Download - Subdivision Denial
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
1/29
z
0
UJ
0
w
c
u
0
w
0
1-
0
z
i necesita ayuda para comprender esta informacion
por
favor /lame
503 588 6173
August 31, 20
DECISION
OF THE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR
7 g)
SUBDIVISION CASE NO.
SU815-02
APPLICATION NO.: 15-108220-LD
NOTICE
OF
DECISION DATE: AUGUST 20,2015
REQUEST: A subdivision to divide an unplatted unit of land comprising the Creekside Golf
Club into 4 lots. Three of the lots range in size from approximately 9,088 square feet to 9,682
square feet, with the fourth lot remaining as part of the golf course. The applicant's proposal
shows Lot 4 as consisting of the remainder of the 14th fairway only, an area of approximately
4.26 acres. However, the property being divided consists of the entire golf course, so Lot 4
will include the entire remainder of the course, which totals approximately 134.2 acres in size.
The subject property is zoned R (Residential Agriculture) and is located
on
the 900 Block of
Creekside Drive
SE
(Marion County Assessor's Map and Tax Lot Numbers: 083W22 00111;
083W22BA0700; and 083W22AA03900).
APPLICANT:
CREEKSIDE GOLF
COURSE LLC (TERRY KELLY DENNIS WHITLOCK)
LOCATION: 900 BLOCK OF
CREEKSIDE
DR SE /97306
CRITERIA: Salem Revised Code 205.010 d)
DECISION: The Planning Administrator DENIED tentative Subdivision Case No. SUB15-
02 subject to the applicable standards of the Salem Revised Code, the
findings contained herein.
A copy of the decision
is
attached.
Application Deemed Complete: June 5 2015
Notice of Decision Mailing Date: August 20, 2015
Decision Effective Date: September
5
2015
State Mandate Date: October 3 2015
Case Manager: Chris Green, Planner II 503-540-2326 or [email protected]
This decision is final unless written appeal from an aggrieved party is filed with the City of Salem
Planning Division, Room 305, 555 Liberty Street SE, Salem OR 97301, no later than 5:00p.m.,
September
4
2015. The notice of appeal must contain the information required by SRC
300,1020 and must state where the decision failed to conform to the provisions of the applicable
code section, SRC Chapter 205.010(d). The appeal
must
be filed in duplicate with the City of
Salem Planning Division. The appeal fee must be paid at the time of filing. If the appeal
is
untimely and/or lacks the proper fee, the appeal will be rejected. The Planning Commission will
review the appeal at a public hearing. After the hearing, the Planning Commission may amend,
rescind, or affirm the action, or refer the matter to staff for additional information.
The complete case file, including findings, conclusions and conditions of approval, if any, is
available for review at the Planning Division office, Room 305, City Hall, 555 Liberty Street
SE
during regular business hours.
http://www.cityofsalem.net/planning
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
2/29
BEFORE THE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE CITY OF SALEM
(SUBDIVISION PLAT NO. 15-02)
Si necesita ayuda para
comprender
esta informacion por favor llame 503 588 6173
http:llwww.citvofsalem.netlplanning
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPROVAL
OF TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION PLAN N0 15-02;
900 BLOCK OF CREEKSIDE DRIVE SE
)
)
)
)
REQUEST
FINDINGS AND ORDER
AUGUST 20, 2015
A subdivision to divide an unplatted unit
of
land comprising the Creekside Golf Club into 4
lots. Three of the lots range in size from approximately 9,088 square feet to 9,682 square
feet, with the fourth lot remaining as part of the golf course. The applicant s proposal
shows Lot 4 as consisting
of
the remainder
of
the 14th fairway only,
an
area
of
approximately 4.26 acres. However, the property being divided consists of the entire golf
course, so Lot 4 will include the entire remainder of the course, which totals approximately
134.2 acres in size.
The subject property
is
zoned RA (Residential Agriculture) and
is
located on the 900 Block
of Creekside Drive SE (Marion County Assessor s Map and Tax Lot Numbers: 083W22
00111; 083W22BA0700; and 083W22AA03900).
DECISION
The tentative subdivision plan is DENIED subject to the applicable standards of the Salem
Revised Code, the findings contained herein.
PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
1. On April30 2015, an application for tentative subdivision plan was filed proposing to
divide a property located at the 900 Block
of
Creekside Drive SE (Attachment B) into 4
lots. On May 26, 2015, the City notified the applicant that the application was
incomplete, pursuant to ORS 227 .178(2) The applicant s proposal depicts Tax Lot
3900 as the subject property for the subdivision. Amongst the incomplete items, the
City specified that a review
of
the vested deed for the subject property indicated that
the full extent of the property includes the entire Creekside Golf Club course, including
other adjacent tax lots (083W22 00111 and 083W22BA07000) not shown
in
the
proposal.
2. On June 1 2015, the applicant provided some
of
the missing information and a
statement indicating that the applicant now believed the application to be complete. At
that point and to this date the applicant has not provided a site plan or other application
materials showing the full extent of the subject property for the subdivision. Staff later
SUB15 02
Page 1 August20
2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
3/29
confirmed that the applicant had intended to indicate that as of June 1 no other
information would be provided, as described under ORS 227.178(2)(b).
Accordingly, the application was deemed complete for processing as of June 1 2015.
Notice to surrounding property owners was mailed pursuant to Salem Revised Code
(SRC) requirements
on
July
2
2015. Notice was posted
on
the subject property
pursuant to SRC requirements on July
6
2015. The applicant has granted the City one
30-day extension and two subsequent 14-day extensions of the 120-day state
mandated deadline for final local decision, to November 26 2015.
3.
On August
14
2015, the applicant submitted additional evidence describing the
ownership and land use history of the subject property. The applicant contends that this
evidence demonstrates that Tax Lot 3900 is a separate unit
of
land from the remainder
of the golf course.
SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS
1
Salem Area
omprehensive Plan
(SACP)
Land Use Plan Map: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential
and Developing Residential on the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan (SACP) Map.
Urban Growth Policies: The subject property is located inside the Salem Urban Growth
Boundary and inside the corporate city limits.
Growth Management: The subject property is outside of the Urban Service Area.
However, the subject property was originally developed under a valid Urban Growth
Declaration and all required facilities are
in
place. An Urban Growth Area Development
Permit
is
not required for the proposed development.
2
Zoning and Land Use
The subject property is zoned RA (Residential Agricultural). Pursuant to SRC
265.015(a)(2)(A), the zoning
of
the subject property will be automatically converted to
RS (Single Family Residential) by operation of law upon the recording of the final
subdivision plat. The
RS
zone generally allows Single Family residential uses, along
with a mix of other compatible uses. The existing golf course is permitted as a special
use, subject to the special use requirements of SRC 700.015,
in
both the RA and
RS
zones. SRC Chapter 511 provides the development standards for the RS zone,
including minimum lot sizes, lot dimensions, setbacks, and lot coverage.
