has not been proposed.
Finding: The existing 24 inch storm water line located on the southeastern property line of
tax lot 400 is shown to be located within an existing 14 foot public utility easement.
Documentation for this easement has not been provided, and City records do not verify
an easement in this location.
Condition 4: Prior to approval ofthe Final Plat, the applicant shall revise the proposed
40 foot Public Drainage Easement to comply with Section 1.4.3 of the signed and
recorded annexation agreement (recording number 2005-020292). Specifically, the
drainage easement shall be modified for the section surrounding the proposed open
channel swale.
. Condition 5: Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plan, the applicant shall
provide a maintenance access road, located within the proposed 20 foot PUE between lots
16 & 17, to the existing storm water manhole located on tax lot 400, sufficient to
accommodate Public Works maintenance vehicles.
Condition 6: Prior to approval ofthe Public Improvement Plan, the applicant shall
provide a maintenance access way, consistent with section 4.06.D of the City's EDSPM,
located within and along the entirety of the public easement for the open channel swale
and 48 inch storm pipe, sufficient to accommodate maintenance vehicles. The access
road shall have a turn around located at the end of the road.
.Condition 7: Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit documentation
verifying the 14 foot public utility easement for the existing 24 inch storm water pipe
located on tax lot 400 has been recorded. If this easement has not been recorded, the
applicant shall be prepare the easement and record it ~ith the Final Plat. .
Sanitarv Sewer.
Finding: Section 32.]00 of the SDC requires that sanitary sewers shall be installed to.
serve each new development and to connect developments to existing mains.
Additionally, installation of sanitary sewers shall provide sufficient access for
maintenance activities.
Finding: TIle applicant has proposed extension of an 8 inch public wastewater line with
service laterals to serve all lots within the development. The connection to the existing
public system is at the proposed street connection of Vera Street. TIle existing system in
Vera Street is a "dry" system.
Finding: The applicant has signed an annexation agreement ""ith the City of Springfield
(recording number 2005-020292). It is identified in this agreement that the existing
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
9
.
.
public sewer system in Vera Street is not connected to the remainder of the public
sanitary sewer system, and is therefore not useable until such time.
Finding: Per the annexation agreement, the City of Springfield plans to construct.
necessary sanitary sewer services, including a lift station, a sewer main in Vera Street,
and a sewer main in 19th Street, to connect the proposed development to the public sewer
system. These improvements are planned to be placed into service in August, 2006, but
the .City does not warrant or guarantee that se~ice will be available by that date.
Finding: Section 2.02.1 of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual (EDSPM) states that when land outside a new development will logically direct
flow to sanitary sewers in the new development, the sewers shall be public sewers and
shall normally extend to one or more ofthe property boundaries. The applicant has
proposed extension of an 8 inch public sewer line to the southerly property boundary in.
both 161h and 171h Streets.
Condition 8: As required by the City and agreed to by the applicant in the signed
annexation agreement (recording number 2005-020292), issuance of building permits for
construction of dwellings on the property will be withheld until such time as the
downstream sewer improvements have been constructed and placed into service by the
City.
Stomlwater Management
Finding: Section 32.110 (2) of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant
development approval only where adequate public and/or private stormwater
management systems provisions have been made as detemlined by the Public Works
Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM).
'Finding: Section 32.110 (3) of the SDC states that a stonnwater management system shall
accommodate potential run-off from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or
outside of the development. Per the signed and recorded annexation agreement (2005-
020292), the applicant is responsible to construct a public storm water management
system to collect, treat, convey and discharge stormwater from the subject property and
all upstream tributary areas.
Finding: Section 32.110 (4) of the SDC requires that run-Off from a development shall be
directed to an approved stonnwater management system with sufficient capacity to
accept the discharge. Section 32.110 (5) ofthe Springfield Development Code (SDC)
. requires new developments to employ drainage management practices, which minimize
the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote
water quality.
