HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Building 1984-06-25SPRINGFIELD
CITT OF SPRINGFIELD
Planning Department
Ji:ne 25, 1984
Jack Thrcmas
Iane County Surveyors Office
PSB, 125 E. Bih Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Jack,
Tlris letter is a follorr-up to our dissussion of Jr:ne 2L, L984 ard a letter of
Jr:rre 14, L984, both reganling tlre Tlsnas ndxCIr parbiLion.
You will recall tlr,at tLre City's position on the Itrcnras proposal was not verlz
encor:raging because of a nurrben of code i-nadeguacies irnrclving aecess to the
rear parcel. What I falied to nention was that allo,uances for such circr:nustances
can be made through our variance procedure. fhis crrr-ission on my trxrt was due
largely to an igrnorance of ttre access history of tJ:is properLy. Had I knovm that
access had be€n prcxrided by tlre denzeloper only to be sold to scmeone else by that
sane derzeloper, I r,lould have incrediate1y suggested a variance. Olr suppont for
such a variance r^rcuId have been based on tlre previously nrentioned access agrresrertt
and ttre r:nderutilization of tJle proper"ty.
It is n[r r:rderstanairrq that tlre Cor-:nty must also consider a rzariance before giving
approval to this reguest. F1ease be adrrised tlrat our concerns are w"ith tlre con-
ditions of approval. not the apprcval itself. Should the County decide to approrze
this application we rliouId remnnend tlre folloring oonditions be reguired:
1. A recrcnded joint irse agrreefiEnt.
2. A recorded joint use rnaj:rtenance agireenent.
3
4
A minimm 12 foot paved drivaruay that senres both parcels.
Setback requiranerrts on both parcels wtrieh w-il1 prcnzide adeguate rnaner:vering
area for snergerlqF vehicles.
A recorded deed restrisLj-on statir:g that occirpanry of a residence sha11 not
be grarrted r:ntil the d.riva,oay is paved.
An ar.11e<ation agreerent statinE the pnopenty shall be aru:exed vtren adjacerrt
to citlz lirnits and tlr,at aI1 dwe]-.ling r:nits shall- be connected to City seuter
as soon as its available.
(Cont...)
5
6.
225 North 5th Street . Springfield, Oregon 97477 . 503/726-3759
rf you have questions regarding or:r trrcsition or reguj-rsr*nts please contact neat your rcnvenience.
Sincerely
Associ-ate planner
pn
)
x,t
MICHAEL G. YEAGER
Land Use Planning and Development Services
1065 High Street, Suite 4
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(503) 485-4505
VARIANCE APPLICATION
FOR
LLOYD THOMAS
PROPOSAL
This application is a request for an access varj-ance to
the twenty foot easement requirements of Lane Code Chapter
13 j-n order to allow the establishment of a roadway easement
13 to 1-5 feet wide to serve two properties located in north
Springfield within the Urban Growth Boundary of the General
P1an. Both propertles are planned for LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL development and this request would allow
utilization of these parcels as planned. The areas to the
north, west and south are developed with single family
residences. The McKenzie River lies to the east. This access
variance is necessary because there is no other means ofj-ngress or egress to the properties.
This situation was not due to any action taken by the
applicant, but was the result of a sale by the subdivision's
developer of the reserve strip which was to serve as the
access to these two properties. This sale occured many years
ago and titigation has failed to resolve the issue. This
variance is the only means by which the two landowners can
make use of their properties as intended by the General
PIan.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties are parcel #1- of M-359-79 and
tax lot 300 of Map L7-03-23-3-2. Recent1y, parcel #1 was
sold to the Thomas' by the abutting property owner with the
understanding by both parties that the roadway could serve
as access to both parcel #l- and tax lot 300 to the south.
There is no other access to tax Iot 300 without removj-ng a
20x20 workshop, a carport and a utility room. Even then,
there would be no place to relocate these structures because
the drainfield for the Thomas' home is in the front yard
where the carport would have to be located.
The parcel purchased by Mr. Thomas from the abuttingproperty owner has been recorded as a minor partition with a
13 foot roadway easement. The need for a variance surfaced
only recently when the Thomas' accepted an offer to sell
Page 2
parcel #1- to a couple named McCamman. The McCamman's plan tobuild this spring and, in fact, have already retained abuilder. They are prepared to start construction this month.
The remainder of this report addresses the applicable
variance criteria which will allow both the McCamman's andthe Thomas' to utj-lize the same roadway.
VARIANCE CRITBRIA
-l
The Thomas' were not the owners of parcel #1- at thetime it was approved with a l-3 foot access and there is no
apparent history as to how this access was approved.
The area which would require a 7 foot variance to the
20 foot access requirements is about 55 feet 1ong. From hereit widens out to the required 20 feet for about 40 feet. At
the point where the roadway turns south it narrows to 15
feet. From this point the road will only serve one parcel
because the driveway to the McCamman's drj-veway J-s at thenorth end of parcel #1. Thus, from a point 110 feet into theproperty the easement will only serve one home.
It is not possible to
wider than 15 feet because
rnandate a 100 foot setback
along with the location of
souLh line of the easementlarger right of way.
make the roadway easement anythe sanitation requirements
from the river. This setback,
the structures adjacent to the
make it impossible to create a
The locatj-on of the roadway along the west line of theproperty also does not interfer with the existing utility
easement in this area. According to the Springfield Public
Works Department, the easement will not be needed for either
storm or sanitary sewers. A11 future utilities will be
located in the public streets. (Letter from Bob BarrettrSPWD)
In summary, this variance is not the result of a self
imposed hardship and denial would not accompish anyparticular public good. There is the opportunity to utiTLze
two buildable parcels inside the Urban Growth Boundary,parcels which are planned for residential development.
Approval of this request will a1low for the planned use of
these two properties.
Physical condition which makes conformance to the
ordinance j-mpossible
Page 3
2. Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
weTFare ofmEffi-lEniurIous to other prbperties.or
Approval will not i-mpact other properties. It will
simply provide access to the two parcels planned for
residential use. All sanitation and setback requirements
will be observed. This request is consistent with the
purpose for the variance provisions of the Lane Code.
1l+La Oxbow 'v{ay
Errgene, oR gTttol
4-23-84
Stan Petrasak, Sanltarlan
Iane County Envlronmental Management Dept.
Publ1c Servlce Bulld"lng
Eugene, 0R 971+AL
Dear lir. Petrasak,
We are purchaslng Lane County tax lots l?'03-?2-4:."-350L
and L?-A3--23-32-200 from lrrr. and Mrs. Lloyd Thonas.
We are ln agleement wlth the Thomases reguest fo:" an
easement acioss thls property for access to thelr property.
lle belleve that there wouLd sttll be ad.equate dralnfleld
space foz, a conventlonal septlc system as prevlously
alproved, but should thls not be posslbLe, fl@ would
asiee to uslng a sand fllter system.
Cordlally yours,
L '7/lcCa,"r'*"-J
/hm
ferry E, & .Ieanne M. I{cCannan
--;'.::-r-,-,
r4Jd!'
$+-^.'..e,-
c1
r{1ah*l
\,\
N
I'\
k$
a
\
*,
I
\\
\
B
ao0 l'30
I
ir
I
300
\
t9
,)
?2
2
400
Pl
\t
I
t,
t7 ,2
36 00
F Whs
eqq_f /r4e.
"spr
t8 r\
oo
A
t/l,t.,r'..t. ,u
,.;1
- 3700
'z'Zt-"'tz:f -
-fim'as
l/awr e
f*'"'ly
7vtr,(t
$\\
n:lLJ
1?r)
400
8,
"q
5y
s00
700
I tt
24 spr.l5 A'*14*fo t
l )
.i--.o'-q-:"Lt-,'
. 4500
3e0s
,il
4(t-J
-\-:r_ -. ", 3 tOC '"!'.,f
couRT"' .i
\t
s0 t
o.J F?