The zoning of surrounding properties is as follows:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SUB15 02
RS (Single Family Residential); RA (Residential Agriculture)
RS (Single Family Residential); RA (Residential Agriculture)
(Across Sunnyside Road SE) RS (Single Family Residential);
RD
(Duplex Residential)
RS (Single Family Residential)
Page 2
August20 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
4/29
3 Existing Site onditions
The subject property consists o Creekside Golf Club, an 18-hole golf course with a
series o residential subdivisions and planned unit developments surrounding most o
its perimeter. These residential areas have been developed
in
at least
13
phases since
1992. The subject property is a single unit of unplatted land, consisting of three tax lots:
• Tax Lot 3900, (083W22AA03900) approximately 4.9 acres
in
size. The
14th
hole of the golf course and site of the subdivision as proposed.
• Tax Lot 7000, (083W22BA07000) approximately 13.6 acres in size. The 13th
hole o the golf course.
• Tax Lot
111
, (083W22 00111) approximately 116.37 acres in size. Contains
16 o 18 holes o the golf course, plus the clubhouse and other related facilities.
The applicant's tentative subdivision plan proposes to divide only the land within Tax
Lot 3900 into four lots. Tax Lot 3900 consists of the 14th hole o the golf course, and is
lined with 19 single family residences
on
individual lots, developed
in
the 1990s as Golf
Club Estates at Creekside, Phase I (PUD92-2). Although lots developed as part o the
planned unit development abut Tax Lot
3900
on
three
o
four sides, the golf course
is
listed as a save and except area
on
the plat for PUD92-2. Findings adopted as part of
the Planning Commission's approval of PUD92-2 state that the golf course property
is
part of the overall development and is included
in
the Planned Unit Development
review o the tentative plan. This finding serves as the basis for a condition of approval
requiring half-street improvements along
gol
course frontage on Sunnyside Road SE,
south of the intersection with Creekside Drive SE and beyond the platted boundary of
Phase
I.
A further condition o approval requires the applicant to make contact with
appropriate agencies for the review
o
flood plains, creek crossings, and wetlands for
the portion o the golf course impacted by Battle and Jory Creeks, well south
o
Phase
I. These findings and conditions indicate that to the extent that the golf course was
evaluated as part o PUD92-2, it was evaluated as the property encompassing the
entire course, not just the portion containing the 14th hole.
The applicant continued to assert
in
the Planning Commission hearing
on
PUD92-2
and the Review Conference on PUD00-1 (Phase 7) that the golf course was not part o
the original PUD proposal or approval. None o the subdivision plats implementing the
various phases o the overall Creekside development along the perimeter o the
course have included the golf course or any portion of the course as a platted lot. The
golf course has not been dedicated or described as required open space for any
o
the
planned unit developments abutting the course. Access to the
gol
course is provided
by a network of private streets owned by the Creekside Homeowners Association.
4 Proposal
The applicant's tentative subdivision plan proposes to divide only the land within Tax
Lot 3900 into four lots. Three o the lots are intended for residential development
(Attachment
B)
and range
in
size from approximately 9,088 square feet to 9,682 square
SUB15 02
Page 3
Augus\20 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
5/29
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
6/29
Staff Response:
Existing neighborhoods within the Creekside Homeowners
Association boundaries have been developed through a series of individual
developments, each
of
which have been required to record
an
agreement for
common facilities that create an appropriate common linkage to prior agreements
for earlier phases. Proposed Lots 1-3 would similarly rely on the existing network of
private streets and would therefore
be
subject to the appropriate common linkage
requirement. The private streets abutting the subject property contain water, sewer,
and storm facilities owned by the City.
• Issue #2: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC Rs) between the
Creekside HOA and the applicant may prohibit alteration
of
the golf course
boundary.
Staff Response: CC Rs
are an agreement between private parties and therefore
a civil matter. The City does not have the authority to enforce CC Rs or to cite
them as a basis for approving or denying a tentative subdivision approval.
•
Issue
#3: Development of the proposed lots would reduce vision clearance
at the corner of Creekside Drive SE and Crooked Stick Loop SE.
Staff
Response
Development on the proposed lots would be subject to regulations
adopted in Salem Revised Code Chapter 805 to ensure visibility for vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian traffic at street intersections. Development
on
proposed Lot
3 a corner lot, would be subject to a 12-foot setback along each street frontage.
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 are located more than 80 feet from the intersection and
would not affect vision clearance.
• Issue 4: Development of the proposed lots would block views for
surrounding properties.
Staff Response: Development on the proposed lots would be subject to Unified
Development Code requirements such as maximum height, maximum lot coverage,
and minimum setbacks. Effect on specific views enjoyed from existing residences
is
not a criterion under the Salem Revised Code for granting or denying a tentative
subdivision approval.
• Issue 5: Development
of
the proposed lots would reduce the value of
homes in the vicinity.
Staff Response:
Effect
on
property values is not a criterion under the Salem
Revised Code for granting or denying a tentative subdivision approval.
• Issue 6: The subdivision would set a precedent for further development of
residential lots
on
other portions
of
the golf course property.
Staff Response: The applicant may develop land in its ownership, subject to
requirements
of
the Unified Development Code. Approval of the proposed
subdivision would not create a precedent that would allow the greater latitude for
SUB15-02 Page 5 August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
7/29
future development proposals. The applicant may make similar proposals to
subdivide other portions of its property in the future, regardless of whether or not the
subject subdivision is approved or denied.
7. City Department Comments
A
Salem Fire Department reviewed the proposal and submitted comments indicating
that a minimum of 1 000 gallons per minute at 20 psi is required for one- and two
family dwellings
up
to 3,600 square feet in size. Dwellings exceeding 3,600 square
feet in size will require 1 500 gallons per minute fire flow or installation of an
approved fire sprinkler system
B
The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal and provided comments
pertaining to requirements for streets, storm drainage, water, and sanitary sewer
services. Comments from the Public Works Department are included as Attachment
D
8. Public Agencies, Utilities, and Service
Provider
Comments
Public agencies, utilities, and private service providers were mailed notification of the
proposed application. No public agencies, utilities or other service providers submitted
comments
on
the proposal.
9 Criteria for Granting a
Subdivision
The Salem Revised Code (SRC), which includes the Unified Development Code
(UDC), implements the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan land use goals, and governs
development of property within the city limits. The subdivision process reviews
development for compliance with City standards and requirements contained in the
UDC, the Salem Transportation System Plan (TSP), and the Water, Sewer, and Storm
Drain System Master Plans. A second review occurs for the created lots at the time of
site plan review/building permit review to assure compliance with the UDC. Compliance
with conditions of approval to satisfy the UDC is checked prior to city staff signing the
final subdivision plat.
Salem Revised Code (SRC) Chapter 205.010(d) sets forth the criteria that must be met
before approval
can
be granted to a subdivision request. The following subsections are
organized with approval criteria shown in bold, followed by findings of fact upon which
the Planning Administrator s decision is based. The requirements
of
SRC 205.010(d)
are addressed within the specific findings which evaluate the proposal s conformance
with the applicable criteria. Lack
of
compliance with the following criteria is grounds for
denial of tentative plan or for the issuance of conditions of approval to more fully satisfy
the criteria.
