HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 09 07 Major Variance PC MemorandumMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: September 8, 2010
TO: Springfield Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION
TRANSMITTAL
FROM: Mark Metzger, Planner MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Major Variance-Wetland
ISSUE: Pete Corbarrubia has submitted an application for a major variance to reduce the hardship
created by the protection of an inventoried wetland and by the placement of a city stormwater pipe on
his property. A variance process for wetland hardships is allowed by SDC 4.3‐117 and by state law. The
applicant is also requesting variances to various dimensional standards related to the placement of
structures on the site.
DISCUSSION: The subject property is almost inundated by the wetland that east‐to‐west along the
base of Potato Hill. A city storm water pipe and utility easement cuts across the only portion of the site
which is not within the wetland. The impact of the request on the wetland is estimated to be minimal.
Less that 5% of the delineated wetlands on the subject lot would be affected. No appreciable
degradation of the wetland’s water storage and delay functions are expected if the requested is
granted.
This application is not for site plan approval. The proposed multi‐family development will be subject to
Type II Site Plan Review. The variances authorize relief from some portions of the Development Code
that may be necessary to allow proper layout of structures on this constrained site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested wetland protection variance. Up
to 1,000 square feet of wetland should be authorized for fill if needed. This is in excess of the amount
requested by the applicant, but staff believes that the additional fill may be needed to properly locate
the proposed structures. Allowing fill of 1,000 square feet would leave 86% of the wetland intact,
including the most functional portion of the wetland. Additional variances are proposed: 1) A 5‐foot
variance to the 10‐foot rear‐yard setback is recommended for approval; 2) A proposed encroachment on
the utility easement is not recommended for approval; and 3) the 55‐foot wide driveway shown on the
applicant’s drawing exceeds the maximum driveway width allowed by Code and is not recommended for
approval.
ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing and make
a decision to: 1) approve; 2) approve with modifications or conditions; 3) or to deny the requested
variances.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Staff Report and Recommendations
Attachment 2: Application
Attachment 3: Letter from Don Heauser, 143 S. 59th Street
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Order
Major Variance Type III ‐‐Wetland Hardship
Staff Report and Recommendation
Project Name: Wetland Hardship Variance‐‐Peter and Wendy Cobarrubia
Project Proposal: The applicant seeks to building three dwelling units on a lot that is impacted
by an inventoried wetland. An application for a major variance has been submitted to resolve a
hardship created by protection of the wetland and by the placement of a city stormwater pipe
and related easement within the small portion of the site which is outside of the wetland. Such
variances are allowed by SDC Section 4.3‐117 (J) and by state law to reduce the economic
impact of wetland protection on property owners. In addition to the variance to the wetland
protection setback, the applicant is requesting a variance to the prescribed side‐yard and rear
yard set backs, maximum driveway width and the setback from a 36”storm sewer pipe that cut
diagonally across the subject property through the area that is not within the wetlands.
Case Number: ZON2010‐00010
Project Location: Vacant—End of 59th Street, south of Main Street.
Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot: 17-02-34-33 TL 503
Existing Use: Vacant
Land Use Designations
Zoning: Medium Density Residential
Metro Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Overlay Districts: N/A
Applicable Refinement Plan and Designation: N/A
Processing and Appeal Dates
Application Submitted Date: July 23, 2010
Development Review Committee Meeting: August 10, 2010
Planning Commission Hearing: September 8, 2010
OWNER/APPLICANT APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE
Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia
35643 Camp Creek Rd.
Springfield, OR
541‐954‐1202
Loran Waldron
Land and Water Environmental Services
525 SE Main Street
Roseburg, OR 97470
541‐726‐672‐0393
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE
Planner III Land Use Planning Mark Metzger 726‐3775
Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Jesse Jones 726‐3720
Public Works Engineering Sanitary & Storm Sewer, Utilities
& Easements
Clayton McEachern 736‐1036
Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726‐2293
Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726‐3668
Attachment 1-1
Figure 1. Wetland and Storm Sewer Impacts on the Subject Site.
