Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 9/7/2010 " .. ..~ RECEIVED " AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE SEP 7 2010 BY:~,/! ~ / II IIoPT 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 Technician, I prepared and caused to be mailed copies of Ve2o. -' . . . '. . (See attachment "A") on 2010 addressed to (see ,~I J!,(UL Attachment B"), by .causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box wi.!tJ ~. postage fully prepaid thereon. ,- KA~~2(~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~ bvu 'i1 . 2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, Program Technician, who acknowledged the foregoing. instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: ... D Qli'M-rrstL.V .. .i NOT~UBLIC.OReGON COMMISSION NO. 420361 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 ~~ My Commission Expires: ? /;s II I . " .. .. NOTICE OF DECISION - SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE PLAN SP~I;.~EL~ ~'h ~~EGOH Project Name: Larkin/Back Porch Properties Project Proposal: 6-Lot cluster subdivision with 6 duplexes on individual lots, Case Number: 5002010-00008 Project Location: 5 42nd Street Maplot: 17-02-32-33-01701 Property size: 1 acre Base Zone: MDR (Medium Density Residential) Overlay District: Drinking Water Protection Overlay, 20 year time of travel zone of the Maia well. Refinement PlanfDesignation: East Main Refinement Plan/Medium Density Residential designation Pre-Submittal Meeting Date: June 25, 2010 Application Submitted Date: July 9, 2010 Decision Issued Date: September 7, 2010 Appeal Deadline Date: September 22, 2010 Other Application(s): none CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM. : J~, POSmON REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Steve Hopkins 726-3649 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Jesse Jones 726-3720 Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities; Sanitary & Gayton 736-1036 Storm Sewer Mceachern .' Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 "A;R'fLi'C_MrriS" iJ~.~O.~~,N!i'~W~M:.I.~AM ::;:0 \~;i:~:":~;,':!;i!t~,:~~:~j${~~J(~;i~~k~~:q~f,;~'~c'~j~~~t':~~~\~li__.'ii,_,,::;,;~: :'~~ Owner: Representative: Engineer: Greg Larkin, Back Porch Mike Evans Scott Morris Properties LLC Land Planning Consultants Olson & Morris PO box 832 475 Oakdale Ave 380 Q Street Sweet Home OR 97386 Springfield OR 97477 Springfield OR 97477 Larkin/Back Parch Case No, SUB20 I 0-00008 Page / of /4 .. .. Site: Summary of proposal: A 6-Lot cluster subdivision with a duplex on each lot. Access will be from a common driveway with frontage on 42nd Street. The applicant intends to begin construction of the dwellings once the tentative land use decision is issued. This complies with SDC 5.12-105(D)(4), which allows issuance of a development permit after tentative subdivision approval. In the typical development process, the building permits are issued after the final plat is recorded. However, this project does not extend any public infrastructure, has an insignificant impact to the transportation system, and there are no special design considerations related to the topography of the site. Because of this, allowing issuance of building permits on this site prior to platting will not significantly increase the risk to the public health, safety and welfare, or negatively impact the future extension of public infrastructure. It is the burden of the applicant to correctly place the private improvements in compliance with all setoacks and easements, prior to approval of the final plat. To assure completion of the project in compliance with all conditions of approval, occupancy of the duplexes will not be issued until the final plat Larkin/Back Porch Case No. SUB20 / 0-00008 Page 2 of /4 .. .. is recorded. On August 2, 2010, the applicant signed a hold harmless agreement that acknowledges there is a risk when proceeding outside the typical developmel).t process. This is a cluster subdivision that complies with the minimum density of the MDR zone, and provides for common open space. The SDC states that common open space" can be created by placing on the land amenities for community activities for residents". To meet this requirement, the applicant is proposing two basketball areas, a pet area, and two open grassy areas. The cluster standards also require the new development to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Specific improvements have been made to the adjacent properties as noted: North neighbor . vacating the easement . ground work for the parking lot . upgraded fence . . improved facade on the neighbor's side South neighbor . New fence . repair gate . remove and dispose of apple tree . provide top soil for new garden area East Neighbor . Remove hedge and dispose . Remove large pile of wood debris and dispose . install new fence The applicant also proposes to count the extra parking spaces as common open space. The parking spaces won't meet this requirement because they are not needed to meet the minimum parking requirements (2 spaces per dwelling), and a parking space is not a community activity. 