SRC 205.010(d)(1): The tentative subdivision plan complies with the
standards
of
this Chapter and
with
all applicable provisions of the UDC, including
but
not
limited
to, the following:
SUB15-02 Page
6
August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
8/29
A) Lot standards, including, but not limited to, standards for lot area, lot
width and depth, lot frontage and designation o front and rear lot lines.
Finding: The proposed subdivision would divide a 4.26-acre portion of the subject
property into 4 lots, with an unplatted remainder of approximately 129.94 acres. The
applicant has not provided information to demonstrate that the lot standards are met
across the full extent of the subject property. As proposed, the subdivision would create
a unit
of
land (the unplatted remainder
of
the subject property) not lawfully established,
and therefore would not comply with all applicable standards of SRC Chapter 205 and
the UDC, including all applicable provisions
of
Chapter 92 of the Oregon Revised
Statutes.
The subject property is currently zoned RA (Residential Agriculture). However, SRC
Chapter 265.015 provides that any land within an RA zone district that is subject to a
subdivision approval shall automatically be re-classified to an RS zone district on the
date the subdivision plat
is
recorded. This provision applies to the subject property.
Because the zoning
of
the property will be changed to
RS
with the recording
of
the plat,
the following analysis
of
the subdivision for conformance with the requirements of the
UDC is based upon the property being rezoned to RS (Single Family Residential). The
minimum lot area requirements of the RS zone are established under SRC 511.01
O a)
as follows:
ot Standards for RS zone see SRC Chapter 511, Table 511-2)
M i ~ i i n u m
s i ~ n C i a r C I
'' y
' ~ ~ < :
Requirement
*
' X
Lot Area (Single Family) 4,000 square feet
Lot Width
40 feet
Lot Depth (Single Family)
70 feet
Street Frontage
40 feet
The lots in the subdivision, as proposed by the applicant, range from approximately
9,088 square feet to 4.26 acres in size. Proposed Lots 1-3 exceed minimum lot area,
dimension, and frontage requirements, and therefore conform to applicable standards.
The applicant does not show the full extent of the subject property on the site plan, and
has not provided dimensional information needed to determine if lot standards are met
across the remainder of the property. Proposed Lots 1-3 are of sufficient size and
dimension to permit future development
of
uses allowed within the zone.
Setback Requirements: SRC Chapter 511 establishes the following setback
standards for development within an RS (Single Family Residential) zone:
Front Yards and Yards Adjacent to Streets:
SUB15-02
Minimum 12 feet (minimum 20 feet when adjacent to a street designated
'Collector', 'Arterial', or 'Parkway')
Minimum 20 feet for garages
Page 7
August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
9/29
Rear Yards:
Minimum 14 feet (for any portion of a main building not more than one story
in height); or
Minimum 20 feet (for any portion of a main building greater than one story
in
height)
Interior Side Yards
Minimum 5 feet
Front Lot
Line Designation:
SRC Chapter 800.020(a) establishes front lot line
designation requirements for corner lots, double frontage lots, flag lots, and
all other
lots. For lots that have frontage on a public street, other than corner lots, the front lot
line shall be the property line that has frontage
on
the public street. Corner lots are lots
located at the intersection of two streets, typically with street frontage on two sides.
Provided that lot dimension requirements are met, the front lot line for a corner lot shall
be the property line abutting a street provided by the building permit applicant.
Double Frontage Lots: SRC 511.01 O a) establishes a minimum lot depth of 120 feet
for double frontage lots. Lot 4 as proposed by the applicant would not be a double
frontage lot. A remainder lot covering the full extent of the subject property would have
numerous frontages on streets surrounding and bisecting the golf course, and would
not be considered a double-frontage lot. Setback requirements for the proposed lots
would be reviewed at the time of application for building permits on those individual
lots.
Flag
Lots:
SRC 800.025, allows flag lots
to
be created within subdivisions when the
lots are created in conformance with the flag
lot standards set forth in Table 800-1.
SRC 800.025(e) limits the maximum number
of
flag lots within a subdivision to 15
percent of the proposed lots. The proposed subdivision does not include flag lots.
Therefore, flag lot standards do not apply
to
the proposal.
Street Spacing: SRC 803.030 requires that blocks shall be a maximum of 600 feet
between street centerlines, and not less than 120 feet
and
not more than 400 feet
along the other axis, except where topographical or other physical features dictate
otherwise. The applicant is proposing lots within the existing street and block network
of various phases of Creekside Estates. The proposal would not result in any changes
to existing street spacing or block lengths.
The applicant has not provided information to demonstrate that the criterion is met
across the full extent
of
the subject property. The proposal does not comply with all
applicable standards of SRC Chapter 205 and the UDC, including all applicable
provisions
of
Chapter 92
of
the Oregon Revised Statutes. Therefore, the proposal does
not meet this criterion.
(B) City infrastructure standards
Finding: The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal for compliance with the
City s public facility plans pertaining to the provision of water, sewer, streets, and storm
SUB15-02
Page 8 August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
10/29
drainage facilities. While SRC Chapter 205 does not require submission of facility
construction plans prior to tentative subdivision plan approval, it is the responsibility
of
the applicant to design and construct adequate city water, sewer, transportation, and
storm drainage facilities to serve the proposed lots prior to final plat approval without
impeding service to the surrounding area.
A summary of existing improvements are as follows:
Streets: Proposed Lots 1-3 have are bordered
on
the east by Crooked Stick Loop
SE. Proposed Lot 3 also has abuts Creekside Drive SE. Both streets are private
streets maintained by the Creekside Estates Homeowners Association. The
abutting segment of Crooked Stick Loop SE has an approximate 30-foot
improvement within a 40-foot-wide easement, and the abutting segment of
Creekside Drive SE has an approximate 34-foot improvement within a 60-foot-wide
easement.
Water: The Salem Water System Master Plan identifies the subject property as
being located within the S-2 water service level. The Public Works Department
indicates that there is a 6-inch dead end water line located
in
Crooked Stick Loop
SE and a 6-inch water line located in Creekside Drive SE.
anitarv Sewer: The Public Works Department indicates that there are 8-inch
sewer lines located
in
Crooked Stick Loop SE and Creekside Drive SE.
torm Drainage: The Public Works Department indicates that there is
an
8-inch
storm main located
in
Crooked Stick Loop SE.
As indicated by the Public Works Department, water, sewer, and stormwater
infrastructure
is available to serve the proposed development. Such utilities are
provided in conformance with the City's public facility plans.
The
proposal meets this
criterion.
C) Any special development standards, including, but not limited to,
floodplain development, special setbacks, geological or geotechnical
analysis, and vision clearance.