Finding: To comply with Sections 32.110 (3), (4) & (5) of the SDC, and the annexation
agreement, storm water runoff from the site will be directed into a series of curb inlets,
pipes, and a large vegetative water quality swale prior to discharge into a tributary slough
ofthe McKenzie River. Runoff from the streets will discharge into the existing 24 inch
public stoml pipe on tax lot 400 prior to entering the swale.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
10
.
.
Finding: The off-site improvements associated with the public storm water system for this
subdivision include construction of a large water quality swale, a drainage swale, and a
48 inch stom1 pipe. The proposed swales wip be located along the south and west
property lines of tax lot 400'. The water quality swale will transition into the drainage
swale after approximately 100 feet from the subdivision outfall. Due to topOh'Taphic
constraints, the drainage swale will discharge into the 48 inch pipe system prior to
crossing Harvest Lane and entering the slough.
Finding: The City of Springfield provides routine maintenance for storm water quality
features (i.e. swales) that drain water from public rights-of-ways. Maintenance
performed is for "functionality" to ensure a properly working system; aesthetic
maintenance is not provided. As part of the Public Improvement Plan process, the
applicant will be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, whereby
the City will provide routine functional maintenance of the proposed swale.
Finding: The proposed elevation of the 48.inch piped system outfall into the slough
(north of Harvest Landing) is shown to be 435.67 feet per submitted plans: The 100-year
floodplain elevation as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) # 1153 of 2975
is approximately 450 feet in elevation. In a separate study prepared by David Evans and
adopted by the City of Springfield (McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment), the 100-
year floodplain elevation is shown, at approximately 446 feet. For the purposes of
satisfying article 27 of the Springfield Development Code (Floodplain Overlay) for
building construction, the applicant shall be required to use floodplain information based
on the FIRM map.
Finding: Infoffi1ation contained in the McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment shows the
approximate elevation of the McKenzie River to be 445 feet during a 10-year flood event.
The flow line at the 48 inch piped outfall is shown to be 435.67 feet per submitted plans.
The proposed flow line where the swale enters the 48 inch pipe is 436.77 feet. The swale
is proposed to be 2 feet deep, bringing the top of the swale to approximately 438.77 feet.
In the event the McKenzie River water level is higher than 438.77 feet, water from the
River will drain into and onto tax Jot 400, and then onto adjacent private properties.
Finding: A backflow preventer or equal will keep water from the McKenzie River out of
the proposed public system, but does not serve to drain the public system into the river
when river levels are high. To ensure adequate drainage of the public system to the river
during periods of high water, the water surface elevation of the public system needs to
build up to an elevation higher than the river water surface (to create a pressure
difference to drain the runoff). This will not occur with the swale as proposed, because
the swale depth is only 2 feet in elevation, leaving water to flow out of the swale when
the water depth is greater than 2 feet.
Condition 9: At the time of PIP review and prior to Final Plat, the applicant shall enter
into a maintenance agreement with the City of Springfield, whereby the City will provide
routine maintenance for functionality of the grassy swale/detention pond serving the
subdivision. The City will provide the template for the maintenance agreement.
Condition 10: During the PIP design process, the applicant shall install a backflow
prevention system acceptable to the City Engineer at the proposed outlet of the 48 inch
public storm piped system at Harvest Lane. Details of this system shall be shown on the
Public Improvement Plan.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
11
.
.
Condition 11: During the PIP design process, the applicant shall berm the swale as
necessary to create adequate head to allow storm water runoff to drain to the proposed 48
inch piped outfall. The applicant shall design the berm to an elevation above the 10-year
flood elevation of 445 feet as shown in the McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment.
Water Oualitv
Finding: Under Federal reh'1l1ationofthe Clean Water Act (CW A), 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 Stonn Sewer
System (MS4) pemlit. A provision of this permit requires the City demonstrate efforts to
reduce the pollution in' urban storm water to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).
Finding: Federal and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) rules
. require the City's MS4 plan address six "Minimum Control Measures." Minimum
Control Measure 5, "Post-Construction Stonnwater Management for New Development
and Redevelopment," applies to the proposed development.