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 specifically noted with findings and conditions necessary for compliance. The Final Plat must conform 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 document carefully. 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 the Type IT procedure listed inSDC 5.1-130, the Tentative Plan Criteria in SDC 5.17-125 and the Ouster Subdivision criteria in SDC 3.2-230. Larkin/Back Porch Case No. SUB20/ 0-00008 Page 3 of /4 .. .. Procedural Findings: . 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 applications (SDC Sections 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. . Notice was sent to adjacent property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on July 14, 2010. Written comments were received. Those comments are made part of this legal record and are mcluded in this report by reference. . On July 27, 2010, the City's Development Review Committee 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 of Approval contained in SDC 5.12-125. This decision was issued on the 60th day of the 120 days mandated by the state. . 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 decision. The Final Plat otherwise shall be in substantial conformity 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: WritteiJ comments were submitted by Daniel Davidson (285 S 42nd St) on July 22, 2010. Those comments are made part of this legal record and are included in this report by reference. Mr. Davidson is pastor of the Hillview Baptist Church, the adjacent property to the north of the site. Staff met with Mr. Davidson on two occasions. His concerns regard the impact of the development on the church's parking lot. The church parking lot is configured in a way that requires the cars to maneuver on a portion the Larkin property. The proposed subdivision will prevent that access/maneuvering. After extensive research into the title reports for both properties, there was no evidence of an easement or other document that allowed that encroachment. Without an easement, the city does not have the authority to compel the applicant to preserve this encroachment. The applicant has addressed this issue by voluntarily vacating the private easement. 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. Lar/dnlBadc Parch (a,e No. SUB20/ 0-00008 Page 4 of /4 .. .. A. The request conforms to the provisions of this Code pertaining to lot/parcel size and dimensions. Finding: The site is zoned Medium Density Residential and the Metro Plan designation is Medium Density Residential. Finding: This is a cluster subdivision. The duster standards permit changes in dimensional requirements by reducing lot size, setback, frontage, access and other developmental standards to allow more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional subdivision process. Finding: The duster standards for alternate access and lot dimensions are being used to allow this parcel to develop at the required density of the MDR zone. Alternate designs are being used for lot dimensions and access. Lots in a N/S street require 5,000sf with 60' of frontage to a public road. This proposal contains 6 lots on a N/S street. The proposed lots range from 4,985sf to 8,017sf. Access is provided by a single driveway within a 24' joint-use easement. Finding: The standard subdivision design standards would not allow this parcel to develop at the minimum density of the MDR zone. Finding: The applicant intends to begin construction of the dwellings once the tentative land use decision is issued. This complies with SDC 5.12-105(D)(4), which allows issuance of a development permit after tentative subdivision approval. That section states: "No development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Partition or Subdivision Tentative Plan application. EXCEPTION: As may be permitted in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997 and/or by Resolution No. 03-40, the Director may issue a Land and Drainage 'Alteration Permit prior to approval of the Partition or Subdivision Tentative Plan.". 3.2-230 Cluster Subdivisions A. Description. Cluster Subdivisions: 1. Permit changes in dimensional requirements by reducing lot size, setback, street width and other developmental standards to allow more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional subdivision process; 3. Are permitted in all residential districts on property having a minimum development area of at least 1 gross acre; and Finding: The current size of the parcel is 39,381 sf. Prior to the dedication of ROW for the expansion of 42nd street, the parcel contained one acre, as evidenced by Bargain and Sale Deed 2006-038825. 