I. Executive Summary
A variance process for wetland hardships is allowed by SDC 4.3‐117 and by state law. The
variance was created to address the type of circumstance that affects the applicant. The
subject property is almost completely inundated by wetlands. In addition, a city storm water
pipe and utility easement cuts diagonally across the portion of the site that is outside of the
wetland. The combination of the wetland and the storm water pipe has rendered the property
largely unbuildable. Neighboring properties immediately east of the subject site were granted
development permits by the Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands in 2003, just 2
years prior to approval of the protections from which the applicant seeks relief.
The requested impact on the wetland is minimal. Less that 5% of the delineated wetlands on
the subject lot are proposed by applicant for fill and mitigation. No appreciable degradation of
the water storage and delay functions are expected by staff if the requested variance is
granted. Staff recommends approval of the wetland setback variance. S 59TH STS 59TH STS 59TH STS 59TH STS 59TH STASTER STASTER STASTER STASTER STASTER ST
Subject
Site
Stormwater pipe
with easement
crossing subject
property
Wetlands
Wetlands
Attachment 1-2
This application is not a site plan. Multi‐family developments like the one proposed must go
through Type II Site Plan Review. The requested variances will authorize wetland fill and
provide relief from certain development standards that will allow more efficient placement of
structures on the site.
Staff has responded to the proposed variances with recommendations to approve some and to
deny others. In doing so, staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed to fill more than
the .007 acres shown on the submitted drawings. The recommendation to allow more fill than
requested is based on staff review of the proposed structure placement. It is felt that
additional space will be required for development to compensate for an expanded utility
easement on the subject property that is required to allow for maintenance and potential
replacement of the storm water pipe on the subject site.
The applicant has requested variances to various dimensional standards. These include a 5‐foot
reduction in the 10‐foot rear yard setback standard; a variance to the utility easement setback;
and a variance to the maximum driveway width allowed in the MDR zoning district.
A letter was submitted by Don Heauser, owner of a duplex about a block north of the subject
site (See Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Transmittal Memorandum dated
September 8, 2010). His letter reinforces the observation that during wet weather months
water ponds and flows across the subject property. He suggests that “substantial mitigation
should be required in order to make sure that water is not simply displaced to adjacent
properties” causing issues for where none existed before.
Placement of future structures will come under the scrutiny of site plan review. The applicant
will be required to demonstrate that new construction will not cause damage to adjacent
properties. Mitigation payments and or actions are determined by the Oregon Department of
State Lands and or the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The following “Recommended Actions” are proposed by staff for Planning Commission
consideration in response to the application:
Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be
approved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along
the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and
the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a
1‐Way Single‐family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35‐foot
maximum for a 2‐Way Multifamily Residential driveway.
Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the 10‐foot rear yard setback standard
shall be approved to allow a minimum 5‐foot setback from the property line for any rear yard
or side yard.
Attachment 1-3
Recommended Action #3: The applicant’s request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres
shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further
recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for
development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the
property.
Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan layout to show a 20‐foot wide
utility easement over the 36” storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared
and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new
easement.
II. Procedural Requirements
SDC Section 4.3‐117 (J.) allows the use of the variance process to remedy a situation where
applying the adopted wetland setbacks and protection, would “render the property
unbuildable.” Such variance applications are required to comply with the approval criteria for
either the Major Variance criteria, as specified in Section 5.21‐130, or the Minor Variance
criteria specified in Section 5.21‐125.
Finding # 1. SDC Section 5.21‐130 (A.) identifies a Major Variance as “an unusual condition
exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure; lot/parcel size, shape or topography;
the location or size of physical improvements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by
this Code but related to the property that would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed
by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district;”
The applicant owns property that is sufficiently impacted by the wetlands on his property as to
make it practically unbuildable without relief. In addition, the City of Springfield has
constructed a stormwater line that cuts across the portion of applicant’s property that is
outside of the wetlands. There is a 10’ wide utility easement over the pipe which further
reduces the buildable area on the lot.
