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