HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous APPLICANT 8/23/2013 •
• _ . • t0/(7/67
•
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FINAL DECISION: Variance
•
JOURNAL NUMBER: 87-05-67
APPLICANT NAME: Trent Premore •
REQUEST Variance to Minimum Size Height for Wall Signs
LOCATION North 2nd and 'Q' Streets •
LEGAL 17-03-26-23, Tax Lots 1900, 2000, 2100
• The Development Code Administrator grants approval of Journal Number
87-05-67, Minor Variance, based on affirmative findings that the request
as submitted satisfies each of the criteria of Section 11.030, Article 11
of the Springfield Development ,Code.
STANDARDS FOR THE DECISION
Section 11.030, Article of the Springfield Development Code provides as
follows:
(1 ) Except as specified in Subsection (2) of this Section, a Minor or
Variance shall be granted if the proposal is determined by the
Approval Authority to meet each of the following criteria.
(a) There are unusual circumstances, associated with the property Or
structure which make it impractical to use the development area
for its intended purpose under the Springfield Development Code.
(b) Granting of the Variance would not be inconsistent with both the
Metro Plan and the .Springfield Development Code.
(c) Granting of the Variance would have no significant adverse '
affects on the public welfare or neighboring properties, and
there are provisions to mitigate those adverse affects which
shall be a condition of use.
•
(d) The need for a Variance has not arise solely from a previous •
Code violation; i .e. the hardship is not self-imposed
(e) There are no other practical alternatives available that better
meet the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and the
Metro Plan.
• )- /2
• Date Received: 6
Planner LM
•
•
FINDINGS
•
(a) There are unusual circumstances, associated with the property or
structure which make it impractical to use the development area for
its intended purpose under the Springfield Development Code.
The applicant has submitted general findings which address this criterion
and to which staff agrees (see attachment). The dimensions of the lot,
required setbacks, maximum lot coverage and required public parking spaces
necessitate a building configuration of the neture submitted by the
• applicant. This configuration results in a diminished frontage of signage
he is entitled to without some stacking of signs. A reduction in the size
of the sings to accommodate the height standards would obviate the value
of the sign because of the distance (600+ feet) to the street.
(b) Granting of the Variance would not be inconsistent with both the
• Metro Plan and the Springfield Development Code.
The applicant has submitted a general finding which addresses this
criterion in sequence only, not in substance. The Metro Plan includes
policies which relate to the efficient use of large, undeveloped tracts of
land and the promotion of commercial and industrial developments that draw
upon local labor. The success of larger commercial developments is
proportionate to the success of the lessee. The inability to achieve '
adequate identification (adequate as defined by allowable square footage,
cannot be achieved without an increase in height) would presuppose a
greater than normal likelihood of failure. It is not the intent of the
Metro Plan or the Springfield Development Code to promote business failure.
(c) Granting of the Variance would have no significant adverse affects on
the public welfare or neighboring - properties, and there are
provisions to mitigate those adverse affects which shall be a
- condition of use.
The applicant has submitted general findings which address this criterion
and to which staff agrees. The increase in height from 20' to 24' does
not result in the top of signs exceeding the height of the building. The
increase in height does not create a visible intrusion into neighboring .
properties nor does it create or contribute to a conflict with traffic
• control or visibility. The distance from the signs to the nearest street
or property line is sufficient to obscure this difference to all but the
most discerning observer.
(d) The need for a Variance has not arise solely from a previous Code
violation; i .e. the hardship is not self-imposed
The applicant submitted a general finding which addresses this criterion
and to which staff agrees.
Date Received: ?/ 21(13
Planner: LM �—
•
•
(e) There are no other practical alternatives available that better meet
the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and the Metro Plan.
The applicant has submitted general findings which address this criterion
and to which staff agrees. Placement of the sign at the allowable height
would require: (a) structural modification of the entire building, or (b)
signs too small to read from a distance beyond 50' feet.
CONCLUSION'
On the basis of this record, the requested Variance conforms with the
criteria of Section 11.030, Article 11 of the Springfield Development
Code. Approval of this Variance is hereby granted. .
#1391
SIGNATURE • . 1 •
DATE • Co/n%s7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Date Received: v 21 `3
Planner: LM
•
•
• S
DIND HICK A ASSOCIATE ARCHITECTS, PC
O"A AMERICAN INSTITUTE of ARCHITECTS
May 22, 1987 '
Greg Mott,
Development Code Administrator
City of Springfield
Springfield, Oregon 97477 -
RE: Safeway Shopping Center at North Second and 'Q' St. , Springfield, OR .
Dear Greg:
As per my letter to you dated May 12, 1987, I am requesting an administrative
variance to City Zoning Ordinance Article 18.090 (1) (a) . The request to
raise the maximum allowable height of wall signs from 20 feet to 24 feet above
finish grade is to facilitate a tenant wall sign conflict at Building 'A ' ,
grid 'L ' where an inside corner exists . There is a limited amount of sign
frontage relative to lease area forcing a 'stacking ' of tenant signs, thus
requiring the 24' maximum height allowance.