I
il
I
I
u
-I
'*,<;-t
36
)
l
lrJ
:
6
.r'tI
30CIO
c
33
24QO 3?2T
e900
8OCI t
29
es00
2600
00
J. r -,. ',
\
s
t
f tVz I
$,
\
&
?-
),
Sctb Yscr
?00
? eOs
f5
t,
vr
#
R-:EtvEDAPR 2 3 pa4
SPRINGFIEI.D
CTIY OF SPRINGFIELD
Department of Public Works
ApriI 20, 1984
Mr. Tom Poage
Tom Poage Engineering and Surveying, Inc.
P .0. Box 2527
Eugene, 0R 97402
Subject: Drainage for l,Jayside Loop
Dear Tom:
In June 1983 the firm of Kramer, Chin & Mayo completed a drainage study of
West Springfield which included the Wayside Loop area. The purpose of thjs
study was to plan a1l trunk storm drains which would be 18" jn diameter or
I arger.
This study does not indicate any need for trunk storm drains ao'ing through
the Wayside Loop area. As such, we can on'ly assume that any storm drains
in the area will be for local runoff.
S'ince the Ways'ide Loop area is well outside the current City limits, we have
done no detailed drainage studies and, therefore, have no definite plans for
a local system. Our policy is to locate storm drains and sewers in street
right-of-way whenever possible. Thus, it is most likely that any storm drain
facilities would be located in Wayside Loop. Locating the storm drain in the
street would necessitate an easement to the McKenzie River. We require a
min'imum of 14'with L0'on one s'ide of a property line for our easements.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please call me.
VerY trulY Yours,
f*htL&/,,tr
Robert E. Bamett
City Engineer
REB: I c
F'i I e: STM 2-1
225 North 5th Street . Springfield, Oregon 97477 a 503/726-8758
r:7 /
I a
83
ILt
I
I
I
l
r
/
I
ta \\-itaPt.E I
SLOU6H
\\
\a
(;A14t
AXr,
i .'i\trl)
-t
54.6 / ta'i
I
it
Er
t30/ 6r /o
130 /72"/ OOOI
62
\
l, -. --
3it't3'7O
a4 rhr-
iloa,
,
,
,
t(
I T?/54?O.OO2
. J"?
I
I
55/48'70.OO2
r€;Vl60/O.OOt
20/30"/0 oo568
26/42"/O.OO2 67
j
65
\6/ 2470 001
9/30'70 00tI
\so 56
55
tai 63
,)53
g/ zt'/0,oo7
.1
f)
f)tr
\52
t \\/L
,-
i:i)
_ilo/,i\
I
,
I
I TA t_|r4:_l
II
..o
%'".
6/ t8'/O OO
?
5l
{
II \
I
t t-
fr
-'--il rrrtul. r ,.
oc J5PRIN(;ir,,
--I,[El.
1
t,rrLt S
Z.J
'!ol,g
d.
* tl
O8rtr I',*-,4,(,
AV€
Ig
lr
Cf
A.,
I,l
.liijrt
Arf ,]AL II
\ -l
\FI
ri.rl {
|s
i
L-
t.
I
I
I
ta
,a
r
l
J_J-QE.
t
,**Jrf,
J
(,
tLo
3gI
(t;
l-
7-
ura
sl,
rJ
II
* RD-
t
d
F
G
:\7
!{
(
4Irl
7 6
{3
3i,
5303
52t
32
4
Dctcntion
Vol= 17 Ac-
Outf
GI
39t4
tlalita AAA6
I
\
I
J
+a/a
64
ll'
{
GAtr{
Er H()t1
ct
LARD AVli
t ;r LAMrn.(.(l
t
5
!Lhrool.
I
\
I
L
f_
I
,
5il
ri
c
PARTITIJONER:
NAME: J E, ALl
lane ccunty
GOO D LIE55
A.DDRESS: 15 KATLILEE N C-r.
sPRIb-]GFIEL-D OF?*
PHONE:74{.o - 5=--7<-')
IMEREST IN PROPERTY:
(Indicate one: owner,
option holder, oEher)
O\^/NER-
contract purchaser,
WATER SI]PPLY:
PERMIT //:
SEWAGE DISPOSAL:s.r. //:
ELECTRIC SERVICE:
ZONING:
RA\\-lB rA/lagg DIS-T:
3EP-rt
3.L),67,,x,OI^INER OF RECORD:
NAI'IE:-.+1./(E-_
A-DDRESS:
PHONE:+zoo
TAX LOT: .*VOOO MAP #:
rr-ov -23 .zL
\-7-o1-22- 4r
DATE SIEMITTED:
RXCEIVED BY:
FEE PAID:
HEARING DATE:
=HEEILL-
- -oo'.-l-s
for office use only
-1 - rz-'t g
approrTa,l
BY:
DateActing Cha Land Development Review Cormit,tee
f,no I 1"7a7
fr17ror"d 6* Ree--'l^i
(-/ r- ru
rrie xrr a,p
N
\
\
\
f)
\?
A,e/2aE wAY
FILE N0: 1.7.a+et-7-MAP PREPARED BY:
PLANNING DIVISION / ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT / 125 EAST BTH AVE. / EUGENE, OR 97401 / PHONE (503)687'4186
c14-15 Sheet L of 2
6-25-19
A u=-^r S.se-ve--rr^rc. Ce, .
v{. Ar.
i,.a i
\a
t,
L
o-t
611'\9
%
SEE NOTE
\
C2 \
9b.bz
N. A@'5 rzd'e
52.
$
N
oo
\
,"#r
MINOR
MAJOR
SE-r 5/A'r
b ?.
?0
5.49'53'E
Etl
I
Iane countytlpart it iore
"*t'r:.'.:r t
...'... .l
^...i' * ,^t.i201."'"o nl UJi;- | [ui..-a [I - '-'\: I Ju"'#' t:r"l 0P5
eoo..r.-.-_- o .rj..-., ha- fi
tO
4r\
q'
\
\
q'
,o
4r\
b
N.8e'37'ro"96.r9
N.9.4"07'4s,,w
tJ
e
a/
','/r'
"--'
,dlrt8,
... :
.i.;r
.....:.'
t"'.!'.,i!
-r:{'
;i:;i:, r|'
i_,.] a
^*'6?
$io
o?eo1
"i;, \o
q'
a'
,9,
l3l.z9
6/u'o'
e
'? f.i.
lr1,0
h\
lo'
I8
0 rrica
Qo7-
-]i
NoTE- coL)STRucrloLl otr bqtvE_\^/A:r Ac<-L%eoR pARcELr I Tct=J=;;;J"; ::
*= <oNcuRRENT rvrrH; PA.PCEL l,
PLANNING DIVISION / ENVIRON[/ENTALI\4ANAGEMENTDEPART[,'lENT / l25EAST8THAVE. / EUGENE,OB97401 / PHONE(503) 687-4186
REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL
tVD SURVEYOhA
OREGO NJULY 12. r95A
RICHARD CARL SKINNER869
scALE : 1,, :4o FEET-FILE NO:i4>n-7?
as\
"g\
\
\
\
\
.02:
I
MEMr.-,RANDUM
17-03-22.41lTL 3500
17-03-23.3.z/rL 200
lone county
TO File:il!'
-
FROM M. Mi I I er
SUBJ ECT Septic Approval #79-370 DATE August 29, .1983
Tom Poage came in to the office on June 25th to discuss changing the septic
approval from a standard system to a sand filter system in order to reduce
the sizing.