Finding: Minimum Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield tO,develop,
implement and enforce a program to ensure the reduction of pollutants in stomlwater
runoff to the MEP. The City must also develop and implement strategies that include a
combination of structural or non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs)
appropriated for the community.
Finding: MinimUlll Control Measure 5 requires the City of Springfield 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 Springfield Development Code (SDC), the City's
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and the future
Storm water Facilities Master Plan (SFMP). .
Finding: As required in Section 31.050 (5) of the SDC, "a development shall be required
to employ drainage management practices approved by the Public Works Director and
consistent with Metro Plan policies and the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual."
Finding: Section 3.02 of the City's EDSPM states the Pubic Works Department will
accept, as interim design standards for stomlwater 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: Section 3.03.3.B of the City's EDSPM states all public and private development
and redevelopment projects shall employ a system of one or more post-developed BMPs
that in combination are designed to achieve at least a 70 percent reduction in the total
suspended solids in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4.E of the
m~nual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on
a site shall be treated for storm water quality improvement using vegetative methods.
Finding: To meet the requirements of the City's MS4 pemlit, the Springfield
Development Code, and the City's EDSPM, the applicant has proposed a vegetative
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
12
.
.
water quality swale approximately 100 feet long, followed by a drainage swale
approximately 350 feet long. A planting plan/seed mix has not been proposed for the
swale.
Finding: The vegetation used in the swale will serVe as the primary pollutant removal
mechanism for the stornlwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants
through the process of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will
occur only when the vegetation has been fully established.
Condition 12: Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plan, the applicant shall submit
a proposed vegetation plan/seed mix for the proposed water quality swale. The planting
plan/seed mix shall meet the requirements of the City's interim design standards as required
in Section 3.02 of the EDSPM. The City of Portland stonnwater management manual may
. .
be referenced for design.
Condition 13: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of
Springfield's MS4 pernlit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the
proposed water quality swale shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species
established prior to approval of Final Plat. Alternatively, is this condition cmmot be met,
the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality
measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as
the swale vegetation becomes fully established.
Fire and Life Safetv
Finding: The Fire Marshall reviewed the submitted plans for water supply, street design and fire
access and submitted comments during the Development Review Committee Meeting on October
18,2005.
Finding: The Fire Marshall found that the full and partial street improvements with proposed
access controls would provide adequate access to the site with parking restrictions.
Finding: Parking is allowed on one side only for 28 foot wide public streets serving as a fire
apparatus access roads per 2004 Springfield Fire Code section 503.2.1.
Finding: No parking is allowed on either side of 23 foot wide pm:tial-street serving as a fire
apparatus access road per SFC 503.2.1.
. Conclusion: As conditioned below in accordance with SDC 35.060 and adopted fire codes, the
proposed system of fire flow and access is adequate to serve the proposed development:
Condition 14: No parking signage shall be posted on one side of28 foot wide streets per
SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D103.6.
Condition 15: No parking signage shall be posted on both sides of the 23 foot wide partial street
serving as a fire apparatus access road per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix Dl03.6.
Condition 16: The proposed traffic island with mountable curb shall be striped and signed in a
manner approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Marshall. .
Conclusion: As conditioned, this criterion 3 is satisfied.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
13
,
.
.
. (4) The proposed development shall comply with all applicable public and private design and
construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations.
General Finding: City staff's review comments have been incorporated in findings and conditions
contained herein.
General Finding: Criterion 4 contains elements with applicable code standards. The subdivision
application as submitted complies with the code standards listed under each element unless
otherwise noted with specific findings and conclusions. The elements and code standards of
Criterion 4 include but are not limited to:
Confonnance with standards of SDC 31, Site Plan Review, and Article 16, Residential
Zoning
o Lot Coverage and Setbacks (SDC 16.040 - 16.050)
o Height Standards (SDC 16.060}
o Off-Street Parking'standards (SDC 16.070 and-31.170-230)
o Fence Standards (SDC 16.090)'
o Landscaping Standards (SDC 31.130-150)
o Screening and Lighting (SDC 31.160)
o Cluster Development (SDCI6.100(3))
Overlay Districts and Applicable Refmement Plan Requirements
o Flood Plain Overlay District Article 27
Screening and Lighting (SDC 31.160)
Finding: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed 20-lot subdivision,
proposed public and private improvements and the submitted public comments. Except for the
following, the proposal is in conformance with standards of SDC Articles 16 and 31.