Finding: As conditioned, the proposed subdivision meets some, but not all, applicable
provisions of the Salem Revised Code as detailed below:
SRC Chapter 64 (Comprehensive Planning): The subdivision, as proposed
and
with
conditions of approval, conforms to the Salem Area Wastewater Management
Master Plan, the Stormwater Master Plan, the Water System Master Plan, and the
Salem Transportation System Plan, as detailed in the earlier findings in this section
of
the decision regarding compliance with SRC 205.01 O d) 1 )(B).
SRC Chapter 65 (Excavation and Fills): SRC Chapter 65 (Excavations and Fills)
establishes standards to ensure that any excavation or fill adjacent to public right-of
way or within a public easement, designated waterway, or floodplain overlay zone
creates no imminent danger to public safety or public facilities and does not create a
SUB15-02
Page 9 August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
11/29
public nuisance. SRC Chapter 65 also prohibits excavation or fill that causes
surface drainage to flow over adjacent public or private property
in
a volume or
location materially different from that which existed before the grading occurred.
There is no evidence that the subject property cannot be developed consistent with
the provisions o SRC Chapter 65.
Pursuant to SRC 65.040, and prior to any ground disturbing activity, permits shall
be required and obtained from the Public Works Director for any excavation work
adjoining a public right-of-way, or adjoining or within an easement or future right-of
way or easement), or within or adjoining a designated waterway, or within a
floodplain overlay zone.
SRC Chapter 200 Urban Growth Management): The Urban Growth Management
Program, detailed
in
SRC Chapter 200, requires that an Urban Growth Preliminary
Declaration
must be obtained prior to development of property outside the Salem
Urban Service Area. The subject property was originally developed under a valid
Urban Growth Declaration and all required facilities are in place. An Urban Growth
Area Development Permit is not required, and the proposal conforms to the
requirements of SRC Chapter 200.
SRC Chapter 205 Land Division and Reconfiguration): The intent
o
the Land
Division and Reconfiguration code is to provide for orderly development through the
application o appropriate standards and regulations. As described in findings
above, the applicant did not provide a site plan or other application materials
reflecting the entire boundary o the subject property to be divided. Instead, the
applicant proposes to create proposed Lot 4 based on tax lot lines, and leave the
remainder of the subject property as unplatted land. Therefore, the applicant has
not met all application submittal requirements necessary for adequate review o the
proposed subdivision. As proposed, the tentative subdivision cannot comply with
final plat requirements provided under SRC 205.035, including the requirement that
the final plat complies with all applicable provisions
o
Chapter 92
o
the Oregon
Revised Statutes. Therefore, the subdivision does not conform to all applicable SRC
Chapter 205 requirements.
SRC Chapter
5
Single Family Residential): The subject property is currently
zoned RA Residential Agriculture). However, SRC Chapter 265.015 provides that
any land within an RA zone district that is subject to a subdivision approval shall
automatically
be re-classified to an RS zone district on the date the subdivision plat
is recorded. SRC Chapter 511,
RS
Zone, specifies minimum lot size and dimension
requirements, building setbacks, and lot coverage. standards. The three proposed
parcels for residential development are o such size and configuration to provide
reasonable development consistent with SRC Chapter
5
provisions, as detailed
in
findings earlier
in
this section o the decision regarding compliance with SRC
205.01 O d) 1) A). The applicant does not show the full extent o the subject property
SUB15-02 Page 10
August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
12/29
on the site plan, and has not provided dimensional information needed to determine
if lot standards are met across the remainder of the property.
The existing golf course appears to meet the special use standards at SRC
700.015, which are applied identically in the
RS
zone as
in
the existing RA zone.
However, the applicant has only provided information regarding property
boundaries, existing structures, and course boundaries for Tax Lot 3900 (14
1
h
Fairway).
SRC Chapter 808 (Preservation of Trees and Vegetation): The City's tree
preservation ordinance protects Heritage Trees, Significant Trees (including Oregon
White Oaks with diameter-at-breast-height of 24 inches or greater), trees and native
vegetation in riparian corridors, and trees on lots and parcels greater than 20,000
square feet.
In addition, SRC 808.035(a) requires a Tree Conservation Plan for a development
proposal involving the creation of lots or parcels to be used for the construction of
single-family dwelling units, where trees are proposed for removal. The applicant
has submitted an application for tree conservation plan approval in conjunction with
the subdivision application (TCP15-05). SRC 808.035(d)(4) requires
in
relevant part
that an application for a Tree Conservation Plan shall be granted if not less than 25
percent of all trees located on the property are designated for preservation,
provided, however, if less than 25 percent of all trees
on
the property are
designated for preservation, only those trees reasonably necessary to
accommodate the development proposal shall be designated for removal. TCP15-
05 only provides
an
inventory
of
trees on
ax
Lot 3900, and does not include trees
on the remainder of the subject property. Accordingly, the proposed subdivision
does not conform to applicable SRC Chapter 808 requirements.
SRC Chapter 809 (Wetlands): Grading and construction activities within wetlands
are regulated by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and US Army Corps
of Engineers. State and Federal wetlands laws are also administered by the DSL
and Army Corps, and potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are addressed
through application and enforcement of appropriate mitigation measures. The
Salem-Keizer Local Wetland Inventory (LWI) identifies mapped wetlands on the
subject property, on Tax Lot 111, outside of the area shown
in
the applicant's
proposal. SRC Chapter 809 establishes requirements for notification of DSL when
an application for development is received
in
an area designated as a wetland on
the official wetlands map.
SRC Chapter 810 (Landslide Hazards): The proposed development
is
identified as
a moderate landslide risk per SRC Chapter 810. In 2002, a Geological Assessment
was conducted and approved
for
the subject property.
SUB15-02 Page
August20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
13/29
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
14/29
Finding: The proposed development
is
subject to SRC Chapter 71 and the revised
PWDS as adopted in Administrative Rule 109, Division 004. To demonstrate the
proposed parcels can meet the PWDS, the applicant shall provide an engineered
tentative stormwater design to accommodate future impervious surface on all proposed
lots.
All public
and
private City infrastructure proposed to
be
located
in
the public right-of
way shall be constructed or secured per SRC 205.035 c) 6) B) prior to final plat
approval. Any easements needed to serve the proposed parcels with City
infrastructure shall
be
shown on the final plat. The proposal meets this criterion.
SRC 205.010 d) 4): The street system in and adjacent to the tentative subdivision
plan conforms to the Sa/em Transportation System Plan
Finding: The Public Works Department indicates that the existing private streets
surrounding the subject property are fully improved in conformance with the Salem
Transportation System Plan TSP) and are sufficient to serve the proposed
development. The proposal meets this criterion.
SRC 205.01 O d) 5): The street
system
in and adjacent
to
the tentative subdivision
plan
is
designed so as to provide for the safe, orderly, and efficient circulation of
traffic into, through, and out
of
the subdivision.
Finding: The Public Works Department indicates that the existing private streets
surrounding the subject property are fully improved and are sufficient to serve the
proposed development. Proposed Lots 1-3 would similarly rely on the existing network
of private streets and would be required to contribute to ownership and maintenance of
the private streets through
an
appropriate common linkage agreement to prior
agreements for earlier phases. The proposal meets this criterion.