Apparently the property to the south (17-03-23.3.z/TL 300) is land-locked.In order to develop that piece of property parcel I of M359-79 is planningto grant an easement for access. In exchange tax lot 300 will grant adrainfield easement to parcel I however because of limited area a sandfiIter system would be necessary.
Before any changes in the sanitation approval take place a drainfield ease-
ment and sand filter plans must be submitted.
Some additional problems in the development of tax lot 300 are:
1) Lane Code requires public road access prior to issuance of a build'ingpermit. A variance would be required in order to use an easement for
ACCCSS.2) The minimum width for an easement is 20 ft. The plan submitted showst5 ft.3) The panhandle created through partition M359-79 is substandard (.l3 ft.
where 20 ft. is required) for access to one parcel and would most 1ikelynot be approved for an adiditional user.
MM/j bw
c.c. Tom Poage
I
L-=\$
td.
\\t
q
u
:{q
u
\
ttt
b
L
i
q
0\
h
,i
o:q
\0
f\q(\
$I
\\0'J
$$'$
s
\
$uq $
,ii$${salZu"i^ ?
$$$
$N
Oe ,9
l?'a t A
--1
T
I'J
o
oN
g
?
N\n
a
\
I.,a9,
R
-
I
I
\
\
-
tt\
2J
--tqN
\
Cl
e.h
$
(,
0
-
nI
ss,T
+
\
\
\
I
I
[:.11 'd fl
,1 fJtl {r
.l_l
i)
i:)t.t
!T i i f1 t.J fl r:t ,:r
j.i:rf I 1...r.5::1ulj
I r 1.,1.
[] [i
L'r !:i
t., L.l
l.r I
['.r E,
t-.i\il[: i:{]uil1'Y
f'! !l-)li f ii
I I {f l::' v T.:, i\ [1 M t'....r Li L_ .i\ 4., tr I 1 I I Ll
Ar-:T :I tj l.l fil::: I:{:} lt :i: F1' :t l} tl I i l.li'i ]. i i:{:i:ij'i t-jtii-.i.ift'i l. i.ii'l
i) Lir'l r Tir i.)0 i
ADS$t
s{t
I _t t..,
r-'Ht:
11
Ia
t
3q
C!oa
t
o
oiut
EI
:-
!
!
=
f-'Att LC 1 { 338-l I}ADV
F r* N.n " F .txTt.lltH,5 :
HHill..l
SIJH
P[:H
ilA1't; : tL1f:'fjr
'td:SEiiU:
Tr:'HHI'{ FY fii-.H
Vf:rfi i:r:rl'{[,i:::
Flil " Ui.iNH[:.i.]1'{lR,':" :
t'lL.ill-l,iF{ I {:41.. FE:E:\
.li 1' r:i1' H,l Llh:rHAF:i; [::
i:rt..f:\i.! {:ll_lE:f_:H f't:.8
i :5 " 00 H,lilii
a
t) l'i-l
.{
I 'f {ll'i:i|... f:li'F-+r*t J i *.,:iS t-:!t
rc!,
fi4
-D, flfr
iI r:
t-
-!
)
'J
rit I
It,
F:
/.)
It(
:: l.l \'
F't
HFrl;lIE
ti txE.[
llI
I' R[:fiH I
JAY,I.[ DII
VA
NO
li f.J I
i'1
! u,l
TH0i'tAs
I 035$0
F,H
DU
f'l
L.lr\ \i;t :r '-l I f.i, 'l- .(-i
. r ,.1),.!.-.r.- r,.- i.r. :
r\-r Wg . t
j- -t. -' :
.,r I
-rl--
\I f,r'
r \,
I .,-.{'.
' l-r 1''i -',. \1i{li.:,-./.i
',*ir
.\ :
/'i
l": '\ ? ' r -
\
i'..1 (-o r*-J;s
3 0C)-
'$t,:\
.I,
a
\.I't [,
ii,i
I
\\t -
\
II.1 ii
I
eoo t,o
Ra,
300 \&
I
5p,-'
h'
rj
:llI'
1'[\
\
f\
A
h
I
ir(l
t7
.rY:-2"1-:'t's:! - '
III)
' "t:..1t-.- 7-.-ir
. 4500
1)
fl:o 2 900
L-L.,
a.-
arnr\
\_--:c --...
. 3tOO "j'o
C.)
'i't i
i\
.)
L
I*
f-.1
\" ,t t\.v \i{
\\
It',
l,)(x
I.
\
\\\
\
,\'p
co r\-5
,.ret
I 34 0C
'{'iri )i
,r|f"
;1
-5700
Ttrt rr:
' llan e
L3
o
3000
330
.'}UU
3' i)o
?c7 5,/
q
5C.C
h
F
{
\\(}.'\I
I
I
i
rl
rl
ir
I
I
,2goo .\t
.E
)./' :
1
I
i'90c
s \._r
lll
*
FI l''
-.1 lr
l"
I
I
ff53.\;
,r/\
\-.:l
.\
'i
r)oo
AJ?u
I
.l)
tr ,u
+
,e
ct
I.t
,ti
:t'J/
.l"i
I
I
ir
rl.
il.i.
,ii''
36
(;
n 1
'Iil
riri
I
It
,I
1
i<\
couRT.' "?9
? 800
JO
.r-a1' ..
' Jr..-*i,
? ,1'oo
23
I
:1 I
l, 2r!CO
-
./J'' 1-., '
lsr
I
.V,
A'rlrl
It
J /<1(ittbt
S7
v 7l
S40fEcr
200
'r.r/''. /t'i'
25CO
1,2600
*dii'*\
,,\
;':---, 7*-'l
I
.t
Ii.
I
i
1
!.: I
,I,
n
rt\
2h':tl
,l:
'1.'.e 1''
rt L\
300
Ilt
t
t,,)'
It\
t
til\I'
t
ir
I
l,
1i
l';t''
I,I(T
t,
<J.
' i^-.&<\l',\ (\
w
N\:
r'q', Co,*'-.]l*
200
s !.{a r/!<:r
,:'1-,-a'5-'
I
I
't
ri
.l
-,--', w--,
200 oo
5P.t:\
h
\)
t7
oo
rr1
l\
1t'
PPoespr)nr-f,X
rrOO
3, [)"flson 2 900
aaLJ
330
c.,
3ZOO
\{,'..jt,,
\
' r,\tP
)' ''
\
,n'
I
rt0c
flirr*o3
llacn e-
p4co
\q\
\
\\ll
'l{t')/
.V
tI-riI
I)l,.;/
iv
,'ll!''.;1.(
3700
9 i
{
.i\
-'C
-z--el:-t:o:! -
s
r,-r , 2goo
+
a-\.-
t.
\
{P'\.
(;^
(}
$
\'*r:-.ll-..,-71-i?
.4500
\
.f
r 1""FJIF?lr
"+-!
,3lOO ti,
27AOa
?-6
a\
(
l
700 :1
l,
30co l
lr
rl.rl'
,.i,
\I ,
i
2 !C)C
'/,r'-',
36
(a
?t
23
couR'l-" "2
?800
JO
}.tlr. ..
77 00
s 27
I{
J\'l
JI
rl
I
II
'I
I
9
;,' '2,,!CO
i*j
1
lt
.,.',
t,
vl:,r
r4'!'tr..fi
. /.'
I
2 600
:
3,
','-------. :' tj. r tr r-
.)
L
-:. .'. .r
(\"
i\
1.1
36 00I //c r\s
^,,+\
?'trlli
?tclt
5CC
a
,t>Y
t.
2 qq.,
Ft
I
Sp,'t;',_.-). ,la '.-lrt 5f'":J.'1
..,
7
I
la.i i.i&r \
i
t,,it.