Finding: A request for screening based upon visual impacts was submitted during public
notification procedures (Hodgkinson, October 11, 2005). The requesting party resides on
17th Street along the southwesterly boundary of the subject site.
Finding: Review of the proposed use, lot sizes and surrounding uses indicates that the
proposed use and lot sizes are similar in scale to the surrounding uses to the south and
east. Properties to the north are outside the UGB and properties to the west are not
annexed. .
,
Finding: Review of air photos and field inspections indicate the majority of properties
surrounding the subject site have solid fences or chain link fences with landscape
screening.
Conclusion: Considering the surrounding uses and lot sizes, the proposed subdivision is
not a land use conflict or significant adverse visual impact to other single family
residential properties and residents. Perimeter fencing would disturb more existing
fencing and landscaping than it would provide. The temporary impacts of right of way
construction on surrounding neighbors will be addressed with construction practices
required to reduce noise, dust and other impacts.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
14
.
.
Flood Plain Development Permit (SDC Article27)
Finding: The applicant has submitted a concurrent Flood Plain Overlay District
Development Permit Application (SHR2005-0008) with this application. The application
has been reviewed and approved with conditions. The concurrent application is made a part
of this decision by reference and the conditions of approval are made a condition of Final
Subdivision Plat approval. The following condition is applied in accordance with the above
criteria and SDC 35.060:
Condition 17: Prior to Final Subdivision Plat Approval the applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the applicable conditions of Flood Plain Development Permit #SHR2005~
00008.
Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposed satisfies criterion 4.
(5) 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 aud to adjacent residential areas, transit stops,
neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, indnstrial and public areas;
minimize curb cuts 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: The Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision. TIle
Fire Marshall and the Transportation Engineer have submitted comments and conditions
addressing proposed street widths, connections and parking restrictions under Criteria 3
of this decision.
Conclusion As conditioned herein by the City Transportation Engineer and the Fire
Marshall under Criteria 3, the proposed parking, driveways and access points are
sufficient to safely serve the proposed parcels.
(6) Physical features, including but not limited to significant clusters of trees and
shrubs, watercourses sbown on tbe Water Quality Limited"Watercourse Map and
their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and historic features
have been evaluated and protected as specified in this Code or other applicable
regulations.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is a permitted use in City of Springfield's Low
Density Residential Districts subject to compliance with SDC Articles 16, 32 and 35.
Finding: TIle Metro Plan, the Natural Resources Special Study, the National Wetland
Inventory Map and the Hydric Soils Map, the Drinking Water Protection Time of Travel
Zone (TOTZ) Map, the Washburne Historic District and the list of Historic Landmark
Sites, have been consulted. There are no inventoried natural resources at the site.
Finding: There are no inventoried Goal 5 natural resources and the subject site is not
located in a Time of Travel Zone from a Drinking Water Wellhead regulated by SDC
Article 17.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
15
.
.
Finding: There are no inventoried historic features or archeological sites located on the
development site. If any artifacts are encountered 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.
Finding: Other physical features affect development of the subject site: flood plain, filbert
orchards and an off-site irrigation wel1located immediately west of the west property
line.
Flood Plain
Finding: As noted at Criteria 4 and in concurrent Flood Plain Development Permit
SHR2005-0008, the proposed development satisfies the standards of SDC Article 27 for
protection of public systems and the' flood plain. The concurrent Flood Plain
Development Approval is made a part of this decision by reference and shall be complied
with during subdivision design and construction.
Filbert Orchards
Finding: The majority of the subjeCt 5.4 acre site is covered by filbert orchards that wil1
be removed during construction of required subdivision public improvements and homes.
