HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 5/1/2013 • •
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
} ss.
County of Lane }
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
• 1. I state that I am a Management Support Specialist for the Planning Division
of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as Management Support Specialist, I prepared
and caused to be mailed copies of Notice of Decision re: TYP213-00006
Type II Minor Variance for Alan Bruce Cornell and George A. Cornell
(See attachment "A") on May 1, 2013 addressed to (see Attachment "B"), by
causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid
thereon.
A,
Brenda Jones
Management Support Specialist
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
1\A t5T , 2013 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
Management Support Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their
voluntary act. Before me:
i
OFFICIAL SEAL
�f? KATHRYN E REEFER 'd� _
NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Nine"
COMMISSION NO.443126
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT 4.2013 My Commission Expires: .1
L1l1
Date Received:5 11 113
Planner: LM
•
• •
SPRING•IRD
TYPE II MINOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT & DECISION 1611. b
Nature of Application: The applicant is requesting a variance to a quantitative provision in the Springfield
Development Code to allow for decreased lot size and frontage requirements.
Case Number: TYP213-00006
Project Location: 275 S.38th Street, Springfield, OR, Map and Tax Lot— 17023141 -3500.
Zoning: Low Density Residential •
Applicable Refinement Plan: Low Density Residential—Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan
Application Submitted Date: April 3,2013
Deadline for Written Comment: April 22,2013
Decision Issued Date: May 1,2013
Decision: Approval
Appeal Deadline Date: May 15,2013
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Project Manager Planning Liz Miller 726-2301
Deputy Fire Marshall Fire& Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293
Public Works Civil Engineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 736-1036
Building Division Building Code Chris Carpenter 744-4153
Transportation Engineer Access Michael Liebler 736-1034
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
Property Owner: Applicant:
Alan Bruce Cornell and George A. Cornell Cassie K. Jones,Attorney at Law
275 S.38`h Street Cleaves Swearingen LLP
Springfield, OR 97478 975 Oak Street, Suite 800
Eugene, OR 97401
Applicant's Representative:
Larry B. Olson
Olson&Morris
380 Q Street, Suite 200
Springfield, OR 97477
Date Received:5
Planner: LM
TYP2I3-00006 Minor Variance 1
e so
Description: -
The applicant is requesting a variance to a quantitative provision in the Springfield Development Code to allow for
decreased lot size and frontage requirements. Springfield Development Code Section 5.21-100 states that a Variance
may be granted when the strict application of certain provisions of this Code create a unique circumstance, caused by
unusual conditions related to a specific property, building or structure. Minor variances are limited to certain specific
numeric standards in this Code. Minor Variance SDC section 5.21-125 A. 2. states that the director may adjust certain
numeric standards by up to 30 percent including lot/parcel dimensions that do not reduce the required lot/parcel size
below the minimum required in the applicable zoning district. Additionally, Section 5.21-125 C. states that the Director
may consider additional categories of Minor Variance, on a case by case basis,without the need for an Interpretation, as
specified in Section 5.11-100.
The request is for a 14 percent reduction in the frontage requirement of the SDC and a 17 percent reduction in the lot .
size standard. The purpose of this request is to facilitate a Property Line Adjustment with the neighboring property to
the south. The home to the south is located over the common property line. In this case and per section 5.21-125 C.,
the Director has determined that a minor variance allowing lot size reduction is appropriate and has the benefit of
correcting the location of the property line bisecting the home to the south and creating an appropriate setback between
the properties where none currently exists.
an It r1/2
`.-
i$ haw Li Minor .wi 'k 8-22 AC
I 1 Variance
� �� Request-Lot - I '31 a, 400
( ' m ' frontage and I It,
S ' size-Lot I r it
_: ti II �! 3500 1 l 7
I ■ -
3500 „ 3702 ' � 3002 •
1 0.18 AC 1 1 . Nt)_13 AC
1 ( - 1 W __�
I. - t S.2323y rr , c 0-- g.
1 3600 7X800 {{� . 10,-3900 6
$ _•9.7T zr _- r43 15 57.66 2
8:9O E ON
kill AP 3143 i I' ,
Project Background and Site Information:
This home and the home to the south were both built in 1946. The home to the south has encroached on the common
property line since its construction. The lots are located on the north east corner of South 38th Street and Oregon
Avenue. South 38th Street is asphalt mat with no other improvement and Oregon Avenue is improved with curb,gutter
and sidewalk. The site contains a single family residence with a total square footage of 1,092 square feet. As part of a
settlement agreement between First American Title Company and George and Alan Comeeil a Property Line Adjustment
Date Received:✓ I ( 1 (3
TYP2I3-00006 Minor Variance Planner: LM 2
•
application has been submitted(TYPI 13-00005)requesting a 9.87' adjustment to account for a 6.36 foot encroachment
of the structures located on the lot to the south and an additional 3.5' setback.
