HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Miscellaneous 1990-5-10
,.,
.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
(503) 726-3753
May 10, 1990
Mr. Randy (;reen
1716 Carter Lane
Springfield, OR 97477
Subject: Zoning of property in Upper View and Sol Vista Subdivisions
Dear Mr. Green:
After looking through our historic records of the referenced property, it was easy
for me to see why the zoning of these parcels has been the subject of some
confusion. For your assistance I will summarize what I have found and supply you
with associated documentation.
1.
The property between Prescott and Sunset was originally platted as Emerald
Heights Subdivision. This property was replatted iri 1941.
:
2. In 1970 the owner of lots 12 - 32 of Emerald Heights Subdivision received a
Resolution of Intent (ROI) to Rezone these lots from RA single family to R-2
multiple family. An ROI was not considered a final decision until the
applicant completed all conditions of approval.
3. In 1971 this same property was replatted as Sol Vista Subdivision. Sol Vista
combined the 20 parcels of Emerald Heights into 12 parcels.
4. In 1977 lots 3 - 10 of Sol Vista were replatted as a 15 lot subdivision named
Upper View.
5. In 1978 what remained as Sol Vista Subdivision (lots 1, 2, 11 and 12) were
given out right zoning of R-2 multiple family and were developed as the West
Slope Apartments. The ROI for Upper View expired and these lots were no
longer under consideration for multiple family zoning.
Our zoning map erroneously shows lots 1 4 and lots 13 15 of Upper View as
Medium Density Residential (MDR). I suspect this is partly due to the foregoing
activities and the fact that the northern half of Upper View is on Assessor's Map
17-03-34-11 and the southern half is on 17-03-34-14.
As you will recall from our phone conversation, the Metro Plan designation in this
general vicinity is somewhat vague. The most common process to identify a site
specific plan designation boundary is either through a request for zone change or
during the refinement planning process. Neither event has occurred in this area.
Hypothetically, a request to rezone any of Upper View to MDR would result in the
Planning Commission applying plan policy to make an interpretation of the plan
diagram. The basis for this interpretation also would include existing uses,
public facilities and the reliance on natural or man-made features of the
;11 ,
.
(f.)
~
'landscape, i.e., ditcpes, slopes, roads, property lines, etc. You can see from the
enclosed plat maps that there are a number of features that might be ~sed for
eithe~ argument. -,
As inconcl~sive as this might sound, a new single family home on any of the Upper
View lots would undoubtedly establish the line s~parating multi-family from single
family. +f this occurred on the most northerly lot of Upper View, rezoning any of
the remaining lots would not ,be an option.
Another factor- that can never be \lnderestimated, espe~ia~ly when an interpretation
is required, is neighborhood 6pinion.lfan applicant IS faced with ~ubst~riti~l
neighborhood opposition, it is very diffi6ult at be~t to receiv~ an approval.
If'Ican'be off~rtherassista~ce, please contact me at your convenience.
C~rdially. ~
~ott
Development Code Administrator