R
I
I
I
i'r.r llo,
2OO
I
t
I
Scra fie:r
Pec,'f€P.71pr-
.) *)
"/\tP
,2800 \9r\o
+
)l
,fi'*t
4
t(
lttt
t(lr
I
rl
ft,
j.,'
,.t,
&tl
1j.)
_ .- I
."-*, 'i
u*.i.."Ji
\LkJ,
\rt
\;1*;.-:-.--,', - ':r
I
f
. ..'r,,-,
.. ", ;":. .'. . I n-, r.r.,, +-,.?...... -.. ; ;__\zoo i roo
.l ;
2
ii
I
A
I
tr,
I1Ji.l
ilr
h'
rl
:IJ
,ir
t\
51.^'\
,:i:;'
;1
'3700
300 '\-
'\a
\
r3s
/tQt
Ttcr*a:
liac$ e-
t9
t,t '
\)l
1r
1i
l\
s.'
t
t7 L
c4lt
'tri
F,,i\
rr1
4.1
\
I
4 {lo 3 0()'
?t! 5q
\k'
;rOO
3 , l)" fl:o tr 2 90C
LJ
5'tr/
5CO
60()r
700
Di^,Atax
" :,'}}-
o
'!.tt -
i
\.\
tt, l5.\",
,JJ
t.11..
4500
AF
.1- J
--s- -',3rOC ":".,\,
?-6
z3
COURT'" "29
t
u
l-,il
i F?t,
1
.l
iz I tri;l----.-i r
l--N
I
l
t'
,rt''
36
30co 2 9C)Clr,i'rl.
rl.
,J.
\j ,
800
1\'t\l,l(l\l
I
I{
.t
J
l
I
!
1li
i
27
z. I
i,' ?r:CO J,J
7-aJ ' ..'7'...-;
Tioo
,*.=--l
)Z *'i .!
2500
/.,-.l-.,'
isr
t,
vr
,r
(
a,t
I lrti7
32CO
3300 R-t
I
.-j. \
+
!
- ,lG.L: ''t 'J .
' -. ', ;i'
t
4
.rn
I, 2600I
;,/
i'ri COr r.," :'{-jt>
\
*A
I
I,,
I
lalt,
i'
t
\
/.u'tl
,I,
a
1t\il
_)
I .-l
too
r. E rr a- -r\
-/L,iv[ =t}T- i a
\ql
\:,,*
.;-;--' 7D-'
200
300 t\
h'
rl
'J ',ll
,li
lr
2
5/.'
4CO 3 0()-
l
1,
1l
1r
\
t7
t9
,A
L
lr,:
i\r\
1lt\'P
I
t\
if'
I)(x
I
co As
\
,n'
rt€e
I \ ru)
i
I'
I
I
I
\
\:r:'/.n
;1
TramaS
llam e..(I
.' v t t..ll-,-
4500
-<a,-'.
36
5700
9
--*t-t-:-'o:/.
9
r23
330
f,
d. .t
^l i; 32OC
u
f,
ai OO3' l).,
"tt
5y
5f',^
5CO
6
f{:c rr 2 eoo
L
F?roor
t.d
I
I
"r (".)
l.".-",t
I
I
ilI
i
l
1
, 2BOO
\-*
Pa\
{tr
S.$
.t
acL)
\-r*--,..
3 tOO '.'!'.#
+
I
700
1t
t'
t;
iI
I
J
30co 2 30C
lr
rl.{.
,.i.
\l
27t 2B
aoo
ll:r'r.
if
1\.l
.'l
ll(!
\l
IIi
I
I
,i
tI
COURT* "29
JO
?1
;' ?rrCO I.
JI
JI
e4h
sL{a dEcT
PPcFspTrr r.
200
/
..r i
2500
i.2600
??oo
-**:
,6\-Lll.1
'i
:l
€
tri
srJr _.), , llt, ek!
o Rt
(o
i(\
1\
'\..I
l
.l
I
')
\
i'.i CCr r.,^ l'** l,\*(*d
II
t,tt
rX'!:\
,l
a(\
{rr
tr1
!\
/1-<)
)
')'-'-;.---',
.: .-l $,
lII
w
Nt{
I.l
a';-
-D-,l
ti
I
{
&
i\
1t
' 200
300 \
\
oo
h'
rl
:ll
1'0
2
5p,t'
40D 3 00'
rn
#:o 2 90c
\
o
t7 oL
f)
t\
r')' .
I)(x
1,
\'a'r- j
't1
oo
, r,\t!'lr/'
,a
\I
\
'U)'\.\
rLS
/tee
't
,,\f"
,,,.",i.'5700
---<////a{h/t:
liaa't e-
--.et :-ts'-'l .
r
330 'i(,j
{
i24
I
4A/.-?
I
S7: "t'..
..t. , nn,i- ?kf (,
\\
\
28oo \r.-d-
\
8.$
7rl17 t L
5CO
3
R.t
At -i,ll,
3, l)o
?c? 5y Di^,
I
ll
h.
rl ,.'
.' .v a :..11-.,- g'o-7r
, 4500
3200
,i
4c.L)\\
-:{- r- " .
3 tOC '":".*l
J.,t.
GOOJ
!.,jir?t,-t
i
I
I \
ff=sE-\i
$\
i
I I '\-1 +
?-6
?3
couRT" "29
800
:1 -\lt't.,Ir-.-,-,
I
tl
.:\700
.l/.f.'.
J,, ;
nu? ,,.', ,\t
lJ..Jz
,lc'
l:
t-:
't)
30co 290C
lt
rl.{.
{:
27i
^,<a^
36
(;
ef\
1!
I\.l
\lrl
\i
I
I
{
I
I
iIj
,I
I
3]*---i
2rtr CO ,\}}-7 ,1'oo1,JC
2OO
I
S 4'0IEc:r
li
,/2500
/+\lr/t\'---'l
r8
l.- '
2 600
:
i
'il
I
.l
I
il
S7
tS/ot
6l!L-
-
LANE COUNTY
GENERAL I,AND USE APPLICATION
FILE NO.
H.O. APPROVAL
Zone Change
Cond. Use Permit
Greenway Dev. Permit
Temporary Use Permit
_Special Use Permit_
PLANNING COMMISSION
Partition:Preliminary
Final
Preliminary
Final
Cluster Subdivision:
Preliminary
Final
X Variance
Site Review
Sp".ial Exception
Hazard Check List
Site Investigation Report
-Special
Use Permit
-Pl.rned
Unit n".r.ropr,rent .
Preliminary
Final
Subdivision
FEE PAID
COMBINATION FEE (Applicantrs option-highest fee plus $25.00 for each
aaaiti"""f appfi""tion) .
DATE SUBMITTED DATE RECEIVED
I. APPLICANT AND OWNERSHIP IDENTIFICATION
1. Name of App 1 icant Phone *q "l
Mailing Address
Street itv zip
2. Legal Interes!- Tirleholder Contract Purchaser X Lessee
Other
3. Signatures
I (we) have completed all the attached application requirements and certify that
all sEatements are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief.
I (we) am also authorized to submit this application as evidenced by the signature
of the or,nrler below.
Oumer t s Signature Date
Agent I s Signat Date 2 q/ fa
Phone 4gq-tz f S
LI 7 7va
Agen t rs Address
g{<zzr""
I1. PROPERTY LOCATION
Assessorts Map -a3-zz*4-t7^O j-2n^-L 1L
Tax Lot
TaxCode O/?-o3
-tr
lt z.scYO
dSlze " lO ,2zlr4 att-L, oCt/ a,zt-e-a - r
Property Address
Road Status - State- County Rd. Public Rd. Easemefi- X
47 77
Abutting Property Owned
Map
Present Us
7-Z
l7 <7)3 2,",-Z
)
Tax Lot(s)
Present Zon
Struc tures
Water Supply - Public-ll--Onsite Wells Community Water Sys tem
Indivi-dua1 Onsite
If Community Water SysEem, p lease list name
Sewage - Public System_(list name)
Community System_(1ist name)
III. SCHEDULING
Report Available
PUBL t C WORKS 'DEPARTMENT 'COURTHOUSE-PSB 125 E 8TH
c - 98-239
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
AVE. EUGENE, OREGON 97401
Hrg. Date
DIRECTOR APPROVAL
Request for Interpretation
lene county
(MaP & Tax Lot.)