SRC 205.010 d) 6): The tentative subdiv_ision plan provides
for
safe and.
convenient bicycle and pedestrian access from within the subdivision to
adjacent residential areas and transit
stops
and to neighborhood activity centers
within one-half mile of the development For the purposes of this criterion,
neighborhood activity centers include, but are not limited to, existing
or
planned
schools parks, shopping areas, transit stops,
or
employment centers.
Applicant
Statement: The subdivision is served with adequate transportation
infrastructure and the street system adjacent to the property conforms to the
Transportation System Plan
and
provides for safe, orderly, and efficient circulation of
traffic into, through,
and
out of the subject property once the access ways are hard
surfaced and physically connected to the public street system.
Lots
_1 3
will have direct access onto Crooked Stick Loop to the east. Lot 4 will not
be
developed and will continue to
be
part of the golf course.
SUB15 02
Page 13
August20 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
15/29
Therefore, via existing paved streets and sidewalks, safe and convenient bicycle and
pedestrian access will be provided to the site and adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore,
this criteria [sic] has been met.
Finding:
The proposed subdivision is situated within one-half mile
of
one neighborhood
activity center, Bryan Johnston Park, approximately one-half mile north of the subject
property, at 400 Mildred Lane SE. The Public Works Department reviewed the proposal
for consistency with the Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Update and found that the
subject property
is
served by Bryan Johnston Park. Pedestrian sidewalk connections
are available from the subject property to the park. No park-related improvements are
required as a condition of development.
The TSP Bicycle Map does not propose bike lanes within or adjacent to the subject
property. The nearest existing bicycle facilities are bike lanes located
on
Sunnyside
Road SE which has safe and convenient access from Proposed Lots 1-3 via Creekside
Drive SE. The proposal meets this criterion.
SRC 205.010 d) 7): The tentative
subdivision
plan
mitigates impacts
to
the
transportation system consistent with
the
approved
Traffic
Impact Analysis
where applicable.
Applicant Statement: Lots 1-3 will have direct access onto Crooked Stick Loop to the
east. Lot 4 will not be developed and continue to be part of the golf course.
Existing paved streets and sidewalks provide safe and convenient bicycle, pedestrian
access, and vehicle circulation to the site and adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, the
proposed subdivision plan mitigates impacts to the transportation system by utilizing
the existing street systems that are already in place. This criteria [sic] has been met.
Finding: The proposed 4-lot subdivision generates less than 1,000 average daily
vehicle trips to Crooked Stick Loop SE and Creekside Drive SE. Therefore, a TIA was
not required
as
part
of
the proposed subdivision submittal. The proposal meets this
criterion.
SRC 205.010 d) 8): The tentative subdivision plan takes into account the
topography
and vegetation
of
the
site
so the need
for variances is minimized
to
the
greatest
extent practicable.
Finding:
Proposed Lots 1-3 take into account the vegetation and topography
of
the
site, which slopes slightly downward toward the east. Although the applicant does not
propose development
on
Lot 4 at this time, the proposal does not reflect the full extent
of the subject property, and therefore conditions on the entire site cannot be evaluated.
SRC 205.010 d) 9): The tentative subdivision plan takes into account the
topography
and vegetation
of
the site,
such that the
least
disruption of the site
topography
and vegetation
will result from the
reasonable
development of the
lots.
SUB15-02 Page 14 August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
16/29
Applicant Statement: The subdivision code requires City approval o lots be suitable
for the general purpose for which they are likely to be developed. No lots can be of
such a size or configuration that is detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or
sanitary needs of users o the parcel or lot.
The subdivision plan takes into consideration the topography and vegetation of the site.
There are thirteen (13) trees located
on
the subject property. Only one (1) tree is
designated for removal. The tree designated for.removal is located within the building
envelope of Lot 1 and therefore, needs to be removed. The applicant's proposal
preserves 92 of the trees on site.
Finding: The proposed subdivision has been reviewed to ensure that adequate
measures have been planned to alleviate natural or fabricated hazards and limitations
to development, including topography and vegetation of the site. Staff concurs that
proposed Lots 1-3 take into account the vegetation and topography o the site, which
slopes slightly downward toward the east. Although the applicant does not propose
development on Lot 4 at this time, the proposal does not reflect the full extent o the
subject property, and therefore conditions
on
the entire site cannot be evaluated.
The applicant has submitted
n
application for tree conservation plan approval
in
conjunction with the subdivision application (TCP15-05). The applicant has proposed to
retain 12 o 13 trees
on
Tax Lot 3900 (14
h fairway), or approximately 92.3 of the
trees on that portion of the subject property. The Tree Conservation Plan primarily
retains trees within the playable area of the golf course, where where construction is
unlikely to occur. Although the applicant does not propose-development on Tax Lot
3900 or the remainder
o
the golf course at this time, the proposal does not reflect the
full extent o the subject property, and therefore the Tree Conservation Plan cannot be
evaluated for the entire site as required under SRC Chapter 808.
Because the applicant has not provided information to demonstrate that the criteria are ·
met across the full extent o the subject property, the proposal does not meet these
criteria.
SRC 205.010 d) 10): When the tentative subdivision plan requires n Urban
Growth Preliminary Declaration under SRC Chapter 200, the tentative subdivision
plan is designed in a manner that ensures that the conditions requiring
construction o on-site infrastructure in the Urban Growth Preliminary
Declaration will occur, and, i off-site improvements are required in the Urban
Growth
Preliminary Declaration, construction o any off-site improvements
is
assured.
Finding:
The Urban Growth Management Program, detailed
in
SRC Chapter 200,
requires that an Urban Growth Preliminary Declaration must be obtained prior to
development o property outside the Salem Urban Service Area. The subject property
was originally developed under a valid Urban Growth Declaration (UGA90-9) and all
required facilities are
in
place. An Urban Growth Area Development Permit is not
required, and this criterion does not apply.
SUB15-02
Page 15
August 20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
17/29
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
A subdivision to divide an unplatted unit of land comprising the Creekside Golf Club into 4
lots ranging in size from 9,088 square feet to 4.26 acres, with the remainder of the subject
property left over as an unplatted remainder, for property located in
an
RA (Residential
Agriculture) zone, and located at the 900 Block of Creekside Drive SE (Marion County
Assessor s Map and Tax Lot Numbers: 083W22 00111; 083W22BA0700; and
083W22AA03900)
is
hereby DENIED.
d . laooec
II
Urban Planning Administrator Designee
Attachments:A Vicinity Map
B. Applicant s Tentative Subdivision Plan
C. Applicant s Written Statement
on
Tentative Subdivision
D.
City of Salem Public Works Department Comments
Application Deemed Complete:
Notice of Decision Mailing Date:
Decision Effective Date:
State Mandated Decision Date:
June1 2015
August 20, 2015
September
5
2015
November 26, 2015
A copy of the complete Case File
is
available for review during regular business hours at
the Planning Division office, 555 Liberty
S t ~ e t
SE Room 305, Salem OR 97301.