kr.^ ,3ttS- ifj fit"': 02.s.4! JFY .GY Ys yM�Y.( Xa{ Y GS..S-��Lffi
R. . r�: �e xst. i , i {'t`, a vt.. aal ;4 vim „,,..,mt ,,. _.•
i _1 -ti' r. ..r .T' c f #,4 9 a v s.i,1 f Fi"` : a i.n. Y t
T ,.. 3'41,1 +`sq ,. .1,41.- r �rk." �` Y "i i-.:-,.:-.1.1,0 .1( j A• aj,L`
x'} 1 31 i>44: :171, E1. t� 4u, ,• t c �� . it
� P1.It y� 9 t}A?i 4.7 ' ;r .- ''a Existing property line z
n, t
fir - between 275 South 38th '
,. rr '�!^ "1..,n+ t '� y��', .. '�' " " I ti� Street and 285 South 38n'
zip * Street
,: w `
!� r 2 A
Iit? u d� �., e r',•t+ -.1a vSsti„.4 .a•. i, ,k.,
t '. `` w t I^ 3' i a: d l
'. t`Fy H 4 j 1.411:1 .astirgG vy-7.a�s�r's'r' "es „I �istk -ii:"ju ` .y.
sf > / :y. osC .n`v �kr .L.T”" - �. rT..� �d"aa" rx fJ1. ��{,.3� y$�A
4' r s'yw 4,, SLP, ,.--,.� I, . y - � `iffyp„-,-3, ,'Ad
." }. Y Pr-It 3 � �1!L (� 1 ,wn . 2k4 "1. +Y� S e`4 ','
"r4S,fi . i 44' 4i�k` w yu s aloft� " rc ; . tau ,l ,, tar= ;.iitt 1,4.1Y �,�C at- EJi. „ �� ., _. ,L i+ , ci t r i ��f '',.'S 2z. 5"zlkr �+
'�j� 1 la Tj` .w `t1 '� f%.
�a`L�';�S* ' a ' ?a..44.11941-3111.1. WxY w x.. wvwt �,sa� 3Kyt-'?T +' + ,r1'
"i " aS r 4 . t; tY 'r'
r z d rf r,, k. Si$ , r'
a €iC H +, .ti � , c
.„ tt,r Cr ,c iY- $"an v.�,.
::r.:.7 .''``.' �'r .''�s, y;, t °11;. . ; ra rt+- t+.i ` 1-44.4 tt.1 1 4.*.i. �x°Fr:.
g ri 8 . Stv'fv 1.4t*I'> ' h il"£. u .v .cy "'24 .� ..'eG*4W + s� 93
� O EGO A E ?>, c ' x54'` d ct ,i, ,r,
p'i ,: 98 4, 6x 'G. i $ s ax e
4 pp=�, 4Y � "ti 4�- y, K _. � ra. 'i 'J:'' .[
�ma �`'s-•i,5' A,rk� �`�M' c'. ° _n}f, '�t °�'. "�v:; w°.. M1bx,- Pf i
Written Comments: 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 application 0).
No comments were received by the end of the comment period.
Criteria of Approval: SDC Section 5.21-125 D. states, The Director shall approve the Minor Variance if the applicant
demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable approval criteria:
(1) Locational or dimensional problems have been identified that can be resolved by a Minor Variance;
Finding: The structure to the south encroaches 6.36 feet onto this lot and no setback area exists.
Finding: A Property Line Adjustment to resolve encroachment of the neighboring home onto this property cannot
satisfy criteria C and F. of SDC 5.16-125,Property Line Adjustment without an approved Minor Variance. Criteria
C. states the following, "The Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Property Line
it TYP213-00006 Minor Variance Date Received: 5 ` 13 3
Planner: LM
Adjustment application. Approval or approval with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following
criteria. The Property Line Adjustment shall not reduce an existing lot/parcel below the minimum size standard or
reduce setbacks below the minimum established by the applicable zoning districts in this Code: Property Line
Adjustment criteria 5.6-125 F. also states, "The adjustment shall not increase the degree of non-conformity of each
lot,parcel or structure that is non-conforming at the time of application".
Finding: In accordance with SDC 3.2-215,the minimum parcel size for parcels on a north-south street is 5,000
square feet with a minimum street frontage of 60 feet.