The above referetrced a1'pl ication
Appl ication llo.PA I I 33-84
('A1;pl'icant) - - -!1919 r-r'9'1: -
. (Address )
2999 lrlayside Loop, Springfield, 0R
17-03-22.4..l/TL 3500 17-03-23.3.2/IL's 200, 300
t o __f_o_.11 -q!r! -qqc_e-s-s-_v-ali_alc_e._to the-Zll foot- easement
requi rement of Lane Code C
.l3, in order to _e.ASe-!Fnt 13 to 15 feet
wide to serve two properties.
has been:
X approved with the stipul.rtions and conditions stated below.
denied.
The decjsion was based on the f inclings of this off ice (copy enclosed) in accordance
*iin-if,.-piorisions of L.rne Code---f-3-,50.0----: .lhrl dccisjon vrill bcconrc.final on
7-.g-BL unless appea'lccl to the-itrJa-rjn-gs 0tl'icia1, via the P'lannjng Division on or
mffi_.ill;i aut.. 'nn ilppcdl nray tro f ilecl by .you, your reprcsentative, or any other
orope.tv owper impactcd iry tlut clccision in 0CCorrlrrrtcc with tlre provis'ions of Lane
6;;"' i'4.ijbo-' 'r.; -ilrc'.r1,pcal is to trp f iltrl r.riLlr Llris of l'ice and trrust state horv
it u a.alil-on ls--in crr"or. lf t1h nl)1)cil) iS f ilt',1 , yotJ .rnd the adjacent property
owners vljll be adviscrl of tlrc clat.e, tirrre ancl pl.rce of the hc,lring before the llearings
0fficial.
rn_._
Geo Currin, Planner
*Your appea'l nrust t'e rlcct)rirpdrrit'rt try ,, 5--J!-5:.-.- - f i iing f ce:
I
2
(.0:it)l1 I0rls 0l API'llr)vAl.
Partition PA .l544-84 shall be completed.
This varjance will expire 6-27-84.
I itr1l(':; :)li l'Jli , l(r1'ltl'Jl7/tttlrI AtJl r rrrt,-l\ l,i rrrr., " ,
-
MICHAEL G. YEAGER
Land Use Planning and Development Services
1065 High Sbeet, Suite 4
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(503) 485-4505
SUPPLEMENTAL VARIANCE REPORT
FOR THE THOMAS PROPERTY
August t, 1984
This report is submitted as a supplement to the record onthe variance approved by the Land Development Review Committeefor the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Thomas in northSpringfield. Specifically, it addresses the criteria j-n Lane
Code Chapter 13.500 (2) which relate to variances to thepartitioning requirements. These variance cri.teria are verysimilar to the requirements of Chapter 10 and reference will be
made to other portions of the record submitted on behalf of thisapplj-cation, rather than repeat the entire record in thisreport.
Criteria a). Exceptional circumstances over which the applicant
had no control.
The original variance application and the letter J-n responseto the appeal explained in detail how this circumstanceoccurred. The Thomases bought tax lot 300 in 1956 from the
developer of the adjacent subdivision. The access to thisproperty was to be provided via a road from Manor Drj-ve which wasto be constructed in the future. This roadway was supposed to bepreserved by a reserve strip listed on the plat as Lot rrBrr.
Unfortunately, the developer sold this reserve strip to anabutting land owner, thus land locking the three tax lots to the
north.
This circumstance was not the result of any action taken bythe Thomases and they, as well as the owners of the other two taxlots, were the victims of actj-ons taken by the developer over
which they had no control. This situation is described ingreater detail in the variance application and the the responseto the appeal.
Criteria b). Preservation of a property right.
This lot totals almost one-haIf acre and is planned andzoned for 1ow density resi-dential use. other properties withsimilar zoning are allowed to develop with a single familydwelling and have developed as such in this area. There are alsoseveral dwellings where the driveway is, or could be shared,
which is aII that will occur if this approval is sustained.
Page 2
The Thomases bought this lot for the express purpose ofbuilding a home in the future and they relied on the plat as
approved by Lane County that assured them access to the lot.Denial of this variance would deny them the right to build.
an occurrance would create a significant financial loss andprovide no benefit to the public.
Such
Criteria c). Conformance to the zoning ordinance; Not detrimentalto the area; And not in conflict with the Comprhensive Plan.
.pp
The proposed use, a single family dwelling, is exactly what isplanned in this area and thus, there is no conflictt with thePIan. A single family dwelling also poses no conflict with thearea because that is precisely how the surrounding lands aredeveloped. Also see the response to the appeal and specificaltythe discussion of Comprehensj-ve Plan conformity.
Criteria d). The variance is the minimum necesary.
The l-3 foot access at the entry was accepted and recorded atthe time the prevj-ous owner submitted their final partitlon
application. There is no way to reduce the 7 foot variance atthis point. However, the road does widen out to l-5 feet as onetravels further into the property which, in turn, reduces the
amount of the variance.
Criteria e). The variance is not the result of a self-imposed
hardship.
This issue is covered in detail in the response to theappeal. At the time the Thomases bought this Iot, access wasprovided for in the p1at. Without their knowledge or approval,the developer sold this access which landlocked these lots andcreated the situation that this variance is intended to resolve.
CERTIFICATION OF I.{AILINC
THIS IS TO CERTIFY thAt I,
served t.toticr' <>f tlrc prtlt',-'t'tl in1"s h d by tltc Planning Director, [,ane Ctlunty
Lancl Management Divj.sion in tlre matter 9f :r land division (p:rrtition)
(subdivision) initiated by t) Tlto Appli.r:ation No.
pA t644-B
i,Ijlbc-fu-_ by mailing a copy of rtre arrached NoTrcri oF IN'l'EN'f T0
APPROVE A LAND DIVISION to each of the persons listed on the attached sheet,
who appear as record owners of real properEy wlthin at least 300 feet of
the property described in the said NOTICE 0F INTENT TO APPROVE A LAND DIVISION
by placing said notification in envelopes addressed to each of said persons
and delivering said envelopes Lo ttre United States Post Office' Eugene Main,
Lane County, Oregon on the A day of Aunu 19==-.
/
t
NOTICI, OF INTEN:A )VE LAND DIVISION APPLIC/
cA rb44.8F[
A ttba-94
l4oo
lane county
l5oo
Tlie Departmenf of Planning & Community Developrrnent wishes to inform
y()u that conditional approval (as per the attached decision lr.tter to
tlre applicant) will be granted on Ir{L-( 9. tqB4 unless an adequate
alpeal to the Hearings Official is-Eeivet Uy tfris Department on or
bt'fore the date for granting approval. The appeal must be completed
on the atEached application form and accompanied by the $260.00 appeal
f,',. (payable to Lane County) to cover the cost of processing. If you
have any questions, please contact this office i,n-person and during public
st'rvices hours !
t1-6b'22-4'l ?666
Appl icant: LL6yr)Map & Tax 1 otll-OZ-7i .2'Z ?at?m
Applicanrrs Address: Z9g9 u/AYSIDE- LooP r SPlZlNGtrtELD I OE.
Property Locati.on: KNT[-ll EErrI C-T.