This decision
is
final unless written appeal from a party with standing to appeal, along with .
an appeal fee,
is
filed with the City of Salem Planning Division, Room 305, 555 Liberty
Street SE, Salem, Oregon 97301, no later than Friday September 4 2015 5:00p.m.
The notice of appeal must contain the information required by SRC 300.1020. The notice
of appeal must be filed in duplicate with the City of Salem Planning Division. The appeal
fee must be paid at the time offi ling. If the notice
of
appeal is untimely
and/or
acks the
proper fee, the notice
of
appeal will be rejected. The Salem Planning Commission will
review the appeal at a public hearing. The Planning Commission may amend, rescind, or
affirm the action or refer the matter to staff for additional information.
G:\CD\PLANNINGICASE APPLICATION Files 2011-0n\SUBDIVISION\201513- Decision-Order Documents\SUB15-02.cjg.docx
SUB15-02 Page 16 August20, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
18/29
- - - - - - ~ - - ~ ~
IT=ACHMENT====
Vicinity Map
900 Block
of
Creekside
Drive
SE
Legend
r a x l o t s
D Urban Growth Boundary
:: '
1
City Limits
0 10 200 Feet
IIIICIIIIIIIII
Subject Property
I SJ Outside Salem City Limits
~
Historic District
b
Schools
~
k
ars
a r Y ~
Community Development Dept.
This product is provided as is, without warranty. In no
event is the City
of
Salem liable for damages from the
use of this product. This product is subject to license
and copyright limitations and further distribution or
resale is prohibited.
G:\CD\PLANNING\Chris Green\LD
Land Division\SUB1S...xx
900
Blk.
Creekside
Dr.
SE\15 108220 LD MAP.mxd 7/212015@ 11:22:04
AM
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
19/29
lXI
1-
z
w
:: :
J:
~
ATTACHMENT B
0 ' ~ ' ' / :/) vs/op•N
Creekside Golf Course
6250 CLUBHOUSE DR. S.E.
SALEM, OREGON 97306
REEKSIDE GOLF
OURSE
----
SEC.
22, T.
8 s.,
1
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
20/29
I
ATTACHMENT C
SUB/PUD Application
BACKGROUND
On March
3
1992, PUD 92-2 for Creekside Golf Club Estates was approved by the City of Salem
Planning Commission. The subject property is part of PUD 92-2.
On December 29 2014, a pre-application conference PRE_AP14-49) was held with City of
Salem staff to discuss subdividing the subject property. It was determined by staff, that the
applicant will
be
required to apply for a new Subdivision/PUD approval for dividing the subject
property.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to divide the subject property 083W22AA/3900) into 4 lots.
Lot 1:
9 088 sq.ft.
Lot 2: 9 000
sq.
t.
Lot
3:
9 682
sq.ft.
Lot
4: 185 769 sq. . t Lot 4
is
open space and part of the golf course. Lot 4 will continue to be
used for open space/golf course are and will not be developed. See attached site plan.
SITE VICINITY
and
CHARACTERISTICS:
The subject property contains approximately
4.
9 acres. The subject property is zoned RA
Residential Agriculture). The subject property is vacant and is part of the golf course.
Topography, property configuration and dimensions area illustrated on the tentative plan.
The surrounding properties are zoned and used as follows:
North: RS Residential Single Family); existing single family dwellings
East: RS Residential Single Family); existing single family dwellings
South: RA Residential Agriculture); golf course
West: RS Residential Single Family); existing single family dwellings
The subject property is located within the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary.
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
21/29
CRITERIA AND APPLICANT S REASONS ADDRESSING UDC 205.010(d)(1):
The intent of the subdivision code is providing for orderly development through the application of
appropriate rules nd regulations. Pursuant to the application of the current enabling statutes,
these regulations are those cited in UDC205.010 d) and UDC 205.015 d). The decision criteria
for subdivisions without a concurrent variance under UDC 205.010 d) and UDC 205.015 d) must
be found to exist before
n
affirmative decision may be made for a subdivision application.
1) The tentative subdivision plan complies with the standards of this Chapter and with all
applicable provisions
of
the UDC, including, but not limited
to
the following:
A) Lot standards, including, but not limited to standards for lot area, lot width and depth,
lot
frontage
and
designation of front and rear lot lines.
The proposal does not require any variances to lot development or street standards specified in
the Code. UDC Chapter 210 does not have lot dimension requirements. The PUD Chapter
is
setup to provide flexibility in lot sizes. However, the subject property does have PUD PUD 92-2)
approval; therefore, PUD code standards have been met.
As shown on the site plan, all41ots meet lot size and dimension standards as required under UDC
Chapters 510 and 511.
The proposal can conform
to
applicable conditions imposed s necessary to ensure that
development conforms
to
the standards of the subdivision code and with existing development
and public facilities. The proposed phase subdivision
is
in compliance with lots size requirements
and required access. Therefore, this criteria has been met.
B) City infrastructure standards.
Water, sewer, storm drainage plans will
be
submitted to the Public Works Department for final plat
and construction plan approval at the final plat stage. The tentative site plan illustrates the location
of the public utility lines. The proposal meets applicable Salem Area Comprehensive Plan
Residential Policies for properties within the Urban Growth Boundary. The proposal encourages
the efficient use of developable residential land. Public facilities and s ~ r v i e s are or will
be
available to serve the site, including services such as water, sanitary and storm sewer and
fire/l ife/safety services. Therefore, this criteria has been met.
C) ny special development standards, including, but not limited to, floodplain
development, special
setbacks,
geological
or
geotechnical analysis,
and
vision clearance.
There are no wetlands or geological hazards located on the subject property.
A geological assessment has already been approved for the entire Creekside development
regarding the nature, distribution of underlying geology, and the physical and chemical properties
of existing soils;
n
opinion as
to
stability of the site, and conclusions regarding the effect
o
geologic conditions on the proposed development as required. ·
A Geological Assessment was done on the site in 2002 for the entire Creekside development. The
Geological Assessment was approved on the site in 2002; the approval
is
on file with the City of
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
22/29
Salem Public Works departments. Therefore, a new geological assessment
is
not needed.
This criteria has been met.
2) The
tentative subdivision plan does not impede the future use or development
of
the
property
or
adjacent land
The proposal
is
for the entire subject property. The surrounding. properties are fully
development. The subject property abuts Creekside Drive
to
the south and Crooked Stick Loop
to the east and west. Lots
1 2
and 3 will not have direct access onto Crooked Stick Loop to the
east. Lot 4 will continue to be used
as
part of the golf course. Lot 4 will continue to have direct
access to Creekside Drive to the south and Crocked Stick Loop to the west. The proposed
subdivision
of
the site will not impede the future use of the property or adjacent land. Access is
available to all lots as each is developed.