Granting this variance will not be inconsistant with the Metro Plan or the
Springfield Development Code.
Granting this variance will not adversly affect neighboring properties or
the public welfare. The variance location is approximately 300 feet into
the property and could not be visually compared to neighboring property.
This variance has not arisen from previous code violations .
Granting this variance is the only practical way to solve this problem and
' meet the Springfield Development Code and the Metro Plan.
I am enclosing a partial plan and a partial elevation to illustrate the sign
area for which the variance is requested.
Sincerel,
M
'RENT PREMORE, Architect •
/
/�
encloh
enclosures (3) Date Received:(/f/ ) (7/`-il ( !
Planner: LM
12200 NORTH JANTZEN DRIVE SUITE 450, PORTLAND, OREGON 97217.8137 TELEPHONE 503-285.2256
ARCHITECTURE/SITE EVALUATION-PLANNING/INTERIOR PLANNING/CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
.i,',51t,jc-4■''114.V.'...,,,,-44,,,.,!..-.....,.i??,,...44e.,....•;Alielij.7:0 4,0 ,,,e,..rpr.., , 44..iiym, E.'Cj'" "4J--.- . '-‘ -411/4'.7%Wrienve.O. 1:A-j,.,;“?'sr-1.0rictf"..Steittle*rp., -r I !I.,..—tn
:'c2'4-IZ:ki'gr.al'IR?Xl;rig'tnri4.2:t4.iP.T4:.±3.W,.;:.;pf„,-ir:.c.;V.5kt!',-WA:citfig, '. ..-...)ft. ... *4441:ii,„„"la:,IA '' i ' .; ,-}eiltcr i- • c'. A '''-''R,AA-::
-14,44t.45-44Y4-.Wit::=1.2:11ne*, )tieri-0,..esctivram,. ',.tv'tgaty, A,. 6,,....v.it-i,.:,;4;.,,-,Nctr.;;t4.;;K ,v,,,,..itvtli.• .17,9,...aoty*.v.,' ,, .-Lift 443-nth
4r,
r
.•atv,tt,rilita..,,.....04-sfmt-ar,,,,e-.. itrom.•,, .7 law- „AK,: iv ...• +Pe,LitAe/.'*1'r a't/..4t.KIV lie ;, 1'440..er'tic-°ixArt-4.*4-pz.,
,N,C;bf.e0.*"Kei 4,4.,4F.\‘,;;'•4 .-";%P; '.6 ' " '‘ '':' ' i Oit' •• '':1;:otr. '3/4? - -- , 4 ' %MIA ' 4011.rit91 f'''''' • '4/1--s*-7-4" v.,,
r
. . . .. . .....1. {.1...,:..„ ,. ....tfati,,.0 . .* :. ,:fr„,c ..,.._,,,...., ,,,, ..1 6,....,,,eaft-44 it'S, -4 ' ' ',44,. tli ,4,in, ... ,.,:rit3 ,.---. 1,,,k-ei • atway .. --4.
... -.1';)."-‘•''4V; ' 'S" ‘..(1 -1-i\te,,17:5,e, ''',Erk.:,, , IlArkt"..; kr Or' , ''.,.‘ , p s A 4,4 . ' *Pr.!: *: knt,-,1' 'T4E-4.„..com. ,k. --.--,
„i 0ii . 14- .4.4.ty.
— - • . , • -- - - ,.,„4,4-4.-.. ;bra ilre -:
•
. . • 1 /,• ,
/
: . , i I •
. . - I • ' i i i 1 1
N
, I
•' . I : .
I 1 1
c . ,
. 4'
/ / 1N
. 1 ,
. .
I • .
/ / / /
I
I
. I .
I i // 4/ i /. '' ' ''
19 .
1 I i . . • I , , , / . iN
,
■ , / ,„. / 2
i 1 ! ; • I I ; ! . i ' ' ' /
”
i ! I -rer4w\l- ' te0A1Q-c I / 7 /' ''' ") ' '' . •
• 1 1 ;
. 1 , : ,
, .
1 . 1.:4.. , , i • 2. ! • I/ / ,
, /
i 1 • / .
. . I
Tca /AT ,
• , , • . I ,/
. .
i / , / 3
I
• . _ ,
/ .•
r /, . . , ; • • - . . .
I I .
. . .
.
• i • 1 1 • , 1 1 • . . r -
, • 1 • ; , ,•/
/ / , • -
i 1 . I ' • ' '
. /
,'
,
1 : ' / „-Istp\i'QT. ' . " -• ,
., ..• / / , „
AI-
.
,• I ' 1 '-- - /
• / /'
I 4
//
,
N ,
,
N .
, .
. Si-C- M 3--
. 5 -... .
. I 1 i /eA ,----;,....,
. . ,
_,- .
•
.:-.—•..: • : ! 5(6 i`i --. 1,
N m
. . . • / 3 N , .
, .
, .
. ,,.
, •
. \
•.:-___. ,
. . , .—
,
,\
) •
Date Receivedi 2-ilia N
Planner: LM