6D\'
-
S t1e. oF
R€QuesT
Ab(I
VICIN ITY MAP
NO SCALE 7eR$Z
fi
-$\
Wa E4o
ACCESS
EASEMEU (-
<,q-o
46oo
1StL
(\'t
R 3
oF
o
e
ri
INSET
{
H
qtTe
IlAYDEN
SP€IN6FIELD
38oo
3-7oo
tooZoolo64oo
trlref
See35oo
3boo
34c6
4oo
33oo
5oo32o o
looO3too
2boo
1oo
L too
DepE. ,rI Planning & Community Development/Courthouse-PSB/L25 E. 8th Ave./Eugene Oregon/687-4O6L
3oo
larre county
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
FOR FILE /I
(Thoroughly Cornplete by Typing or Prlntlng )
1. Name of Appe llant Phone
Mailing Address
(Street)(State)
Phone
(zlp)
Appellantrs Repr esenEative
Maillng Address
(Srreer)
2. Attach a copy of the decislon being appealed.
3. Attach the appeal fee, payable to Lane County.
4. The deadllne date by which this appeal has to be submitted
DLvi.sion:
(State)(ztp)
to and received by the
5. Specify your status as a party with a right to appeal as defined by LC 14.01-5
(definitions )
6. Specify, by checking the appropriate boxes, the alleged basls of appeal:
The Approval Authority exceeded his or her Jurlsdictlon;
!_1 The Approval Authority failed to follow the procedure appllcable to the matter;
The Approval Authority rendered a decision that is unconstitutional;
The Approval Authority misinterpreted the Lane Code or Manual, State Law
(statutory or case law) or other applicable criteria; or
The Approval Authority rendered a decision that violates a Statewlde Planning
Goal (until acknowledgement of the Lane County Comprehensive Plan, or any
applicable portion thereof has been acknowledged to be in compliance with
Statewide Planning Goals by the Land Conservation and DeveloPment Cormission).
provide a detailed explanation supporting your position for each assignment of error
upon which you are flling this appeal.
Appellant or Representat.ives Signa ture
Accepted for Land Management by:Date
Rejected by Land Management on: Date of Hear
LANE COUNry DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION, 687-4061,
125 EAST 8TH AVENUE, EUGENE, OREGON 97401
a
b
c
d
e
!_l
!-1
!_l
l
lane coung,
(Thoroug
Berna.rd
h1
APPLICATION FOR AP
FOR F
e oop
ffin{'-
-lI7
Complete by Typinglonskowski 7 47 -1994
1. Name of Appellant lark
Mailing Address 2
(Srreet)
ift2;2444
r n
ee
e i BR 91111
(State)
Phone Same
(ziP1
as aboveAppellant I s Representative Sel f
Mailing Address Same as above-
( S t;:,:e t-. )(State)
Attach a copy of the decision being appealed
Attach the appeal fee, payable to Lane County.
The deadline date by which thj-s appeal has to be submitted to and recei.ved by the
Divis ion:,lu1y 9 1984
(zip)
2
3
4
,
5. Specify your status as a party with a right to appeal as defined by LC 14.015
(def inttions) Neighboring prgP_er-ty_g\^/aga l_f fected by develpoment
6. specify, by checking the appropriate boxes, the alleged basis of appeal:
a. The Appr:oval Authority exceeded his or her jurlsdictlon;
b. The Approval Authority failed Eo follow the procedure applicable to the matter;
c. The Approval Authority rendered a decision that is unconstitutional;
d. The Approval Authority misinEerpreted the Lane Code or Manual, State Law(statutory or case 1aw) or other applicable criteria; or
The Approval Authority rendered a decision that violates a Statewide Planning
Goal (until acknowledgemenc of the Lane County Comprehensive Plr,rn, or anyapplicable portion thereof has been acknowledged to be in compli.ance with
Statewide Planning GoaIs by the Land Conservation and Development Commi.ssion).
/t
t-l
!-1
xr
/--7
7. Provide a detailed explanation s
uppn which you are filjng this a
Appellant. or RepresenEaEives Signatu
Accepted for Land Management by:
e
each assignment of error
Date
LANE COtJNry DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION, 687.4061,
I 25 EAST 8TH AVENUE, EUGENE, OREGON 97401
RejectedbyLandManagemenEon:---Dat,eofHearing
NOTICT, OF INTENT TO A OVE I.A.ND DIVISION APPLICATION
-?A r%4,4..94
_'A\ lle-.5-84
Tlre Department of Planning & Community Development wishes to inform
yt,u that conditional approval (as per the atEached decision lctter to
tlie applicant) will be granted on Ir_lLY e), tqBZI unless an adequate
a1'peal to the Hearings Official is receiveci by this Department on or
br,fore the date for granting approval. The appeal must be completed
(lr) Ehe ;rttached application form and accompanied by the $260.00 appeal
1.,',, (payrable to Lane County) to cover the cost of processing. If you
have any questions, please contact this office in-person and during public
sr,rvices hours r
lone county
t-I-63. ZZ'4- t ?6cO
Aprpl i-cant: LL6yr) -THOI\/\N Ma p & Tax Lotfi.QZ-%*-Z ?ntb
Applicantrs Address
Property Location:IEE.[\T C-T.
ul
H
stTe
I+A{OEN
5P(IN6FIeLD S t1e otr
R€QUE:T
A(r{
V ICIN ITY MAP l4oo
NO ICALE
l Soo
Wa o
ACCEsS
EA5EM6UT,
4Goo
3 too
INSET
3oRs7
T.t
-1\
ETLt
f.)roo€
3
7oF
(f
e
rit
38oo
3-7oo
looZoolo4
3oo
4oo
tue[{
See3':loo
3to o
34oo
_.-
4oo
33oo
5oo3Zo o
looO
Zooo
1ao
I too
Dept. , r f piarrning ti Cgmmuniry Development/CourEhouse-PsB/125 E. 8th Ave./Eugene Oregon/687-4061
rrOY
WP uxl
0a-
UVAAL
to tlw pr-n
a
0u)(A
An tPOqld U4* ft)cr-t'u.nl1+< dt&na,h!ta uactnffifl..
a- r?-[/-. U\toJda-k tA"to,-x l-D* &0,U
lene ccunty
Lloyd Thomas
2999 liays i de Loop , Spri ngf i e1 d, 0R
I7-03-22.4.1/TL 3500 17-03-23.3.2/IL's 200. 300
requi rement of Lane Code Chap ter .l3, i n order to al'lorv an easenrent l3 to l5 feet
wi de to serve trvo propert j es.
ha s been :
n,..,,c.rtion llo.
('A1r1.rlicant)
(Adtlrcl: )
(ll,ri, r, i,r,i,t,t)
PA I I 33-84
The abcvc rcf cr',-.:,tc,.1 .rl';r, ir.,rtiorr trr -f-qr ,ln aqc-e.Ss ]1a1.i_ance.tO ttreZCl-s-qf,_pas€rnent
X aoprroved witlr the stipulaLjons c'rnd cr;nditit-lrrs st,rted belovr.
denicd.
The decision vras based on tltt: f irrd ings of tltis of f icc (copy enclosed) in acccrdance
with the provisions of Lane Cr:rle_-.J-3_'10!_-_ . Iht dccision vri ll beconrc f inal on
7-9-84 unless Eppcrllccl to the llt'arings 0f f icial, via thc Planning Division on or
6ETore-t]rat date. An appeal rrray lra f i lcd try y,rtrt your represerrtative, or any other
/1'7_....
Geo Currin, Planner
*Your appeal niust be ,rr:crrr;rpijnir.rl [r.r ,t 5__]99: f iiing f L.e.
(.():ii) l I I0:i!, 0l All'lt.)\,frl
Partition PA 1544-84 shall be completed.