The proposed fill and development of a portion of a wetland in this situation best fits the
definition of a Major Variance as described in.
Finding # 2. SDC Section 5.21‐120 (B) indicates that major variances are reviewed under a
Type III procedure. SDC Section 5.1‐135 states, “Type III decisions are made by the Planning
Commission or Hearings Official after a public hearing. Type III decisions may be complex in
nature and generally use discretionary approval criteria.
Finding # 3. SDC Section 5.1‐135 states that “Type III applications are reviewed as described
below:
A. Type III applications are submitted to the Development Services Department. The
Director shall determine application completeness.
Attachment 1-4
B. The Director shall provide newspaper notice and mailed notice to the property
owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to the
appropriate neighborhood association as specified in Section 5.2‐115. In addition, the
applicant shall post 1 sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property. For all
Type III mailed notices, an affidavit will be completed by staff stating that the required
notice was provided to the appropriate individuals. Any person may provide written
comments to the Director through the day of the public hearing or may testify in person.
C. The Director shall distribute the application to the Development Review
Committee or the Historical Commission for comments, where applicable.
D. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the application. The Planning Commission's or Hearings Official's
decision shall include findings that address all of the applicable approval criteria and/or
development standards and any written or oral testimony.
E. The Planning Commission's or the Hearings Official's decision is the City’s final
decision, unless appealed. The decision is effective the day notice is mailed to the
applicant, property owner and those persons who submitted written or oral testimony.
The notice of decision shall include an explanation of the rights of each party to appeal
the decision.
F. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to
the City Council as specified in Section 5.3‐100. The Hearings Official's decision may be
appealed within 21 calendar days to the Land Use Board of Appeals as specified in
Section 5.3‐100. Any action taken to begin development prior to the expiration of the
appeal period is solely at the applicant's risk and expense. The City assumes no liability or
expense if the development is ultimately terminated based upon the outcome of the
appeal.”
Finding # 4. Development Services Department staff reviewed the variance application and
support materials and deemed it complete on July 23, 2010.
Finding # 5. Mailed notice of the proposed variance and the Planning Commission hearing
was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject site on August 10,
2010.
Finding # 6. A letter was submitted by Don Heauser, owner of a duplex about a block north
of the subject site (See Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Transmittal Memorandum
dated September 8, 2010). His letter reinforces the observation that during wet weather
months water ponds and flows across the subject property. He suggests that “substantial
mitigation should be required in order to make sure that water is not simply displaced to
adjacent properties” causing issues for where none existed before. Placement of future
Attachment 1-5
structures will come under the scrutiny of site plan review. The applicant will be required to
demonstrate that new construction will not cause damage to adjacent properties. Mitigation
payment and or actions are determined by the Oregon Department of State Lands and the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
Finding # 7. Notice of the proposed variance and the Planning Commission was published in
the Register Guard on August 16, 2010.
Finding # 8. Copies of the application materials were sent to various departments and to
partner utilities and agencies for review. A Development Review Committee meeting was held
on August 10, 2010 to receive and discuss the comments submitted by review participants
concerning the proposal.
Finding # 9. A public hearing concerning the proposed major variance was held before the
Springfield Planning Commission on September 8, 2010.
Conclusion: The procedural requirements for processing a major variance have been met.
III. Review Criteria
Major Variances—Criteria
SDC Section 4.3‐117 (J)(1) states that variance applications for wetland development setback
areas shall require compliance with the Major Variance criteria specified in Section 5.21‐130
and additional criteria specific to the wetland variance found in Section 4.3‐117 (J) (2). The
following section analyzes the submitted application against these approval criteria.
