Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Miscellaneous 1989-8-15 ..-I - REGUL. SESSION ITEM 5 C I T Y o F S P R I N G FIE L D TO: August 15, 1989 Springfield Planning Commission ~ Jackie Murdoch, Code Enforcement Officer ~~ Cindie Harmon, Development Permit Coordinator() FROM: SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR, JOURNAL NUMBER 89~08~141 ISSUE The Planning Commission must decide whether or not to uphold the Decision of the Director regarding Home Occupation Permit Conditions of Approval. The Decision of the Director was made on July 12, 1989 for property located at 501 Cascade Drive (Journal Number 89~07~118). DISCUSSION The application for a Home Occupation permit was initiated by Terry Comstock on May 11, 1989. The property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bryan of Olympia, Washington. The applicant was proposing to operate a "Business Office for carpet cleaning company". When the application was received it was returned to the applicant requesting additional information about the operation. On June 5, 1989 an Affidavit in support of Home Occupation Application was received. The Home Occupation application was then forwarded to Mr. and' Mrs. Bryan for their approval. The application was accepted as complete on July 12, 1989. When reviewing Home Occupation applications the City considers therpotential impacts and the intent of allO\'iing Home Occupations. A Home Occupati'on is an activity carried on within a dwelling in a residential distrJct provided the character of the building i~ maintained, that is, the home occupation is to be conducted so that the building does not appear to be a business. The Home Occupation cannot infringe on the rights of neighbors to enjoy the peaceful occupancy of their homes. The Home Occupation provision is in recognition of the needs of many people who are engaged in small~scale businesses which could not be supported if commercial properties were required, or, which due to the nature of the home occupation, cannot be expanded to a full scale business. /' / The principal issue in this instance involves the number of business vehicles permitted as part of a Home Occupation approval and the on~site cleaning of business related equipment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Director1s Conditions of Approval for this Home Occupation be upheld. ... ACTION_~~q~~~IED Planning Commission denial of this request by motion and signature of the Planning Commission Chairperson on the attached Final Order. APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR ~ JOURNAL NUMBER 89~08~141 The appeal of a Type I decision of the Development Services Director is reviewed under Type III procedure by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission decision is final (Section 15.020(5) of the Springfield Development Code (SDC). Section 15.020(1)(c) of the SDC states 1I..~The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate why the Director's ... decision was in error.1I NAME, FILE AND DATE OF THE DECISION BEING APPEALED Comstock ;j Home Occupation Approval with,Conditions ~ Journal Number 89li107d18 $ July 12, 1989. The appellant, Mr. Comstock, disagrees with the Development Services Director's' decision to condition his Home Occupation approval for the operation of a carpet cleaning business at 501 Cascade Drive (Assessor's Map 17~02~35~33 Tax Lot 08600). The zoning is Low Density Residential (LDR). The Metro Plan Designation is LDR. Home Occupation approval can be granted in the LDR District (Section 16.100(6)(a~j) ~of the SDC) subject to Special Use Standards. Section 3.070(3) of the SDC states LlIconditions may be applied to Development Approval under Type I procedure when such conditions are required to assure the development complies with this COd~ . DATE OF FILING THIS APPEAL July 24, 1989 APPELLANT Mr. Terry Comstock # 501 Cascade Drive ~ Springfield, Oregon 97477 BACKGROUND ~/ March 25, 1988: Code Enforcement Officer, Jackie Murdoch, received a complaint about' the cleaning of rug cleaning machines in front of a house at 