4. Shall not exceed the maximum density of the applicable zoning district and the Metro Plan. Density is calculated on the gross acreage. Finding: The proposal is for 12 dwellings on 39,381sf. That is a density of 13.3 dwellings per acre. Finding: This section allows adjustments to the access standards for residential lots. The MDR requires each lot to have 60 feet of frontage to a public road, a Larkin/Back Parch Case No. SUB10 I 0-00008 Page 5 or /4 .. o. pan handle design in conformance with SDC 3.2-220(A) or an irrevocable joint access easement when the location of an existing dwelling prevents the use of a pan handle design. Finding: The proposal is for an irrevocable joint access easement that serves all 6 lots. The easement will be a variable width emergency access & utility easement. The minimum width will be 24'. This design meets the requirements of the Fire Dept. (refer to comments dated July 27, 2010), and Transportation planning (refer to comments dated July 20, 2010). F. Neighborhood Compatibility. New single-family detached, attached, and duplexes constructed within a Cluster Subdivision shall be generally compatible with existing homes. The goal is to reduce the impact of new development on established neighborhoods by incorporating elements of nearby, quality buildings, for example, building details, massing, proportions, and materials. To foster compatible residential development at the higher densities sought by this Section. Finding: The applicant has provided the adjacent neighbors with improvements to their properties to enhance the compatibility of the development. Specific improvements are: North neighbor . vacating the easement across the church property to the benefit of the applicant. . ground work for the parking lot . upgraded fence . improved facade on the neighbor's side South neighbor . New fence . repair gate . remove and dispose of apple tree . provide top soil for new garden area East Neighbor . Remove hedge and dispose . Remove large pile of wood debris and dispose . install new fence G. Specific Development St,mdards for Single-Family Dwellings. The following design standards apply to singl€,-family detached, single-family attached (less than 3 attached units) and duplexes. Finding: This is a cluster subdivision and all dwellings shall comply with the cluster design standards for duplexes contained in SDC 3.2-230. Condition of approval: All dwellings shall comply with the cluster design standards for duplexes contained in SDC 3.2-23Q, Larkin/Back Parch Caie No. SUB10 / 0-00008 Page 6 of /4 .. .. H. Open Space. At least 20 percent of the development site shall be designated common open space. Common open space can be wetlands, steep slopes, natural waterways or wooded areas. Also, common open space can be created by placing on the land amenities for community activities for residents for example, playgrounds, picnic areas, gardens or sports features. Setbacks and buffer areas do not count towards common open space. The use of restrictive covenants, dedication and homeowners' association maintenance shall be assured through a homeowners' association. Finding: The open space contains the bioswale, assigned parking, basketball areas, pet area and general play area. The details of the open space are: . The entire swale is being counted as open space because it includes two seating benches. (2500sf) . The basketball hoops are being counted as 600sf each, but sho!lld include striping to identify the boundary of each area. (1200sf) . The entire play area is counted. (1495sf) . The entire pet area is counted. (1125sf) . Although the parking spaces are not counted as open space, the grassy area between the parking spaces and the property line is counted. (480sf) Condition of Approval: Prior to approval of the final plat, stripe the boundaries of the basketball areas, including; the key and free throw lines. Finding: The plan shows 6 parking spaces that contain a total of 1080sf. Parking spaces cannot be counted as common open space for two reasons: . SDC 3.2-230(H) states that common open space "can be created by placing on the land amenities for community activities for residents". A parking space does not constitute a community activity, and . The parking spaces are not needed to meet the minimum parking requirements (2 spaces per dwelling). Finding: With the elimination of the parking area, the proposed amount of open space is reduced to 6800sf which is 1000sf below the minimum required. This deficit is eliminated by the amount of improvements provided for neighborhood compatibility. I. Landscaping. Landscaping and/or natural vegetation shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of required common open space. On-site natural resources and historic features that are accessible to residents (including, but not limited to: by trails, boardwalks, etc.) may be used to satisfy this requirement. For example, if 25 percent of the site includes a natural resource or historic feature then 25 percent of the landscaping requirement is satisfied. Finding: As proposed, more than 50% of the open space is landscaped. Larkin/Back Parch Case No. SUB20 I ~0008 Page 7 of /4 .. .. B. The zoning is consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual Development Plan. Finding: MDR (Medium Density Residential) zone, MDR designation on Metro plan. Finding: The minimum density in the MDR zone is more than 10 dwellings per acre. The proposal constitutes a density of 13.3 dwellings per acre. Finding: This is a cluster subdivision and the cluster dwelling design standards are applicable. Condition of Approval: The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on Tulv 9, 2010, and the buildins, permits submitted on Tune 30, 2010. C. Capacity requirements of public and private facilities, including but not ~ted 