Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 7/28/2011 \'~ , . . PRE11-00014 Development Issues Meeting for Two Proposed 3-Lot Partitions - Elena Brown 8067 & 8101 Thurston Road (Map 17-02-36-24, TL 101 & 102) Q.1 Does the City staff see any problems with this proposed land division layout? If so, are there any suggested changes? A: This proposal would be considered a subdivision because there is a net result of six lots derived from the two existing parcels. The property is currently outside the City limits and is subject to the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District (UF-10). A subdivision is not allowable in the UF-10 District prior to annexation in accordance with. SDC 3.3-815. Serial partitioning of the properties to effect a subdivision is not supported by staff. In accordance with SDC 5.12-125.1.2.b, a partition would be allowable only if: i. the property is owned by a government agency or public utility; ii. the majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the partition area are smaller than 5 acres; or iii. no more than 3 parcels shall be created from 1 tract of land while the property remains within the UF-10 Overlay District. Staff advises that the proposal fails to meet the above criteria, because: 1) the property is not publicly or agency owned; 2) an equivalent number or majority of parcels within 100 feet of each tax lot are larger than 5 acres; and 3) the original pre-partition area prior to 1995 (Map 17-02-36-24, Tax Lot 206) is considered the" 1 tract of land". Therefore, further partitioning of these two parcels is not feasible under the current Code provisions. It is likely the City would require full dedication and construction of the future public streets concurrently with any land division action. However, because urban utilities are not available to the site yet, it is not practical or efficient to install a fully developed City street to be used for an interim period. Installation of dry sewer lines is a possible option, and this would have to be addressed through a Public Improvement Plan for the streets. Because of the challenges associated with providing utilities, fire protection and City services to the site, staff advises this development proposal is premature. Q.2 The existing gravel driveway within the 25' wide access easement is proposed to serVe the four home sites. A portion of the access easement within Pel. 1 of Pel. 2 (TL 101) will be eliminated when a future public street is developed per the future development plan. Does the City staff see any problem with this access plan? If so, what changes would you suggest? A: As proposed, five of the lots would derive legal and physical access from a shared ingress/egress easement across Tax Lot 101. Additionally, Tax Lot 102, Parcel 1 would derive physical access from this driveway and easement area. Because the existing driveway intersects all six proposed parcels, it would be considered a panhandle driveway for purposes of Planning review. In accordance with SDC 3.2-220.A.4, a maximum of four parcels can be accessed from a panhandle driveway. In this case, all six lots are proposed to derive physical access from the shared access easement and driveway. To address the panhandle driveway issue, a new driveway approach serving (at a minimum) Tax Lot 102, Parcels 1 and 2 would have to be approved and constructed. However, Lane County Transportation advises that a driveway approach is not viable along the frontage of Tax Lot 102, Parcel 1 because Thurston Road is designated as a rural collector and also due to the curve in the road. Data Reeelved:~t:.~/(}O" Planner; AL I ,\ Q.3 '\ Are there any fire prot!on issues? The existing well p!des 150 gpm with negligible drawdown. A: Springfield Fire & Life Safety to comment. 0.4 The plan envisions two new home sites on the proposed Pel. 2 (TL 101) and Pel. 2 (TL 102) with septic systems to the south and water wells to the north side of each parcel (or connections to existing well). Does staff see any problems with this concept? A: Staff advises that well and septic approvals from the County Watermaster and County Sanitarian would have to be obtained prior to any land division approval for the properties. The proposed location of two additional septic systems proximate to Gray Creek may be of concern to the City's Environmental Services division. The existing drainfield easement for Tax Lot 101 is within about 50 feet of the watercourse. In accordance with DEO regulations (ref. OAR 340-071- 0220), the minimum separation distance for septic drain fields is 50 feet from a seasonal watercourse or intermittent stream, and 100 feet from a year round watercourse. 0.5 The Conceptual Development Plan was created in 1995. Does the City staff have any suggested changes to that plan? A: The proposed parcel layout is not consistent with the Conceptual Development Plan previously prepared for Tax Lots 101 & 102. The proposed Parcels 2 and 3 on both partitions would be distant from the future public road right-of-way upon subdivision of the remainder (Parcels 1 in Tax Lots 101 & 102). Multiple panhandle driveways would have to be created, possibly requiring a replat of the southernmost parcels. Both Parcels 3 in Tax Lots 101 & 102 are proposed to be landlocked, with no legal frontage or panhandle to a future public street. Upon partitioning, Parcels 1, Tax Lots 101 & 102 become buildable parcels, which could jeopardize future urban development densities. As an example, the only viable building site on Parcel 1, Tax Lot 1 01 may be the "bulb" area east of the access driveway. Upon construction of a dwelling, it is unlikely this area would be further subdivided unless provisions were made at the outset for the dwelling to meet all required setbacks once urban build-out is achieved. The Conceptual Development Plan would have to be revised to match the proposed lotting pattern for Lots 2 and 3 in Tax Lots 101 & 102. The proposed lotting pattern does not provide for panhandle frontage on a future public street. The proposed joint panhandles for the existing house parcel and Lot 11 needs to be increased to 26 feet wide (13 feet each) to meet the requirements of the Development Code. for multiple panhandles. Heads Up Items: . There is an existing accessory structure (shed) that appears to straddle the property line between Tax Lots 101 and 102. The shed does not show up on earlier air photos or site diagrams. Staff was unable to find record of a building permit being issued for this structure, which would be a requirement if it exceeds 200 ft2. Date Received:_~.4d!W- Planner: AL