7391 B Street, Springfield Oregon. Additionally the complainant stated there were 3~4 workers working out of this property. r~arch 30, 1988: Ms. Murdoch spoke with the Comstock's at 7391 B Stre~t (Rainbow International Carpet Dyeing and Cleaning Company). Ms. Murdoch provided the Comstock's with a Home Occupation application and information regarding employees and vehicles associated with the approval of a Home Occupation permit. The Comstock's told Ms. Murdoch that they had no employees and only one van. No application was received from the Comstock'sand information from complainants indicated the amount of activity occurring at the property had been reduced. Ms. Murdoch contacted the Comstock's a number of times requesting the receipt of the Home Occupation application. '. October 17, 1988: Nancy Comstock contacted Ms. Murdoch and stated that she would be applying for a Home Occupation permit. April 12, 1989: Ms. Murdoch received another neighborhood complaint regarding the operation of a carpet cleaning business at 7391 B Street. Ms. Murdoch contacted the Comstock's and indicated that the operation must cease immediately or a home occupation application must be received by April 19, 1989. If a home occupation application was not received by that date and the activity continued, a citation would be issued. April 19, 1989 r~ay 22, 1989 May 23, 1989: June 5, 1989: June 7, 1989: June 15, 1989: July 7, 1989: A Home Occupation Application was received by the City for 7391 B Street. The Description of proposal states "Due to unreasonable social and economic pressures we will not be conducting business from the residence at 7391 North B Street, Springfield, Oregon 97478 after 5d5>i189." The application is signed by Terry Comstock, Rainbow International. Development Permit Coordinator, Cindie Harmon, received a complaint regarding a . carpet cleaning business which had just located at 501 Cascade Drive. The complainant said the vans were lettered "Rainbow International Carpet Cleaning". The complaint . included the number of people coming and going from the residence, the number of vans and the cleaning of equipment. The Complainant said "\'iill sell property if business is permitted as operating, didn't pay 90,000+ to live across the street from carpet cleaning business". Ms. Harmon contacted Terry Comstock and gave Mr. Comstock 7 days to apply for a Home Occupation Permit. Ms. Harmon stated that if an application was not received' a citation would be issued. Mr. Comstock accused the City of havi ng an employee foll owi ng hi s business around and said it was harassment. A Home Occupation application was received. The application was returned to Mr. Comstock as incomplete. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HOME OCCUPATION was received. spoke with the applicant's attorney, Whit Budge, complaints received from both neighborhoods. Ms. Ha rmon regarding The Application was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Bryan of Olympia, Washington, owners of 501 Cascade Drive, for their approval. Ms. Harmon contacted Nancy Comstock regarding the application. The owner's had not returned the completed application. The Home Occupation Application was received with the owner's signature. .. :'. )}- July 12, 1989: The Decision of the Director was sent to Terry and Nancy Comstock regarding this application. July 21, 1989: Ms. Murdoch and Development Services Director, Greg Winterowd met with the Comstock's and their attorney, Whit Budge, to discuss the conditions of approval. July 24, 1989: The Appeal of the Decision of the Director was received. July 24, 1989: The Appeal application was accepted as complete by staff. August 24, 1989: Notice of the public hearing for this appeal was submitted to the Springfield News. August 25, 1989: Notice of the public hearing for this appeal was sent to adjacent property owners, occupants and other interested parties. APPEAL ISSUES Listed below are the specific issues raised in the Appeal (points where Mr.Comstock feels that the Approval Authority erred in making the decision). The