No tree fel1ing application has been submitted.
Finding: Filbert trees are typical1y multi-stemmed and difficult to measure for standard
sizing. The City's policy is to require a tree fel1ing pemlit during filbert removal to
address the issues of soil retention and erosion control during mass tree removal. The
base tree fel1ing fee is charged for review of the permit, the per acreage fee is waived due
to tree size variability.
Finding: Tree Felling Applications are required when the removal of 5 or more trees over
5 inches in diameter at breast height is required. Removal of the filbert orchard shall
require a Tree Fel1ing Pemlit approved in accordance with SDC Article 38.
Condition 18: The applicant shall apply for and receive an approved Tree Felling Permit
prior to the removal of 5 or more trees of any species on the site.
Off-Site Irrigation Well
Finding: Owners of adjacent property to the west (Kopperud, Tax Lot 200 & 300)
identified an irrigation wel1 next to the subject site during public involvement procedures.
The well is located within 1-2 feet of the common property line with the subject site,
approximately 150 feet north of the south boundary. The wel1 is located next to the
proposed extension of 16th Street public improvements and opposite the proposed lots 5
and 8. (See attached tax map, drawing and photographs).
NOTE: All distances proposed or discussed will be from the east line of Tax Lot 300
owned by Kopperud, or mOre specifical1y, the property.lines established by Lane County
Land Survey #31858.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
16
.
.
Finding: The neighbor has stated concerns that the integrity ofthe well could be
compromised by construction or long tenn contamination resulting from impacts of the
new street and sewer facilities. (See Public Involvement in ihis decision and letters
contained in the public record for this file).
Finding: Research and review of submitted infornlation regarding the well indicates:
o the well was hand dug (driven) in 1938,
o the well is approximately 25 feet deep,
o the top of the well's metal casing (pipe) is approximately one foot above grade,
o ihe well and pump are contained in a wooden box that is located within 2 feet of
their existing concrete driveway and one foot from property line,
o the well is currently used to irrigate landscaping and gardens,
o the well goes dry in some dronght years
o the well is not a sonrce of drinking water, the owners receive domestic water
service from Rainbow Water District.
Finding: Well construction is regulated by the Oregon Water Resources Department.
standards contained in Chapter 690 of Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs); separation
of sewer lines from wells and other water sources is also addressed under Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality standards contained in OAR Chapter 340.
Finding: Current well construction standards require casing and capping of wells to
increase structural integrity and prevent direct infiltration from the ground surface
surrounding the well. New wells shall not be located within 50 feet of a sewer (storm or
sanitary) line. (See OAR 690-Division 210- Well Construction Standards).
Finding: No well log (registration and history) could be found on the Oregon Water
Resources website, indicating that the well has not been tagged (registered) or updated
recently to comply with current safety and construction standards contained in OAR 690-
210. No engineering information has been submitted from the well owner to determine
the structural integrity of the well.
Finding: No testing results are on file with the Water Resources Department documenting
the current condition of the water drawn from the well. .
Finding: No technical data has been submitted to support the claim that proposed street
and sewer systems will violate structural integrity or contaminate the existing well.
However, the existence and location of the well warrants reasonable protection as
required by Section 32.100 of this code.
Finding: Pursuant to SDC Section 32.100 the City Engineer shall determine the adequacy
and compliance of privately engineered and constructed public sewer projects pursuant to
standards of this code, the Engineering Design Standards Manual and ODEQ regulations.
Finding: Separation of new sewer lines from wells and other water sources is required by
the Oregon Department of Enviromnental Quality pursuant to OAR 340-Division 52,
Appendix A, Minimum Requirement (i), Guideline (E), which states, in part,
"No sewer pipe (stornl or sanitary) should be laid within 50. feet of any well without
. specific Health Division approval. Pressure pipe materials should be used to protect
wells where setbacks are not obtainable".
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
17
.
.