Thi s va ri ance rv.i I I expi re 6-27 -84.2
property owrrer impactcd lry tltr; (,', ision irt acct)r',1arlc{t lvith tlre provisions of Lane
todb 14.500 . * 1lrt, .r1r1rcal is to tro f ilr.rl r.riLlr Lhis of f ice and rnust state hor.r
the dEEl-ion ls--in- crror'. ll- an alipe.r'l is f i lr',1 , you and the adjacent property
or.lner:s vlill be adviscil of Llrc dat.e, tirrre and pl.rce of tlrtr l:e.rring before the llearings
0ff icial.
. r :' ,. r,a!.. .,.,.t:.t:t t (,,1r1., l.'.'..t'
June 26, 1964
RE: Tentative Approval of PA 1544-84
Initiated by Lloyd Thomas
This is to inform you that the above-referenced partition has been tentatively and
conditionally approved effective July 9 , 1984. If you disagree with any asPect
of this approval, you may appeal the decision to the Hearings 0fficial by
following the directions on the attached appeal sheeE.
VAL MUST BE SATISFIED BY JULY 9
VO lD.
Subsurface sewage approval is required for parcel two. To initiaEe this
process contact the permit application counter during working hours.
Survey Required: Easement shall be surveyed. NOTE: A
surveyor licensed by the State of Oregon is required.
Road improvements shalI be 12 feet of asphaltic concrete. Contact the
Subdivision Engineer at the permit application councer during trorking hours.
4 A fii',aL par;iEion map shaLi ue p:,:epared. 'l'he maps straII inciu<le the parcel
numbers, septic site locations and septic site numbers and Ehose requiremencs
detailed on Actachment A. NOTE: The final map shaIl be prepared by a
survevor 1 icensed by the State of 0regon Sp.q tq l_ Ngrg : S et back
requiremenrs Eo provide emergency vehicle access shall be shown on final map.
A road €,asement document shal1 be prepared and rccorded. The easem:nc sha1l.
include cirose retluirements dor;ri1c.ri on At.tachrnen! B, and a cof,-v of l-ht:
recorded documenc supir i j.cd to th i:; o f I r ce .
1
)
Applicant shall sign anrre\ation,,lgreL-mcnt r.'rth Cit.v- of Springfield
J
5
o
7 A subdivision guaranE.ee siha1l be prep;rred no sooner chan 30 days grior to Ehe
submission of t.he packet of completed conditions and a copy supplied co this
office.
COND OF TENTATIVE
The above lisEed conditions have been sequenced in order of accions you shouldpursue to assist you in Ehe developmenE of the parcel.
rE is your responsibility to work with Ehe identified deparLment,s ro assure thatthe conditions are sacisfactorily met ruithin the prescribed rime period. once aI1of these conditions have been satisfacEorily mec, complete che attacired FINALAPPROVAL APPLICATION, attirch copies of above required co.ri.ir-io^s anrl subrnir ro chepermit appllcatiort coullLer as an erlrire packet, with rhc final appriicarion fce.l{e will then revierv the iTINAL APPROVAL Rt'pt tcrtrlon- and if a1l tire conditions aresatisfied. we will aPprove and file_ your final partiri.o. map. If all conditionsare not satisfied your final application wiit be ri.nied, and a nek, finalappl ication and fee wi i 1 be required.
C:z=---.5-O-lvl
George- 11 . Crr':r-in
Chairman, LDRC
CC Surrounding Property Owners
Jack Thomas, Subdivision Engineer
Count,y Surveyor's Of f ice
\
LANE COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICIAL
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: 08/09/84 File No. PA 1133-84,
PA 1544-84
Report Date: 08 / oL/ 84
I. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
A. Applicant:Lloyd Thomas
2999 Wayside Loop
Spfld, OR 97477
Agent:Michael Yeager
1065 lligh St. Ste. 4
Eugene OR 97401
Appellants:Bernard Splonskowski
25 Kathleen Court
Spf1d, OR 97477
Jaue F. Wilson
3021 Wayside Loop
Spfld, OR 97477
Clark R. HaIl
35 Kathleen Court
Spf1d, OR 97477
B. Proposal:
An appeal of staff's approval of a land partition and variance.
1. File No. PA 1L33-84: Variance to al1ow a 13 to 15 foot wide access
easement where 20 feet is required by Lane Code 13.050(5)(c)(iii).
2. File No. PA 1544-84: Land partition to divide a 0.89 acre parcelinto two parcels of 0.44 acres and 0.45 acres.
GENERAL INFORMATTON
A. Location and Site Descri tion:Map 17-03-22-4.1 Tax lot 3500; Map 17-03-23 ax lots a
The two proposed parcels are located in North Springfield within theurban growth boundary of the }letropolitan General Plan. Both parcels areplanned for 1ow density residential development. The areas to the north,west and south are developed with single family residences and the
McKenzie River lies to the east.
B. Surrounding Area and Zoni ng:
The two proposed parcels are zoned Suburban Residential/InterimUrbanizing Combining District (RA/U). The area surrounding the subject
I
\uv
property is zoned suburban residential (RA), except to the east which
includes the McKenzie Ri-ver.
C. Services
Police: County Sheriff and State Police
Water: Rainbow Water Dist.
Sewage: 0n-site Disposal
Access: Private access easement
Electricity: Springfield Utility Board
Fire: City of Springfield
D. Referral Responses
1 City of Springfield: Letter dated June 74, 1984 srating thar it
partition were being processed in the city it would be denied.
However, if the County were to grant approval it should be approved
with conditions as recommended by the city.
Letter dated June 25, 1984 recommending the partition be approvedtogether with an access variance. Both approvals to includeconditions recommended by the city.
III. APPROVAL CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS
The property is subject to the Metropolitan Area General Plan. The plan
diagram designates the proeprty 1ow denisty residential. Consistent with theplan designation, the property is zoned RA/U Suburban Residential/Interim
Urbanizi-ng Combining District. Since the Metropolitan Area General Plan has
been acknowledged by L.C.D.C., the proposal does not need to show compliance
with Statewide Planning Goa1s.
A. Application PA 1133-84 is for a variance to Lane Code 13.050(5)(c)(iii) -
The minimum width of easements shal1 be 20 feet. The a pplicant seeks a
7 foot variance to the 20 foot access requirement
1. Criteria for Issuance
Approval of the variance application (PA 1133-84) must meet the
following criteria found in LC 13.500(2)
Criteria for Approval of Variances. A variance to the requirements
of LC Ch 13 may be approved if the Approving Authority finds:
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the
property which do not apply generally to other properties in
ttre same zone or vicinity which result from lot size or shape,
topography or other circumstances over which the property
or/ner, sJ-nce the enactment of this Chapter, has had no control.
The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property
right of the applicant which is the same as that enjoyed by
other property owners in the same zoning district in the area.
The variance would conform with the purposes of this Chapter
and would not be materially detrimental to property in the same
zor.e or vicinity in which the property is located, or otherwise
conflict or reasonably be expected to conflict with the
Comprehensive P1an.
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would
alleviate the difficulty.
a
b
c
d
-. \-.
e. The variance is not the result of a self-created hardship.
Analvs is
The applicant has addressed criteria which show:
a. Physical condition which makes conformance to the ordinance
impossible.
b. Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to other properties.
3. Conclusion
The applicant has not addressed the criteria found in Lane code
13.500, but instead has addressed criteria which are similar in that
they address extraordinary circumstances, the preservation of aproperty right, conformance with the comprehensive plan, minimum
required, not a result of a self-creatd hardship.
B. Application PA 1544-54 is for a major land parrition.
1. Criteria for Approval
Approval of partition application (PA 1544-84) must meet the
following criteria found in Lane Code 13.050
General Reguirements and Standards of Design and Devel opment for
2
Preliminary PLans.