staff response will follow each allegation of error: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #1: "Director erred in interpretation of Development Code Article 16, Sections 16.100(6) (a), (d) and (f) in creating conditions for Home Occupation Permit (see attached). Conditi on #2 states as foll ows: "No di spatchi ng of employees shall occur from this location. Two employees are permitted by the Code and may work at the office from this site providing that there are no traffic congestion problems associated with these employees",. While I understand that dispatching can, in certain circumstances, create hazardous traffic conditions [SDC 16.100(6)(f)] the dispatching in my business is so minimal that it would not create such hazardous traffic conditions. I contend that the Director erred in interpreting SDC 16~100(6)(f) to mean that any dispatching would necessarily create a hazardous traffic condition." STAFF RESPONSE: The complaints received from both neighbors involved the number of vehicles coming and going from the property as a result of the home occupation. The number of business related vehicles permitted for each Home Occupation has been limited to 1 on all previous home occupation approvals. The dispatching of vehicles for the purpose of conducting a home occupation has been prohibited for all previous home occupation approvals. ,.. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #2: "If the director interpreted our dispatching as a violation of SDC 16.100(6)(a) in that the vans have our display name on them, then the interpretation of vans as a "display" was in error." STAFF RESPONSE: Although there are no regulations in the SDC regarding the number of personal' vehicles which are permitted in the LDR District, the vehicles we have received complaints about from both neighborhoods were the vans associated with the business at the property. If the business did not ope~ate from a residential district, the vans would not be an issue. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR #3: "Condition #3 states that there shall be no on site cleaning of equipment from 501 Cascade Drive. I contend that the Director erred in his interpretation that such cleaning would violate SDC 16k100(6)(d) if the cleaning was done inside the residence and not in view of affected neighbors." STAFF RESPONSE: The complaints received from both neighborhoods involved the cleaning of equipment on site. The complainants felt chemicals being dumped in to the storm drain and employees cleaning carpet cleaning equipment on the sidewalk daily intruded upon the basic character of the neighborhood. In order to protect this intrusion to neighboring properties and accommodate the Comstocks by permitting some activities to occur from this location this Condition of Approval was implemented. CONCLUSION The intent of allowing home occupations is to permit creativity and industry at home for individuals who must, or wish, to work at home. In allowing such an activity, the si ng1 e most important conditi on the Ci ty must ensure is that nei ghbori ng res i dents, who purchased thei r houses with the exp,ectati on that they woul d be 1 ivi ng in a residential neighborhood, be unaffected by this activity. It is clear from the complaints received by this office that the conditions imposed by the Director must be observed in order to preserve neighborhood harmony. PWBL1C ftEARtlG ~~ A Public Hearing will be held on this land use request: TERRY COMSTOCK Journal Number 89-08-141 APPEAL OF THE -DECISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR APPLICATION WHERE 501 Cascade Drive Assessor's Map 17-02-35-33 Tax Lot 08600 On July 12, 1989, the Development Services Director approved a Home Occupation Permit allowing a residence located at 501 Cascade Drive to be used as a home occupation to be operated by Terry Comstock. Mr. Comstock is appealing the Conditions of Approval which regulate the number of business vehicles permitted at the residence and which do not permit dispatching or on-site cleaning of the carpet cleaning