SDC Section 5.21‐130 indicates that the “…Approval Authority may approve or approve with
conditions a Major Variance on finding that all of the following approval criteria are satisfied,
otherwise the request will be denied:
A. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure;
lot/parcel size, shape or topography; the location or size of physical improvements; or
other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property that
would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly
situated in the same zoning district;
B. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the development standards of this
Code or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual
Development Plan or other applicable plans or studies;
C. The Variance shall have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the
same zoning district and/or vicinity, or the request can be conditioned so that there are
no significant adverse affects;
Attachment 1-6
D. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. above shall not arise from a
previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need;
E. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual
condition.”
Findings with Respect to the Approval Criteria Found in SDC 5.21‐130
“A. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure;
lot/parcel size, shape or topography; the location or size of physical improvements; or
other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property
that would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners
similarly situated in the same zoning district;”
Figure 2. Comparison of Allowed Development on Adjacent Lots Prior to 2005
Subject SiteSubject Site
Finding # 10. Figure 2 above illustrates how neighboring properties developed in 2003 were
allowed to build within the same wetland area. The developer obtained fill permits from the
Oregon department of State Lands and Corps of Engineers and also paid into a wetland
mitigation bank in exchange for being allowed to build the two houses east of the subject site.
Springfield’s current wetland protections were adopted in 2005.
Finding # 11. The applicant owns property that is sufficiently impacted by the wetlands on his
property as to make it practically unbuildable without relief. In addition, the City of Springfield
has constructed a stormwater line that cuts across the portion of applicant’s property that is
outside of the wetlands. There is a 10’ wide utility easement over the pipe which further
reduces the buildable area on the lot.
Attachment 1-7
Finding # 12. It is the opinion of staff that the combined impact of the wetland protections
and the City constructed storm sewer and related utility easement constitutes an unusual
condition related to the topography of the subject lot and the location and size of a physical
improvement (storm sewer) on the lot that deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district.
“B. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the development standards of this
Code or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual
Development Plan or other applicable plans or studies;”
Finding # 13. The variance requested by the applicant, allowing fill and mitigation of a small
portion of the subject lot to build a three‐unit development is specifically allowed by the
Springfield Natural Resources Study, a functional plan of the Metro Plan that was adopted in
2005. The purpose of the variance allowed by the Study is to provide relief to property owners
who property has been rendered largely unbuildable by the protection of wetlands. The
variance may be granted if the criteria found in SDC Section 4.3‐117 (J.) are met. Specific
findings with respect to Section 4.3‐117 (J.) are found below. In principle, the variance
requested is allowed by the Springfield Development Code and by State law. There are no other
applicable Refinement Plans, Conceptual Development Plans or similar documents that would
be inconsistent with the requested variance.
“C. The Variance shall have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the
same zoning district and/or vicinity, or the request can be conditioned so that there
are no significant adverse affects;”
Figure 3. Surrounding Uses.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
Subject
Site
Aster St.
Duplex
DuplexDuplex
Duplex
Duplex
Duplex
DuplexDuplex
Single
Family
Single
FamilyS. 59th St.Triplex
Single
Family
Triplex
N30 0 30 60 Feet
Attachment 1-8
Finding # 14. Figure 3 below shows that the uses surrounding the subject site include other
duplex and triplex developments. The development density proposed is consistent with the
allowed density within the Medium Density Residential zoning district. The development that
would be allowed by the variance is consistent with other development in the immediate
vicinity of the subject site.
“ D. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. above shall not arise from a
previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need;”
Finding # 15. The condition that has precipitated this variance request did not arise from a
previous Code violation. The issue of financial viability is a consideration of the proposed
variance as is allowed by the Development Code and by State law. The presence of the wetland
and the wetland protections adopted in 2005 has rendered the property largely unbuildable.
Complicating the development of the property is a 36” stormwater pipe that traverses the
property through the small portion that is outside of the wetland. There is a 10‐foot recorded
easement over the pipe, but in fact a larger easement is required by the City to provide
adequate access to replace the existing pipe with a larger pipe in the future. It is anticipated
that such a replacement will be required in the future to convey the increasing volume of
stormwater runoff stemming from new development.
“ E. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual
condition.”