Finding: Upon review of the infomlation presented by the well owner and the Oregon
Administrative Rules, the Director and the City Engineer determined that the minimum
separation requirements and guidelines of OAR340-52 (Appendix A) apply to the
proposal. That infonnation was conveyed to the applicant; the applicant subsequently
requested and received an extension and stay of the ORS 120 rule for decision issuance in
order to prepare and submit additional information (See Donovan/City of Springfield,
2113/2006) .
Finding: The applicant proposed 3 conditions to meet OAR 690 -210 and other
applicable regulations (See Goebel, 2/1/06):
I. A 50' radius wellhead protection easement shall be shown on the final plat and
on all engineering documents.
2. All new street construction shall be graded to drain surface water away from the
well.
3. The applicant shall not construct any improvements that would introduce any
foreign substances or contaminants to the well.
Conclusion: The existing well is not constructed to. current standards ofthe Oregon Water
Resources Department for structural integrity or groundwater protection. The well was
also constructed or located next to a property line,a practice inconsistent with standard
well construction principles (see "A Consumer's Guide to Water Well Construction,
Maintenance and Abandonment" Oregon Water Resources Department 2004).
The proposed subdivision is a pemlitted use in the residential districts of the City of
Springfield. TIle applicant proposes to make street and utility connections to existing and
planned public facilities. The City Engineer has determined that the proposed
improvements shown on the tentative plans can be reasonably conditioned to meet the
standards of this code and the Engineering Design Standards Manual under Criteria 3 of
this approval. TIle City Engineer and the Director also detemline that the well (in its
current location and condition) is entitled to consideration under SDC 32.100 and ODEQ
requirements. The applicant has proposed conditions for the protection of the well which
are acceptable, as far as they go. The Director and the City Engineer have detemlined that
a more specific performance based condition which meets SDC 32.100 and the ODEQ
regulations will provide reasonable protection for the well and public facilities.
As conditioned below in accordance with SDC 32.100, OAR, 340-52 (Appendix A) and
35.060, the proposal satisfies Criterion 6 because the natural resources and physical
features affecting the site are protected in accordance with this Code and other applicable
regulations: .
Condition 19: Prior to Public Improvement Plan or Final Plat Approval, the public
improvement plans shall be revised to: .
a) Show a non-permanent 50 foot diameter wellhead protection zone centered
over the adjacent well to protect the well to the maximum extent practical
during construction and provide detailed construction practices to
accomplish protection on all construction related pemlits,
b) Grade curb, gutter and street surfaces to drain away from the well inside
the 50 foot construction easement.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
18
.
.
c) Relocate all storm and sanitary lines and any connections from the 50 foot
protection easement, or submit ODEQ approval to construct storm and
sanitary systems using pressure pipe materials within the 50 foot easement
pursuant to OAR 340-52 (Appendix A)(i)(E).
NOTE: Alternatively, the applicant and the well owners could agree to relocate the
well. According to the Oregon Water Resources Department, a new well meeting
current structural and water quality protection standards could be drilled to a
similar depth for approximately $1500- $3,000. This alternative is a private
resolution of the issue that cannot be a condition of land use approval.
(7) Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can he
accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Finding: The applicant has an agreement to purchase all land within the boundary of the
subdivision.
Finding: The entire property is proposed to be divided for low density residential use. All
lots in the proposed subdivision can be developed for LOR use.
Finding: This criterion does not apply because the applicant proposes to develop all of the
property that will be under the same ownership after purchase.
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion 7.
(8) Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development
in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Finding:'The proposal includes street connections to 16th, lih Streets and Vera Street to
the east. The proposal also includes a Vera Street stub extended to serve properties to the
west in accordance with the adopted Conceptual Local Street Plan Diagram. Other
adjacent lands are either developed or outside the Urban Growth Boundary.
Finding: The property to the west is not annexed to the City of Springfield. A 2/3 street
section along 16th Street and a full street stub at Vera Street are provided for future
development. No westerly connection to Vera Street is proposed or required at this time.
Almexation and land development within the City of Springfield is done by property
owner request. Development of properties to the west will be in accordance with the
Conceptual Local Street Plan Diagram and street construction requirements in effect at
the time an annexation.and development request is received from the owners of that
property. The adjacent property will not be annexed and developed without the
pernlission of the property owner.