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. SANITARY SEWER Finding: Section 4.3-105.A 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: Pursuant to Chapter 3.03.4.A of the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and Section 4.4 of Portland's Stormwater Management Manual, solid waste storage areas shall be covered and hydraulically isolated from potential stormwater runoff, and directed to the sanitary sewer system. Plans and detailing demonstrate conformance with this code requirement. A common trash area is not proposed. Finding: Each of the six lots will be served for sanitary sewer service by installing individual private 6" sewer pipes to each duplex lot. All sewer laterals will connect to an existing 8" sewer lateral that is presently serving this property. The existing 8" sewer lateral that serves this property discharges to an 8" sanitary main located in 42nd Street. This proposed connection is . found to be acceptable for Public Works and complies with the sanitary sewer requirements. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Finding: Section 4.3-110. B of the SDC requires that the Approval Authority shall grant development approval only where adequate public andf or private stormwater management systems provisions have been made as determined by the Public Works Director, consistent with the Engineering Design Standards and Proce~ures Manual. Finding: Section 4.3-110.D of the SDC requires that run-off from a development shall be directed to an approved stormwater management system with sufficient capacity. Finding: Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC requires new developments to emp~oy drainage management practices, which minimize the amount and rate of surface water run-off into receiving streams, and which promote water quality. larkin/Back Parch Case Na. SUB20 I 0-00008 Page 8 af /4 .. .. Finding: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, storm water runoff from each building will be piped to a private storm water line that connects to and discharges to the public system which is a 30" storm main located in S. 42nd Street. Finding: To comply with Sections 4.3-110.D & E, stormwater runoff from the parking lot will be directed into a water quality bio-swale. The bio-swale then drains to an 8" storm pipe which then discharges to the public system which is a 30" storm main located in S. 42nd Street. The engineer of record has provided a storm water design report showing conformance with this requirement. WATER QUALITY Finding: As required in Section 4.3-110.E of the SDC, "a development shall be required to employ drainage management practices appr~)Ved 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 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 Oean Water Services. 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 susp~nded solids in the runoff generated by that development. Section 3.03.4.E of the manual requires a minimum of 50 percent of the non-building rooftop impervious area on a site shall be treated for stormwater quality improvement using vegetative methods. Finding: Storm water runoff from the new parking lot area will be directed into a proposed water quality bio-swale. The bio-swale then drains to an 8" storm pipe which then discharges to the public system which is a 30" storm main located in S. 42nd Street. The engineer of record has provided a storm water design report showing that water quality requirements! will be met and showing conformance with this code requirement. Finding: The vegetation proposed for use in the bio-swale will serve as the primary pollutant removal mechanism for the stormwater runoff, and will remove suspended solids and pollutants through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. Satisfactory pollutant removal will occur only when the vegetation has been fully established. Condition of approval: Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed rain garden infiltration basin. The plan should designate maintenance responsibility for operatins?; and maintaining the system, and should be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site. Condition of approval: To ensure a fully functioninS?; water quality system and meet obiectives of Sprinctield's MS4 permit, the Springfield Development Code and the EDSPM, the proposed private vegetative water guality bio-swale shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to approval of Final Plat. Alternatively, if this condition c=ot 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 basin veS?;etation becomes fully established. Larkin/Back Porch Case No. SUB20/ 0-00008 Page 9 of /4 .. o. UTILITIES, EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY Finding: The plans submitted show a proposed 7' Public Utility Easement along the street frontage and a private variable width emergency / access/ utility easement which show conformance with the minimum requirements. Finding: Plans indicate private utilities are being extended across each new lot along the northerly and easterly property boundaries; however, the utilities do not appear to be located within a required easement. . Condition of Approval: Provide a private utility easement along the northerly