Figure 4. Proposed Variance to Maximum Driveway Width Standard
55 Feet The applicant shows a 55‐foot wide
driveway. The maximum allowed
width for a driveway is 24‐feet for
single family and duplex
developments, 35 feet for multi‐family
developments (SDC 4.2‐120).
Attachment 1-9
SDC 4.2‐120 (C), Table 4.2‐2
Driveway Design Specifications
1-Way Driveway 2-Way Driveway Transition Driveway Width Width Width Throat
DepthLand Use Min.Max.Min. Max. Min. Max.
Single-family and Duplexes(3) 12 feet 16 feet 12 feet 24 feet(1) 3 feet 3 feet N.A.
Multifamily Residential 24 feet 35 feet(1) 5 feet 8 feet 18 feet(2)
(1) Driveway widths and throat depths may be varied if no other reasonable alternative exists to accommodate
on-site development needs and traffic safety is not impaired.
(2) Measured from the face of curb to the first stall.
(3) Single driveways serving single-family and duplex dwellings shall be paved for the first 18 feet when
abutting a curb and gutter street; these driveways may be graveled for the remainder of their length. Driveways abutting unimproved streets shall be graveled.
Finding # 16. The applicant proposes to build one 55’ wide driveway. The proposed width
exceeds the maximum allowable driveway width of 35’ for a Multi‐family Residential
Development set forth in SDC 4.2‐120 (C), Table 4.2‐2. Figure 4 above shows the general layout
of the site and the proposed driveway.
Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be
approved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along
the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and
the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a
1‐Way Single‐family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35‐foot
maximum for a 2‐Way Multifamily Residential driveway.
Finding # 17. The applicant requests a variance to the 10‐foot rear yard setback that is
required for residential developments. The applicant shows 5‐foot setbacks which are allowed
for side yard setbacks. The applicant’s drawing does not show the front entrance of the
proposed dwellings which is used to define the side yard and rear yard of the structures (See
Figure 5 below).
Finding # 18. Staff believes that the requested 5‐foot variance from the 10‐foot setback
standard is a reasonable allowance considering the presence of the wetland and stormwater
pipe which complicate development on the site. The proposed 5‐foot setback is consistent with
the 5‐foot minimum setback for side yards.
Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the 10‐foot rear yard setback standard
shall be approved to allow a minimum 5‐foot setback from the property line for any rear yard
or side yard.
Finding # 19. The subject lot is .24 acres in size. About .16 acres of the site are impacted by
the inventoried wetland M‐05. M‐05 is about 9 acres in size and traverses the base of Potato
Hill (Mountaingate Development). Large sections of M‐05 are forested. The subject lot is
Attachment 1-10
mostly open field and grasses. The wetland is classified by state criteria as a “locally significant
wetland.” The main hydrologic function of M‐05 is water storage and delay. Wetlands act to
store and slowly release runoff into receiving streams. Without such storage and delay, runoff
would quickly drain to receiving streams causing local “flash flood” events that cause erosion
and sedimentation of receiving streams.
Finding # 20. Runoff from Potato Hill is a primary hydrologic source of water for the wetland.
The thin soils overlaying the on the basalt rock on Potato Hill causes water to seep from the
base of the hill. During wet periods, the south half of the subject property experiences flooding
from the runoff as it accumulates at the base of Potato Hill and flows from east to west across
the subject site.
Figure 5. Side Yard and Rear Yard Variances, Wetland Variances
This is a 5‐foot variance to the
required 10‐foot setback
standard from the rear
property line.
This is a 5‐foot variance to
the required 10‐foot setback
standard from the rear
property line.
Finding # 21. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation to the Oregon Department of
State Lands that was approved by letter of concurrence on April 24, 2009. The applicant
proposes to impact .007 acres (305 sq. ft) of the .16 acres of wetland on the subject lot.
Attachment 1-11
Finding # 22. The hatched area on Figure 5 above shows the proposed impact area where the
duplex unit is proposed for construction. Figure 1 and 2 are aerial views of the site which
provide greater context for viewing the subject property in context with the wetland and the
neighborhood.