The proposed site plan shows street improvements and access
to
all Lots within the proposed
subdivision. Therefore, this criteria
has
been
met
3}
Development within the tentative subdivis ion plan can be adequately served
by
City infrastructure
Water, sewer, storm drainage plans will be submitted to the Public Works Department for final plat
and construction plan approval t the final plat stage. The tentative site plan illustrates the location
of the public utility lines. The proposal meets applicable Salem Area Comprehensive Plan
Residential Policies for properties within the Urban Growth Boundary. The subject property is
subject to UGA 90-9. The proposal encourages the efficient use of developable residential land.
Public facilities and services are or will
be
available
to
serve the site, including services such as
water, sanitary and storm sewer
and
fire/life/safety services.
Water, sewer, storm drainage plans will be submitted to the Public Works Department for final plat
and construction plan approval at the final plat stage. The tentative site plan illustrates the
location of the public utility lines. Therefore, this criteria has been met.
roposed Storm
Water Management Svstem:
Storm water quality and quantity are required for this development. An LID low impact
development) Storm water technique will
be
used to mitigate the increase
in
pollutants
contributed from development. This system may also be used to provide storage and water
quantity control. The exact system will be determined at the time of design. Any proposed
technique will meet City of Salem Storm water Management standards in means and methods to
provide all aspects of Storm water management.
4)
The street system in and adjacent to the tentative subdivis ion plan conforms to the
Salem Transportation System Plan
The major street system is
in
place due to prior development. Creekside Drive abuts the
property to the south. Crocked Stick Loop abuts the property to the west and east. The proposal
provides the site with adequate improved vehicle, pedestrian
and
bike access to adjacent
neighborhood hoods and Sunnyside Road to the east.
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
23/29
The major street network
in
the area has been established and
is
consistent with the Transpor
tation System Plan which implements the Comprehensive Plan. Public Works Department will
address any applicable requirements for right-of-way conveyance that might be required because
of this subdivision. There are
no
internal streets proposed. The existing street system is
already in place to due to surrounding development within Creekside.
Therefore, the existing street system
is in
compliance with the STSP.
Transportation Planning Rule Review:
The City of Salem's TPR encourages a reduction in automobile trips by capitalizing on transit
opportunities and by creating
an
environment that encourages people to walk. The proposed
is
a limited land use decision pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 197.015, and has
therefore been reviewed for consistency with the State's TPR multi-modal connectivity
requirements, and is consistent as follows:
The subject property has a direct street frontage on Crooked Stick Loop and Creekside Drive.
Lots 1-3 will have. direct access onto Crooked Stick Loop to the east. Lot 4 will not be develop
and will remain as part of the golf course. Therefore, this criteria has been met.
5)
The street system in nd adjacent to the tentative subdivision plan is designed so s to
provide
for
the safe orderly nd efficient circulation of traffic into through nd out of the
subdivision.
The subject property is located in a developed and developing area where improved streets and
sidewalks exist. The local street system serving the development provides the necessary
connections and access to the local street and circulation system serving this residential
neighborhood.
The proposed subdivision/pud will provide sidewalks along the proposed portion of the site where
Lots 1 through 3 will be developed. Driveways
or
Lots
1 2
and 3 will be provided directly onto
Crooked Stick Loop.
Access to, within, and from the development must be consistent with applicable requirements
o
the Transportation Planning Rule Requirements (TPR) that requires that development provide
connectivity between land uses and transportation. Under the Rule, developments are
responsible for providing for the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians into, through, and out of a development. The proposal develops the subject property
within an established residential area where local and arterial streets and mass transit facilities
exist. These facilities connect the transportation system to the surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
The Public Works Department will address the level of street improvements that are roughly
proportional to assure conformance to the development to subdivision code and applicable
transportation system plan requirements. Completion
o
conditions of approval prior to the
signing of the final plat will satisfy this criterion for the subdivision application. Therefore, this
criteria has been met. ·
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
24/29
6)
The tentative subdivision plan provides safe
and
convenient bicycle and pedestrian
access from within the subdivis ion to adjacent residential areas and tt:ansit stops
and
to
neighborhood activity centers within one-half mile of the development. or purposes of
this criterion neighborhood activ ity centers include but are not limited to existing
or
planned schools parks shopping areas transit stops or employment centers.
The subdivision is served with adequate transportation infrastructure and the street system
adjacent the property conforms to the Transportation System Plan and provides for safe, orderly,
and efficient circulation of traffic into, through, and out of the subject property once the access
ways are hard-surfaced and physically connected to the public street system.
Lots 1-3 will have direct access onto Crooked Stick Loop to the east. Lot 4 will not
be
developed
and will continue to be part of the golf course.
Therefore, via existing paved streets and sidewalks, safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian
access will be provided to the site and to adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, this criteria has
been met.
7) The
tentative subdivision plan mitigates impacts to the transportation
system
consistent with the approved Traffic Impact Analysis where applicable.
Lots 1-3 will have direct access onto Crooked Stick Loop to the east. Lot 4 will not
be
developed
and will continue to be part of the golf course.
Existing paved streets and sidewalks provide safe and convenient bicycle, pedestrian access,
and vehicle circulation to the site and to adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision plan mitigates impacts to transportation system by utilizing the existing street systems
that are already in place. This criteria has been met.
8)
The tentative subdivision plan takes into account the topography
and
vegetation of the
sit so the need for variances is minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
All Jots and streets are in compliance with the UDC. Therefore, no variances have been
requested.
9)
The tentative subdivision plan takes into account the topography and vegetation of he
site such that the least disruption of the site topography
and
vegetation will result from
the reasonable development of the
lots.
The subdivision code, requires City approval of Jots be suitable for the general purpose for which
they are likely to be developed. No Jots can be of such a size
r
configuration that is detrimental to
public health, safety, or welfare or sanitary needs of users of the parcel or Jot.
The subdivision plan takes into consideration the topography and vegetation of the site. There
are thirteen (13) trees located on the subject property. Only one (1) tree is designated for
removal. The tree designated for removal
is
located within the building envelope of Lot 1 and
therefore, needs to be removed. The applicant's proposal preserves 92 of the trees on the
site.
Creekside SUB 6058
Page
5
April14, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
25/29
The proposed lots are
of
sufficient size and dimensions to permit future development. The lot
dimensions are
illustrated on the tentative site plan and are in conformance to the minimum
standards
in
UDC 510 and 511. The subdivision regulates minimum lot sizes. Final
conformance to minimum lot size and buildable lot area
will be confirmed when the final plat is
submitted to the City for review and approval.
The layout
of
the lots takes into consideration the topography and vegetation of the site. All lots
and streets are
in
compliance with the UDC. Therefore, no variances have been requested.
Therefore, this criteria has been met.
10
When the tentative subdivision pl n requires an Urban Growth Preliminary
Declaration under SRC Chapter
200,
the tentative subdivision plan
is
designed in a
m nner th t
ensures that the condit ions requiring the construction
of
on-site
infrastructure
in
the Urban Growth Preliminary Declaration
will
occur and
i f
off-site
improvements are required
in
the Urban Growth Preliminary Declaration construction
of
ny
off-site improvements is assured.