Conclusion: This criterion has been met because all adjacent land is provided access to
public streets and utilities. This proposal satisfies Criterion 8.
(9) Where the subdivision of a mannfaetured dwelling park or mobile home park is
proposed, the following standards shall apply: .
Conclusion: Criterion 9 does not apply to this application.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
19
. .
.
.
CONCLUSION: The Tentative Subdivision, as submitted and conditioned, complies with Criteria
1-8 of SDC 35.050. No portions ofthe proposal approved as submitted may be substantively
changed during the public improvement or platting processes as stated in SDC 35.100.
What needs to be done: The applicant will have up to two vears from the date of this letter to meet any
of the attached conditions of approval or Development Code standards and to submit a Final Subdivision
Plat. If the Public Improvement Plans and/or the Final Plat are not in substantial conformity to the
Tentative plans, the applicant must submit an application for a modification.
The Final Plat is required go through a pre-submittal process. After the Final Plat application is complete,
it must be submitted as a Type 11 application to the Springfield Development Services Department. A
separate application and fee will be required. Public and Private Improvement Plans as well as the
Final Plat must conform to the submitted plans as conditioned herein. No individual lots may be
transferred until the plat is recorded and five (5) copies ofthe filed subdivision are returned to the
Development Services Department by the applicant.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The Director has detennined the Tentative Subdivision Plan as conditioned satisfies the
requirements of the Springfield Development Code. The following conditions are necessary to
satisfy the intent of this Code.
Condition 1: Applicant shall install painted markings and/or signing as necessary to
implement any parking restrictions required by the Fire Marshall by this decision.
Condition 2: Final design of street improvements at the 16th Street entrance to the
subdivision shall be within public rights of way and shall be subject to approval of both
the Springfield Traffic Engineer and Lane County Traffic Engineer.
Condition 3: The applicant shall acquire right of way improvement permits from Lane
County for construction activities within the abutting 16th Street and 17th Street public
rights of way.
Condition 4: Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall revise the proposed
40 foot Public Drainage Easement to comply with Section 1.4.3 of the signed and
recorded annexation agreement (recording number 2005-020292). Specifically, the
drainage easement shall be modified for the section surrounding the proposed open
channel swale.
Condition 5: Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plan, the applicant shall
provide a maintenance access way, lcicated within the proposed 20 foot PUE between lots
16 & 17, to the existing stormwater manhole located on tax lot 400, sufficient to
accommodate Public Works maintenance vehicles.
Condition 6: Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plan, the applicant shall
provide a maintenance access way, consistent with section 4.06.0 of the City's EDSPM,
located within and along the entirety of the public easement for the open channel swale
and 48 inch storm pipe, sufficient to accommodate maintenance vehicles. The access
road shall have a turn around located at the end of the road.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
20
, .
.
.
Condition 7: Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall submit documentation
verifying the 14 foot public utility easement for the existing 24 inch stonnwater pipe
located on tax lot 400 has been recorded, If this easement has not been recorded, the
applicant shall be prepare the easement and record it with the Final Plat.
Condition 8: As required by the City and agreed to by the applicant in the signed
annexation agreement (recording number 2005-020292), issuance of building permits for
construction of dwellings on the property will be withheld until such time as the
downstream sewer improvements have been constructed and placed into service by the
City,
Condition 9: At the time of PIP review and prior to Final Plat, the applicani shall enter
into a maintenance agreement with the City of Springfield, whereby the City will provide
routine maintenance for functionality of the grassy,swale/detention pond serving the
subdivision, The City will provide the template for the maintenance agreement.
Condition 10: During the PIP design process, the applicant shall install a backflow
prevention system acceptable to the City Engineer at the proposed outlet of the 48 inch
public stom1 piped system at Harvest Lane, Details of this system shall be shown on the
Public Improvement Plan,
Condition 11: During the PIP design process, the applicant shall berm the swale as
necessary to create adequate head to allow storm water runoffto drain to the proposed 48
inch piped outfall. The applicant shall design the benn to an elevation above the 10-year
flood elevation of 445 feet as shown in the McKenzie River Floodplain Assessment.