Finding # 23. Staff analysis of the wetland area concludes that the essential functions of the
wetland (water storage and delay) can be maintained if the variance is approved.
Recommended Action #3: The applicant’s request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres
shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further
recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for
development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the
property.
Finding # 24. The property is also encumbered by a 36” storm drain line that runs diagonally
across the northern portion of the lot that significantly reduces the buildable area of the lot
that is not part of the wetlands. The City is increasing the pipe size of its storm pipes
immediately down stream from the subject site from 36” to 42”. Similar measures may be
needed to increase stormwater conveyance capacity through the subject property.
Finding # 25. The existing storm drain line on the subject site is within an existing 10’
easement. The existing 10‐foot easement is not sufficient to allow maintenance or repair of the
pipe, let alone replacement to increase capacity. Increased the capacity of the stormwater
system will reduce the flooding that occurs on the subject property and on other lots in the
neighborhood. Public Works staff indicate that the easement over the storm water pipe will
need to be increased to 20’ to allow for maintenance, repair and possible replacement to
increase capacity.
Finding # 26. The tentative site layout submitted with this variance application will not allow
for pipe maintenance or replacement, if required, to increase the system capacity and reduce
flooding.
Finding # 27. Staff does not believe the subject property can be developed with the number of
dwelling units shown without a reconfiguration of the layout. A new configuration may require
additional impact to the northern portion of the wetlands on the site. A total impact of up to
1000 square feet (.23 acres) should be allowed to provide additional flexibility for the applicant
to prepare a design that complies with the Recommended Actions found in this report. The
expanded impact on the wetlands should not interfere with the water storage and delay
functions that are provided by the wetland on the southern portion of the property.
Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan layout to show a 20‐foot wide
utility easement over the 36” storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared
and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new
easement.
Attachment 1-12
Findings with Respect to the Approval Criteria Found in SDC 4.3‐117
SDC Section 4.3‐117 (J.) states that variance applications for development within wetland
setback areas shall require compliance with the Major Variance criteria specified in Section
5.21‐130; “and in the case of loss of use of the property, the following additional criteria shall
apply:
a. The application of the standards of this Section renders the property unbuildable;
b. The applicant has exhausted all other options available under mapping errors
specified in Subsection B.4., above and the development area setback variance specified
in Subsection 3., below;
c. There shall be no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion, or slope
stability, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; and
d. The loss of native vegetative cover shall be minimized.”
The following section of this report analyzes the proposed variance with the approval criteria
found in Section 4.3‐117 (J.)(2).
“a. The application of the standards of this Section renders the property
unbuildable;”
Finding # 28. The subject lot is .24 acres in size. Of this, .16 acres are within the delineated
boundary of wetland M‐05, leaving .08 acres (3484 sq. ft.) of the subject lot outside of the
wetlands. The delineated boundary of the wetland does not include the prescribed 25‐foot
development setback from the wetland that was adopted in 2005 as part of the Springfield
Natural Resources Study.
Finding # 29. The minimum lot size in the Medium Density Residential zoning district is 5000
square feet. Without a variance to the adopted wetland protections reduce the buildable area
on the subject lot (3484 sq. ft.) to a size smaller than a legal lot.
Finding # 30. A 36” storm water pipe cuts diagonally across the .08 acres that are not affected
by the wetland. The pipe is protected by a 10‐foot utility easement which is recommended for
expansion by the Public Works Department to 20 feet. A 20‐foot utility easement will remove
about .04 acres (1742 sq. ft.) additional acres from the buildable area outside of the wetlands.
The remaining unencumbered area on the subject lot is about .04 acres (approximately 1742
sq. ft.).
“b. The applicant has exhausted all other options available under mapping errors
specified in Subsection B.4., above and the development area setback variance
specified in Subsection 3., below;”
Attachment 1-13
Finding # 31. The applicant has provided a letter of concurrence from the Oregon Department
of State Lands confirming that delineation of the wetland on the subject lot. There is no
wetland mapping error to be corrected.