Finding: The proposed Property Line Adjustment of 9.87 feet would cause the existing conforming frontage of 62'
to be reduced below the minimum frontage requirement and the proposed lot size reduction of 790 square feet
would make the existing non-conforming lot size more non-conforming.
Finding: The proposed reductions in lot size and frontage fall within the maximum 30 percent allowable
adjustment permitted through a Minor Variance.
Conclusion: The findings above show that dimensional problems have been identified and that they can be
resolved by a Minor Variance.
(2) The proposed adjustment is the minimum/maximum necessary to alleviate the identified dimensional or
locational problem;
Finding: The proposal is for an adjustment of 9.87 feet including 6.36 feet of structure encroachment and a 3.5
foot setback to the proposed property line.
Finding: A 3 foot side setback is the minimum setback necessary to meet the Oregon Residential Specialty Code
for fire separation distance.
• Conclusion: The proposed adjustment is the minimum necessary to alleviate the problem. Criteria (2) has been
met.
(3) Where applicable,the request shall result in the preservation of on-site trees 5" dba and above;
Finding: No trees will be affected by this request for Minor Variance.
(4) The request shall not impede adequate emergency access to the site;
Finding: This request does not impede emergency access to the site because all existing access and fire flow is
•
unchanged.
(5) The request shall not unreasonably adversely impact public or private easements; and
Finding: No public or private easements are impacted by this variance although utilities to this site may be
impacted. Utility connections and locations will be addressed in the proposed Property Line Adjustment.
(6) The request shall not unreasonably limit solar access standards for abutting properties. In order to
meet this criterion, the Director may require that the building or structure be placed as close to the south
property line as possible.
Finding: This request does not alter the structure on this lot or the distance of this structure to the north property
line. The request will benefit solar access for this lot due to the structure to the south having a greater distance to
its north property line. •
Conclusion: This proposal satisfies the solar access criteria.
•
Date Received: 5( ( ( 13
Planner:
TYP2 13-00006 Minor Variance LM
4
• •
(7) In addition to the applicable approval criteria specified in Subsections (1)-(6) above, the following
approval criteria shall also apply to a request involving parking reductions on infill lots in the Commercial
and Industrial Districts when there is a change of use, addition or expansion that requires Site Plan Review
Modification. The Minor Variance for parking reductions shall not apply to MDS applications as specified
in Section 5.15-120 D.of this Code.
Finding: This request does not involve a parking reduction and is not located in the Commercial or Industrial
zoning district.
•
Additional Information: 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 and Public
Works Department,225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon.
Appeal: This Type II Minor Variance decision is considered a decision of the Director and as such 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 retumed to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the
•
appeal application.
In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 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 May, 15,2013.
Questions: Please call Liz Miller in the Current Development Division of the Development and Public Works
Department at(541)726-2301 if you have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared By:
Liz Miller
Planner
•
•
•
Date Received:')I t //,1
Planner: LM -
TYP213-00006 Minor Variance 5
• •
{ (I.
� , !
# . )
! 0 \ r }
. . g � k ( {
eee = _
| ? A mo f co
| 0- � t § {
. 1Co ) U) L ,
0I- a z � { °
i » I- § § ; \ \ \
- 1 E -0
LU 7-1| 0 E -
1 { /\ \
. � � | - � :
c
¥ Received: 5 LI
1_i Planner: L
• . •
< t (
i & i
) $
} fi
i CI
-
} )
t. - o
` O. _ # #
! CO ) m ® !
; 01-
.• 0 jr \ 4 "0
t 0 { \ -
1 n
•
1 { - c
/a• <
? l i e•
R e c e i v e d: /( //
Planner: LM
•
•
U • .
z
t
ig
g. Q
A
U a
•
J Q 1-- i
e ti p a 1 0
C7 CO F ¢ o_
Z co O 1, . J CJ
p J r
a cc to J 4 C I-
O F N 0 t N 3 C "�
Z Z 0 ro +)1-
W It it C J i C)a1
j ..
l 2 0_ O 'O C)
4 U p ^' it 3 S-
it + z
Y In in o
• J
W r N N Y
>
.4. C1 C C1 r0 CJ
p 5- > 0C •
F to O r0 N
.■ in 4 C1 in m
1 U Q (J 01 W
"i
t
II
Date Received.5 l 1 /is
Planner LM
•
•
•
4
F-
z •
p W
2
(Z
Ci
F-
14 W w
• 1L p 0)
z W m O
C V
CC 5 L• p i O
V) W L W 0
Q
LL / N.CS � O
Z S-
0
V d CO CD 4-, r
0 00 v
Q r
W C w
> co • Ca
W n C
p C
N N s-
0_
n
Q N N
•
•
Date Received S I
Planner LM
. n •