and easterly property lines for the benefit of each of the proposed lots. Finding: As evidenced by the comments from Willarnalane, each new single-family attached dwelling will be subject to a system development charge for park and recreation improvements. That fee will be collected at building permit issuance. D. The proposed land division shall ,comply with all applicable public and private design and construction standards contained in this Code and other applicable regulations. Finding: The applicant intends to begin construction of the dwellings once the tentative land use decision is issued. This complies with SDC 5.12-105(D)(4), which allows issuance of a development permit after tentative subdivision approval. That section states: "No development permit will be issued by the City prior to approval of the Partition or Subdivision Tentative Plan application. EXCEPfION: As may be permilted in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997 and/ or by Resolution No. 03-40, the Director may issue a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit prior to approval of the Partition or Subdivision Tentative PI " an. Finding: The standard development process requires the plat to be recorded before the building permits are issued. However, this site will not contain any public improvements, and there are no special design considerations related to the topography of the site. Allowing issuance of building permits on this site prior to platting will not significantly increase the risk to the public health, safety and welfare, or negatively impact the future extension of public infrastructure. It is the burden of the applicant to correctly place the private improvements in compliance with all setbacks and easements, prior to'approval of the final plat. TO.assure completion of the project in compliance with all conditions of approval, occupancy of the duplexes will not be issued until the final plat is recorded. Condition: The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of occupancy of any duplex. Finding: The comments from the Deputy Fire Marshal, dated July 27, 2010, indicate the water supply and access are acceptable. Larkin/Back Parch Case No, SUB20/ 0-00008 Page /00(/4 .. .. Finding: The common driveway will also provide emergency access to the lots. To mamtaID this emergency access, "No Parking-Fire Lane" signage or curb markings shall be posted on both sides of the fire apparatus access road except for the designated vehicle parking spaces shown on the site plan, in conformance with 2010 SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D103.6. . There are two options to comply with this requirement: pole signs or curb paint. If curb markings are to be applied, they are to be painted in one of two ways: a. bright red with white letters or b. bright yellow with black letters. The stroke shall be not less than 1 inch with letters 6 inches high. Spacing between curb markings shall not exceed 25 feet. Exception: Curb heights less than 6 inches shall have reduced letter sizes for the vertical signage on the curb, but not less than 4 inches. . The other option is pole signage. For this option, the spacing shall be consistent with Section 2A-23 of the state adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and shall not exceed 40 feet or as directed by the fire code official. Pole mounted signs shall be mounted no lower than 4 feet and no higher than 7 feet from finished grade to the bottom of the sign and a setback from the curb surface to the leading edge of the sign at 2 feet. Condition of Approval: Fire apparatus access roads shall suPport an 80,000 lb. load per 2010 Springfield Fire Code 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1. Condition of Approval: "No Parking-Fire Lane" signage or curb markings shall be posted on both sides of the fire apparatus access road, except for the designated vehicle parking spaces shown on the site plan, in accordance with 2010 SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix D103.6. E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117; rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.74Q..760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. Finding: The NW portion of the site is within the 20 year time of travel zone of the Maia well. Finding: A Drinking Water Protection Overlay application is not required because the subdivision complies with the exemptions listed in SDC 3.3-230. 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: Abutting the subject site to the west, 42nd Street (a minor arterial) is a 36-foot wide, three-lane street within 58 feet of right of way. The street is fully improved with curb/ gutter, sidewalks and street lighting. Larkin/Back Parch Case No. SUB20 / 0-00008 Page /I of /4 .. .. Finding: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the proposal and has no concerns, as evidenced by the comments received on July 23, 2010. Finding: Jurisdiction of the portion of 42nd Street fronting this parcel was transferred from ODOT to the city of Springfield on December 23, 2003, as evidenced by document #2003-122204 Gurisdiction Transfer No. 744). Finding: Existing off-site transportation facilities would be adequate to accommodate additional trips that would be generated by the proposed development. Finding: The applicant proposes to use the existing 24' curbcut to access the subdivision. 