Condition 12: Prior to approval of the Public Improvement Plan, the applicant shall submit
a proposed vegetation plan/seed mix for the proposed water quality swale, The planting
plan/seed mix shall meet the requirements of the City's interim design standards as required
in Section 3,02 of the EDSPM, The City of Portland stormwater management manual may
be referenced for design,
Condition 13: To ensure a fully functioning water quality system and meet objectives of
Springfield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the
proposed water quality swale shall be shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species
established prior to approval of Final Plat. Alternatively, is this condition caffi10t be met,
the applicant shall provide and maintain additional interim erosion control/water quality
measures acceptable to the Public Works Department that will suffice until such time as
the swale vegetation becomes fully established,
Condition 14: No parking signage shall be posted on one side of28 foot wide streets per
SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix DI03,6,
Condition 15: No parking signage shall be posted on both sides of the 23 foot wide partial street
serving as a fire apparatus access road per SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix DI03,6,
Condition 16: The proposed traffic island with mountable curb shall be striped and sih'l1ed in a
maffi1er approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Marshall.
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
21
. .
.
.
.
Condition] 7: Prior to Final Subdivision Plat Approval the applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the applicable conditions of Flood Plain Development Permit #SHR2005-
00008.
Condition 18: The applicant shall apply for and receive an approved Tree Felling Permit
prior to the removal of 5 or more trees of any species on the site.
Condition] 9: Prior to Pnblic Improvement Plan or Final Plat Approval, the public
improvement plans shall be revised to:
a) Show a non-permanent 50 foot diameter wellhead protection zone centered
over the adjacent well to protect the well to the maximum extent practical
during construction and provide detailed construction practices to
accomplish protection on all construction related pernlits,
b) Grade curb, gutter and street surfaces to drain away from the well inside
the 50 foot construction easement.
c) Relocate all storm and sanitary lines and any connections from the 50 foot
protection easement, or submit ODEQ approval to construct storm and
sanitary systems using pressure pipe materials within the 50 foot easement
pursuant to OAR 340-52 (Appendix A)(i)(E).
Permits Required:
. All new sewer taps will reqnire permits from the Public Works Department prior to
connection.
. Sidewalks and driveway curb cuts and closures require permits from the Public Works
Department.
. An LDAP pennit is required for all grading, filling and excavating being done. The
location and depth of fill placed on the lots must be documented. It is recommended by
the Building Department that fill not be placed on building pads unless it is properly
compacted and documented by an engineer or testing laboratory.
Additional Information: The application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the
applicant and the applicable criteria of approval are available for a free inspectioil and copies will
be available for a fee at the Development Services Department, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield,
Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Tentative Subdivision 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 Article 15, 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.
ln accordance with SDC 15.020 which provides for a IO-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of
Civil Procedures, Rule lO(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision
expires at 3:00p.m. on April ]9, 2006.
Questions: Please call the Jim Donovan in the Planning Division of the Development Services
o rtment at (541 )726-3660 if you have any questions regarding this process.
\
Legacy Estates Subdivision
SUB2005-00047
22
.
Joe and Patricia Proden
2290 Hayden Bridge Road
Springfield, OR 97477
David Corey
3956 Mirror
Eugene, OR
Pond Way
97408
Scott Goebel
1762 W 2nd Ave
Eugene, OR 97402
Bill Kloos
375 W 4th Street, Ste 204
Eugene, OR 97401
Arlen & Marciel Kopperud
3238 16th Street
Sprigfield, OR 97477
Mrs. Gail Combs
1536 Vera Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Doug Wilkinson
Throp Purdy Jewett Attorneys
1011 Harlow Road Ste 300
Springfield, OR 97477
Scott Lawson
2625 17th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Ken & Myrna Hodgkinson
2587 17th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
.
" ' I
8