equipment. THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HOLD A PUOLIC HEARING ON: September 6,.1989, 7:30 p.m., in the Springfield City Council Chambers, 225 North 5th Street, Sprin9field, Oregon. SEND a written statement to the Planning Commission before the meeting c/o the Development Services Department, Attention: Cindie Harmon, 225 North 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, 97477 OR attend the meeting and state your views. If this hearing is continued the Planning Commission will reconvene on October 4, 1989. HOW TO TESTIFY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ZONING DISTRICTS LOR - Low Density Residential MDR - Medium Density Residential HDR - High Density Residential NC - Neighborhood Commercial CC - Community Commercial MRC - Major Retail Commercial OKMU- Oooth-Kelly Mixed Use LMI - Light-Medium Industrial HI - Heavy Industrial SHI - Special Heavy Industrial SLI - Special Light Industrial PLO - Public Land & Open Space QMO - Quarry & Mine Operations OVERLAY DISTRICTS WG - Willamette Greenway HD - Hillside Development ~P - Floodplain Overlay HS - Hospital Support UF1D- Urbanizable Fringe H - Historic Overlay ^ North The Planning Commission may affirm, modify or reverse the Decision of the Director and shall adopt findings in support of their decision. The Planning Commission's decision shall be FINAL, except that a Type III appeal decision may be reviewed as an appeal by the City Council on their own motion. Section 14.030(2)(e) of the Springfield Development Code states: "For Appeals applications, the following statement shall be included as part of the public hearing notice: Failure to raise an issue in person or by letter precludes appeal and failure to specify to which criterion the comment is directed precludes appeal based on that criterion." )" . It.....,,'/..:}, ,y ~.- t"'lS) . .:< ~M"i-t"j "/,' '", . /f~'._ ':1 .:... ~!!.-~ "-..:too. i'lOG ,- l' ~ ~Ilo. if( \ D' G I. of" /l I... t'" ".J.:" .. <:: t~ " () ".. I. ~,,:r' ....-. " .... --'j ," ", ., ..~ ,-" '~. "',, '(. ,--_ ~'r .,,- g- o' i.:'< :JOO t "r_I;'I.~ III. "'.;.,:. 'I';'~':.. -'~' ~ 4100 .~ (.' :';~.J' ~" .... .....r;'...... .....9.......-. -.., . .. "..:: ..../,'.r." ~: noo ~..:.t If .... ... ~~ .r~' f\ !, '.:, ,~.~. <1" '1~"" 1 '. ; -(.- r-{~ "r _~~__"....E u>>.O\. {(> \. .,"',;'" ,- .- / /'-;:, \: '. 'il .- ('J ,.\ ,; ." --..- -- ~.' ~ r ~.:?-,.~.F r'~" _.',iooo_ '.;; I \) /oJ t) I .'., ,'. "'" \'.. . I '" ~ ..,....,',,,,.. ". V- l' I ~ ~.r :: J S,... 1~',-I~.:iJ-','!y I ,;~ I ~ '.I~ >>. D~ .,).' ';:~:~i:':1'\4i'-.~:~;.:. ~~~:.~.~ oj'!';:: - .: ~~.!',:~~~... ~,~...~L . \. ,j". .~." .- ''ffff::::J -'-. . "'~' <:ot .' ..... .~. l'" \ .... .... ~ JltoUjl'..oo 1 .;09 .::-' "f \1'>00 _. ~. I =~ . :':'~~".....' I ,. i_l: I. . (:.. ..~~. U::~'UCl f-~ ~"1;:/"~~"'~ .:.:;i;' }f;-::: ~f."'" .:' .;.,. " :'- :; ,'00 ......... ij:o ~ ",-)f:~;,.l- ..~ -'ll""'t:f- \Q~.. -r- _'j_ll- ~-:"J .1"l:-~":,.~''''t<.<..~" J, ':n ! !r: . ~~ : 7 -3 1"00 ,\;/.r ..~ ""-.. ~ l~ #~ __00.-/', ..E..._I --"--' __U /..:'~ ';7~i;,:,- . ~<1 "'::'l,~.-.t.'-""'cAscADE .~'..DI1~V~ . ,1:'" -I' ~ ';', I .:~. '.'1:;' '" ~~.. r11'J"\ "d..l~"'._~ ~. "00 ,lUG G _ - u ,n '1""'000_ {.f>. :i,.<f$\9 l :;;" "'. ~ If ~ >ifO...- -;;{r I ~:". ~ ~ .. Of Of , ~ 1\0\\ 'I' 'Z..~~ . .too -"." I * ,.:rP' . ,!os. . '. --< ';-.0.:.'>1" - . 5....- '/. 0\\ ~'~ -1- ~~ . /, . ".,:00 - . \.),'l\~\ , /#' I~l : ...~~ "'<...~. L ..f)~ /.: . .... , . .0:; ~~\~Qb ~ .-.01 '.1 l ~I ,.. J .:.=: ';. :I ~- ~I"" ....- _OJ' ~~ ~ WI ~ ... -- c:~("'-J"- - ~-4 100 .~~. :1-: ...00/ l~~ <\1\'" ..:x~~ noN ....<~.""'.~) - 1 f - !....' S...'THIA..........-. .a__ "uo:....srRC'C' . '" . ..~...J"~._Fa:, ;..""~. ,. "'J--. -< f. -~ '\ .. ....; ~ -yu:.o I ,~,., , .:;o:.:! ~I_-(l". i'f:.. ;. OQ\~\O~._.. I..---',;::;"~ ',.;,,,;~ . '~I~I..:"" f>- %"'.:.:~.~.,,:..'I~t;;':~:.i i 019-00 "'{A ~....-GLACIER :.~ ;;~~ " 5/ /., .' "'''''''I']-'''~}l''' .-. , - "\;. _. ..- ::---.... ! ..r.~ --1' ._ .......... .,0'~ )7iiD.~..:,U;.~' . ?'~I ANY QUESTIONS? CALL THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AT 726-3759