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 !he 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. Condition of Approval: Street trees, on-site vegetation, and/ or other obstacles to vision shall be placed or relocated as necessary to maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the existing curb rut, per SDC 4.2-130. G. Development of any remainder of the property under the same ownership can be accomplished as specified in this Code. Finding: The entire parcel is being developed. H. Adjacent land can be developed or is provided access that will allow its development as specified in this Code. Finding: The surrounding properties are fully developed. To the north is the Hillview Baptist Church, to the east and south are detached, single family dwellings. DETERMINATION: Based on the evidence in the record. the Director determines the proposal complies with SDC S.12-125(A)-(J), subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to this report. What Needs To Be Done? SDC 5.12-140 states: The subdivision Plat pre-submittal meeting shall be held within 2 years of the date of Tentative Plan approval (the date of this letter). The Final Plat application, including mylars and the application fee shall be submitted within 180 days of the pre- submittal meeting. If the applicant has not submitted the Final Plat application within these times, Tentative Plan approval shall become null and void and re-submittal of the Tentative Plan shall be required. 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 the 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 Larkin/Back Parch Case No. SUB10 / 0-00008 Page Ilaf/4 .. .. Lane County for recordation. No individual lots may be transferred until the Plat is recorded and the mylar copy of the filed land division is returned to the City Surveyor. Summary of Conditions of Approval 1. All dwellings shall comply with the cluster design standards for duplexes contained in SDC 3.2-230. 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, stripe the boundaries of the basketball areas, including the key and free throw lines. 3. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted on July 9,2010, and the building permits submitted on June 30, 2010. 4. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide an operations and maintenance plan to the City for review to ensure the long-term maintenance and operation of the proposed rain garden infiltration basin. The plan should designate maintenance responsibility for operating and maintaining the system, and should be distributed to all property owners and tenants of the site. 5. 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 private vegetative water quality bio-swale shall be fully vegetated with all vegetation species established prior to approval of Final Plat. Alternatively, if this condition cannot 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 basin vegetation becomes fully established. 6. Provide a private utility easement along the northerly and easterly property lines for the benefit of each of the proposed lots. 7. The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of occupancy of any duplex. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall support an 80,000 lb. load per 2010 Springfield Fire Code 503.2.3 and SFC Appendix 0102.1. 9. "No Parking-Fire Lane" signage or curb markings shall be posted on both sides of the fire apparatus access road, except for the designated vehicle parking spaces shown on the site plan, in accordance with 2010 SFC 503.3 and SFC Appendix DI03.6. 10. Street trees, on-site vegetation, and/ or other obstacles to vision shall be placed or relocated as necessary to maintain adequate vision clearance triangles at the existing curb cut, per SDC 4.2-130. Additionallnformation: 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. Larkin/Back Porch Case No. SUB20/().()OOOB Page /30(/4 .. .. '. , Appeal: TItis 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 September 22, 2010. Questions: Please call Steve Hopkins in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3649 if you have <my questions regarding this process. Prepared by: Sot:::: J(<rL Steve Hopkins, AlCP Plarmer II Development Services - Urban Planning Division Larkin/Back Porch Case No. SUB10IO-OOOOB Poge 140(14 . ... . .'. . . ..... . ':.,. GITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOpMENT SERVICES D~T~ 225 5th ST .. ... SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Greg Larkin, Back Porch Properties PO Box 832 Sweet Home, OR 97386 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD; OR 97477 Mike Evans Land Planning Consultants 475 Oakdale Avenue Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 Scott Morris Olson &. Morris 380 Q Street, Ste 200 Springfield, OR 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 225 5th ST SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . ~" .-}~ ;r.o';, ;.# _.,.,'l"" Daniel Davidson 285 S 42nd Street Springfield, OR 97477 ,-.,;.' . Ck:taLe.lwuM:b 13