Finding # 32. The setback variance specified in SDC Section 4.3‐117 (J) (3) refers to “setback
averaging” which is not an applicable tool for resolving the wetland impact in this instance. The
delineated boundary and not the 25‐foot development setback render the property
unbuildable.
“c. There shall be no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion, or slope
stability, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; and”
Finding # 33. The applicant proposes to fill and mitigate about .007 acres of wetland. This is
less than 5% of the wetland area on the subject lot. If this amount was increased to .023 acres
as proposed by staff in “Recommended Action #3,” the reduction of the wetland area on the
subject lot will be about 14%. About 86% of the wetland area on the lot will be left in tact.
Finding # 34. Development is proposed on the northern edge of the wetland. Stormwater
ponds on the southern portion of the property and flows west across the street. The wetland
serves to collect and store runoff during storm event and delays the flow of runoff into
receiving drains and streams. The water storage and delay functions occur primarily in the
southern portion of the wetland. Approval of the variance will have minimal a minimal impact
on wetland function. If 1,000 sq. ft. are filled and mitigated, 86% of the wetland will remain.
Figure 6. Subject property looking south on S. 59th Street.
Stormwater ponds and flows west across the southern
portion of the property and across the street during
wet weather months.
Subject
Property
Finding # 35. The City is engaged in a project to increase the capacity of storm water drainage
of the system in this neighborhood. While not directly related to this application, it is
anticipated that the project will mitigate any potential loss in wetland function on the site.
Attachment 1-14
“d. The loss of native vegetative cover shall be minimized.”
Finding # 36. The southern portion of the subject lot includes the forested wetlands. The
northern portion is covered with grasses and non‐native vegetation. The applicant indicates
that the proposed construction will cause some soil disturbance in the northern portion of the
lot, but that the area will be re‐seeded with native vegetation at the conclusion of construction.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendation
A variance process for wetland hardships is allowed by SDC 4.3‐117. The variance was created
for the type of circumstance that affects the applicant. The subject property is almost
completely inundated by wetlands. In addition, a city storm water pipe and utility easement
cuts diagonally across the portion of the site that is outside of the wetland. The combination of
the wetland and the storm water pipe has rendered the property largely unbuildable.
Neighboring properties immediately east of the subject site were granted development permits
by the Corps of Engineers and Department of State Lands in 2003, just 2 years prior to approval
of the protections from which the applicant seeks relief.
The requested impact on the wetland is minimal. Less that 5% of the delineated wetlands on
the subject lot are proposed by applicant for fill and mitigation. No appreciable degradation of
the water storage and delay functions are expected by staff if the requested variance is
granted. Staff recommends approval of the wetland setback variance.
This application is not a site plan review application. Multi‐family developments like the one
proposed must go through Type II Site Plan Review. The requested variances will authorize
wetland fill and provide relief from certain development standards that will allow more efficient
placement of structures on the site.
Staff has responded to the proposed variances with recommendations to approve some and to
deny some. In doing so, staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed to fill more than
the .007 acres shown on the submitted drawings. The recommendation to allow more fill than
requested is based on staff review of the proposed structure placement. It is felt that
additional space will be required for development to compensate for an expanded utility
easement on the subject property that is required to allow for maintenance and potential
replacement of the storm water pipe on the subject site.
The applicant has requested variances to various dimensional standards. These include a 5‐foot
reduction in the 10‐foot rear yard setback standard; a variance to the utility easement setback;
and a variance to the maximum driveway width allowed in the MDR zoning district.
Attachment 1-15
16
The following “Recommended Actions” are proposed by staff for Planning Commission
consideration in response to the application:
Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be
approved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along
the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and
the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a
1‐Way Single‐family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35‐foot
maximum for a 2‐Way Multifamily Residential driveway.
Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the 10‐foot rear yard setback standard
shall be approved to allow a minimum 5‐foot setback from the property line for any rear yard
or side yard.