The property and development are inside the Urban Service Area (USA) and are subject to
growth management requirements for public facilities under SRC Chapter 200 An Urban
Growth Preliminary Declaration is not required. Therefore, this criterion has been met.
PL NNED UNIT DEVELOOPMENT SRC
210 025
The
proposed subdivision meets the PUD requirements under this section by providing more than
adequate open space that is improved as a recreational amenity. The subject property is part
of
Golf Club Estates at Creekside Phase 1 The proposal is for 4 lots. Lot 4 will not be developed
and will continue to be part of the golf course. The subject property is surrounded by the
golf
course which meets the open space criteria.
TREE CONSERVATION/REMOVAL PLAN
There are thirteen (13) trees located
on
the subject property. Only one (1) tree is designated for
removal. The tree designated for removal is located within the building envelope
of
Lot1 and
therefore, needs to be removed.
The
applicant's proposal preserves
92
of the trees
on
the
site.
Creekside
SUB
6058 . Page 6
Apri114, 2015
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
26/29
ATTACHMENT D
RECEIVED
I
I T Y ~ ~
ArYOURSERVICE
COM v1UNlTY
DtVELOPh ENT
TO: Chris Green, Planner
II
Community Development Department
FROM: Glenn Davis, P.E., C.F.M., Chief Development E n g i n e e A : J ~
Public Works Department · l / \
DATE: July 29, 2015
SUBJECT: REV/SED PUBLIC WORKS RECOMMENDATIONS
SUBDIVISION PLAT NO. SUB 15-02 (15-108220-LD)
900 BLOCK OF CREEKSIDE DRIVE SE
PROPOSED FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION
PROPOSAL
A proposed subdivision to divide an unplatted unit of land comprising the Creekside Golf
Club into four lots. Three
of
the lots range in size from approximately 9,088 square feet
to 9,682 square feet, with the fourth lot remaining as part of the golf course. The
applicant s proposal shows Lot 4
as
consisting
of
the remainder
of
the 14th fairway,
an
area of approximately 4.26 acres. However, the property being divided consists of the
entire golf course, so Lot 4 will include the entire remainder of the course, which totals
approximately 134.2 acres in size.
The subject property is zoned RA (Residential Agriculture) and is located in the 900 block
of Creekside Drive SE (Marion County Assessor s Map and Tax Lot Numbers:
083W2200111; 083W22BA0700; and 083W22AA03900).
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL
1. Construct water and sewer systems to serve lots 1 2 and 3.
2. Provide an engineered tentative stormwater design to accommodate future
impervious surface on all proposed lots. Construct stormwater facilities that are
proposed in the public right-of-way and in public storm easements.
3. Show the entire property being divided
on
the final plat.
FACTS
1.
Crooked Stick Loop SE (Private Street) Existing
Conditions This
street has an
approximate 30-foot improvement within a 40-foot-wide easement abutting the
subject property. This street is a private street maintained by the Creekside Estates
Homeowner s Association.
Code authority references are abbreviated in this document as follows: Salem Revised ode (SRC);
Public Works esign Standards (PWDS); Salem Transportation System Plan (Salem TSP);
and
Stormwater Management
Plan
(SMP).
I
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
27/29
Chris Green, Planner II
July 22
1
2 15
2
2.
Creekside Drive SE (Private Street) Existing
Condition-This
street has
an
approximate 34-foot improvement within a 60-foot-wide easement abutting the
subject property. This street is a private street maintained
by
the Creekside Estates
Homeowner's Association.
Storm Drainage
Existing Condition-An 8-inch storm main is located
in
Crooked Stick Loop SE.
Water
Existing Conditions
a.
The subject property
is
located in the S-2 water service level.
b.
A 6-inch dead end water line is located in Crooked Stick Loop SE.
c. A 6-inch water line
is
located
in
Creekside Drive SE and Crooked Stick Loop
SE.
Sanitary Sewer
Existing Sewer
a. An 8-inch sewer
is
located
in
Crooked Stick Loop SE.
b.
An
8-inch sewer is located in Creekside Drive SE.
CRITERIA
AND
FINDINGS
SRC 205.010(d) indicates the criteria that must be found
to
exist before an affirmative
decision may be made. The applicable criteria and the corresponding findings are as
follows:
SRC 205.010 d) 1)-The tentative partition plan complies with the standards of this
Chapter and with all applicable provisions
of
the Unified Development Code, including,
but not limited to the following:
a.
Lot standards, including, but not limited to, standards for lot area, lot width and
depth, lot frontage, and designation of front and rear lot lines;
b. City infrastructure standards; and
c. Any special development standards, including, but not limited to floodplain
development, special setbacks, geological or geotechnical analysis, and vision
clearance.
Findings-The
applicant shall provide the required field survey
and
subdivision plat per
Statute and Code requirements outlined in the
regon Revised Statutes
(ORS) and SRC.
TI.C/JP:G:\GROUP\PUBWKS\PlAN_ACT\PAFINAL15\SUBDMS DN\SUB15·02_CREEKSJDE GOLF COURSE (15·108220-LD)_REV .DOC
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
28/29
-
8/17/2019 Subdivision Denial
29/29
Chris Green Planner II
July 22
zo1s
ME
tV IO
4
SRC
205.010(d)(6)-The tentative subdivision plan provides safe and convenient
bicycle and pedestrian access from within the subdivision
to
adjacent residential .
areas and transit stops, and
to
neighborhood
activity
centers within one-half mile
of the development. For purposes of this criterion, neighborhood activity centers
include,
but
are
not
limited to, existing
or
planned schools, parks, shopping
areas, transit
stops,
or employment centers.
Findings-The
Comprehensive Parks Master Plan Update shows the subject property
is
served
by
developed parks. Bryan Johnston Park
is
a developed park approximately
one
half
mile northwest of the proposed development; pedestrian sidewalk connections
are available from the subject property to the park. No park-related improvements are
recommended
as
a condition of development.
SRC 205.010 d) 7l-The
tentative subdivision plan mitigates impacts
to
the
transportation system consistent with the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),
where applicable. ·
Findings-The
proposed 4-lot subdivision generates less than 1 000 average daily
vehicle trips
to
Crooked Stick Loop SE and Creekside Drive SE. Therefore, a TIA was
not required
as
part of the proposed subdivision submittal.
SRC
205.010(d)(10l-When the tentative
subdivision
plan requires an Urban
Growth Preliminary Declaration under
SRC
Chapter 200 the tentative subdivision
plan is designed in a manner that ensures that the conditions requiring the
construction
of
on-site infrastructure in the Urban Growth Preliminary Declaration
will occur, and, i f off-site improvements are required in the Urban Growth
Preliminary Declaratio11, construction
of
any off-site improvements is assured.
Findings-
The proposed subdivision was originally developed under a valid
Preliminary Declaration and all required facilities are
in
place. An Urban Growth Area
Development Permit is not required for the proposed development.
Prepared
by:
Curt Pellatz, Project Coordinator
cc:
File