Recommended Action #3: The applicant’s request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres
shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further
recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for
development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the
property.
Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan layout to show a 20‐foot wide
utility easement over the 36” storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared
and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new
easement.
V. APPEALS
SDC Section 5.1‐135 (E) states that the Planning Commission's decision is the City’s final
decision, unless appealed. The decision is effective the day notice is mailed to the applicant,
property owner and those persons who submitted written or oral testimony.
The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City
Council as specified in Section 5.3‐100. Any action taken to begin development prior to the
expiration of the appeal period is solely at the applicant's risk and expense. The City assumes no
liability or expense if the development is ultimately terminated based upon the outcome of the
appeal.
Attachment 1-16
Attachment 2-1
Attachment 2-2
Attachment 2-3
Attachment 2-4
Attachment 2-5
Attachment 2-6
Attachment 2-7
Attachment 2-8
Attachment 2-9
Attachment 2-10
Attachment 2-11
Attachment 2-12
Attachment 2-13
Attachment 2-14
Attachment 2-15
Attachment 3-1
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
MAJOR VARIANCE WETLAND HARDSHIP (
CASE NUMBER: ZON2010‐00010 (
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The application is for a Major Variance to reduce the hardship created by the protection of an
inventoried wetland and the placement of a city stormwater pipe on vacant property located south of
Aster Street on S. 59th. The property is identified on the Lane County Assessor’s Map as 17‐02‐34‐33,
Tax Lot 503. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the rear yard setback for structures and to
the utility easement setback protecting a 36”storm sewer pipe that cuts across the property.
CONCLUSION
The application was presented for approval under Sections 4.3‐117 and 5.21‐130 of the Springfield
Development Code (SDC) which describe the criteria to be used in approving the proposed variances.
On the basis of this record, the primary variance for partial relief from wetland protection standards is
found by staff to be consistent with the criteria of approval found in SDC Section 5.21‐130 and additional
criteria specific to the wetland variance found in Section 4.3‐117 (J) (2) and is recommended to the
Planning Commission for approval. Staff made recommendations concerning additional variances that
were requested: 1) A 5‐foot variance to the 10‐foot rear‐yard setback is recommended for approval; 2)
the proposed encroachment on the utility easement protecting a storm water pipe is not recommended
for approval; and 3) a variance to the maximum driveway width allowed in the MDR zoning district is not
recommended for approval.
These general findings are supported by specific findings of fact and conclusions found in the Staff
Report and Recommendations that is attached hereto.
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
On September 8, 2010, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to accept
testimony and to hear comments on this proposal. The Planning Commission is now ready to take
action on this proposal based upon the above recommendation and the evidence and testimony already
in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing held in the matter
of the proposed variances to the Springfield Development Code.
The following “Recommended Actions” are proposed by staff for Planning Commission consideration
in response to the application:
Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be approved. The
applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along the frontage to divide the
driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and the duplex. The driveway for the
single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a 1‐Way Single‐family driveway. The
driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35‐foot maximum for a 2‐Way Multifamily Residential
driveway.
It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #1, Case
Number ZON2010‐00010 (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no
action be taken at this time).
Attachment 4-1
Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the 10‐foot rear yard setback standard shall be
approved to allow a minimum 5‐foot setback from the property line for any rear yard or side yard.
It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #2, Case
Number ZON2010‐00010 (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no
action be taken at this time).
Recommended Action #3: The applicant’s request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres shall be
approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further recommended
that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for development, as needed, to
provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the property.
It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #3, Case
Number ZON2010‐00010 (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no
action be taken at this time).
Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan layout to show a 20‐foot wide utility
easement over the 36” storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared and recorded.
The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new easement.
It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #4, Case
Number ZON2010‐00010 (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no
action be taken at this time).
THESE DECISIONS were presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2010.
ATTEST: __________________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson
AYES: _____
NOES: _____
ABSENT: _____
ABSTAIN: _____
Attachment 4-2