Conformity with the comprehensive plan
Conformtiy with the zoning
Relation to adjoining road system
Redevelopment plan
Access
Control strip
Utility and watercourse easements
Pedestrian and bicycle ways
Dangerous areas
Grading, excavation and clearing
Land for public purpose
Sewage facilities -
Water supply
2. Analysis of A roval Criteria
Conformity with the Comp rehensive Plan
The site is located within the urban growth boundary of theMetropolitan General Plan and designated for 1ow densitvresidential development. The proposed partition is for a 0.44 acreand 0.45 acre residential parcels which are consj.stent with the planrequirements.
Conformity with the Zoni ng
The site is zoned Suburban Residential/Interim Urbanizing CombiningDistrict (RA/U).
a
b
c
d
e
f
o6
h
l-j
k
I
m
The Suburban Resiciential Zone (RA) requires
6000 square feet. The proposed partition
a minimum 1ot
is for a O.44
area.of
acre oI
C.ondition No. 6 of
applicant signs on
above criteria.
19166 square feet and a 0.45 acre or 19602 square foot parcel bothof which comply with the 6000 square foot requirement.
The /rnterim Urbanizing combining (/u) district requires that amajority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property aresmaller than five acres.
The adjacent property on the north, west, and south are all smaller
than five acres.
The /U zone also requires that the property or^/ner signs an agreementwith the adjacent city to support annexation and to acquire cityapproval for any subsequent new use, change of use or substantial
intens ification.
the conditions of approval require that the
annexatj.on agreement which will include the
The proposed partition therefore complies with both the RA zone andthe /U zone-
Relation to adioinins road system
There are no major or
continued or extended.
secondary roads existing which could be
Redevelopment Plan
Due to the limited access potential for
redevelopment plan was not required.
this property a
Access
The applicant proposes to use an easement as access which meets the
necessary criteria, with the exception of the minimum width
requirement of 20 feet. The minimum width is subject to the
variance application (PA 1133-84) which is part of this hearing.
Control Strip
There are no control strips involved in this application.
urili and l{atercourse Easements
There'wi11 not be any utility easements dedicated by this partition
and there are no water course that traverse this property.
Pedestrian and Bicvcle Wavs
There will be no
partition.
pedestrian or bicycle ways as part of this
Dangerous Areas
The site is located in an adjacent to the floodplain and all
development will comply with floodplain requi-rements.
t
Gradins.Excavation and Clearing
411 development will comply with flood plain regulations.
Land for Public Purposes
There were no Public agencies which expressed a concern foradditional public land.
Sew Faci 1 it ies
Parcel no. one has received septic approval and it is a condition ofapproval that parcel no. 2 receive septic approval.
Water Supply
Water is supplied by the Rainbow Water District.
Conclusion
The application met the
Code 13.050.
applicable design and development criteria found in Lane
III. FINAL COMMENTS
A. Summarv
The applicant did not address the variance criteria found in Lane Cod.e13.500, but instead has addressed criteria which are very similar. Theapplication for partition complies with all applicable criteria, withthe exception of the easement criteria which r{,as addressed with the
var:iance application.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the applicant restructure his submittal on thevariance criteria to comply with the variance criteria found in Lane Cod.e13.500 and then that the variance and partition be conditionally approvedwith those conditions that were imposed by staff.
C. Materials to be Part of the Record
Staff Report and attachments
Files PA 1133-84, PA L544-84
Lane Code Chapter 13
File M 359-79
D. Attachments
Applicants submittal
Area map
J
1
2
J
4
1
2
\I,t\!
\I
\
A.
Q'\\
q'
\
\o\\\
Iq
r0
i\r.
U'
\'
N
N(
!: T I
tq \ i,r \ .. i\\\ q 't
(Jr ^\ ^' tt\,i \A -u r')
\$ i q
\S\\\t\
$th s^
UB\ N
*st$ \e
\r\s-Sq.N .{-l I $-
it l$[fi="'\ l'\
N ot\ $) $s \sp \\\N
\
\
\.r'
b.
,/7-i
\o\
/
-.t*
6 q,
./t,,, t/d/'
a// olfl
7,L ,.\/
^ A/.7d/ o/
fr.wqt Yd
,tl -/v
--=---
i
\
\
\$\
Y.
\
I
\
o\
^\s
\
^ou Itr\
t-t----
-"''N
.ug\
\,
'ri
\
t
\
\9
.\a\
N.i'.5\\N-
\'r[r\
-l;N\' ..
r*l -\ll /'
t.t"
|\
'i:lrlil
)j-
st
ax
I
\r
atl
$
6
;
e)
h
C\
tl*- '''
$.
{\
1
N\'f
e,\
>arri X'
*,e)l
l.o' Ii.t,.\
.5 1
l-\i\
\oLor\
rhtothr\\tA)
s
t)a\
hixto
to
!
(l
\l\
d
.-roi
\o
s
I.
j,}
{(i
(*(n
'.,l
\
S+
\
?
N
\
\
\l
N
(
\
I
(
MICHAEL G. YEAGER
Land Use Planning and Development Services
(
1065 High Street. Suite 4
Eugene. Oregon 97401
(503) 485-4505
PA ll47-84--VARIANCE APPLICATION
FOR
LLOYD THOMAS
PROPOSAL
This application is a request for an access variance tothe twenty foot easement requirements of Lane code chapter13 in order to allow the establishment of a roadway easement13 to l-5 feet wide to serve two properties located in northSpringfield within the urban Growth Boundary of the GeneralP1an. Both properties are planned for LOW DENSITy
RESIDENTIAL development and this request would a11owutilization of these parcels as planned. The areas to thenorth, west and south are developed with single familyresidences. The McKenzie River lies to the east. This accessvariance is necessary because there is no other means ofingress or egress to the properties.
This situation was not due to any action taken by illeapplicant, but was the result of a sale by the subdivision'sdeveloper of the reserve strip which was to serve as theaccess to these two properties. This sale occured many yearsago and litigation has failed to resolve the issue. Thisvariance is the only means by which the two landowners canmake use of their properties as intended by the General
P1an.
BACKGROUND
The subject properties are parcel #l- of ry-359-79 andtax lot 300 of Map L7-03-23-3-2. Recently, parcel #j" wassold to the Thomas' by the abutting property owner wi-th theunderstanding by both parties that the roadway could serveas access to both parcel #1 and tax lot 300 to the south.There is no other access to tax rot 300 without removing a2px20 workshop, a'carport and a utility room. Even then,there would be no place to relocate these structures becausethe drainfield for the Thomas' home is in the front yardwhere Lhe carport would have to be located
The parcel purchased by I,1r. Thomas from the abuttingproperty owner has been recorded as a minor partition withl-3 foot roadr.ray easenent. The need for a variance surfacedonly recently vrhen the Thomas' accepted an offer to selI
a
((
( _.{((
Pagie 3
. iviil nct be detrimental toEt rare o7-:mater a1ly ur
Approval will not impact other properties. It w111simply provi-de access to the two parcels planned forresidential use. A11 sanitation and setback requi-rementswill be observed. This request is consistent with thepurpose for the varj-ance provisions of the Lane Code.
or
"r iearings Of ficial PuL npHearing Lane County
9:30 A.)1.
.\uqusE. 9, 198,1
Harris Ha1I, Lane County Courthouse, 125 E. 8ch Ave Eugene OR 97401
L1o1'd Thomas: PA 1133-84 and PA L544-84
2999 I'/ayside Loop, springfield; Map 17-03-22-4.1/3500 & 17-03-23-3.2/200, 300
An appeal of stalf's approval of a Land PartiEion and Access Variance. ThepartiEion would divide 0.89 acres inEo parcels of 0,44 ae. and 0.45 ac. Thevarianee would allow a 13-15 foot access where 20 f.t. is normally required.
Srle oF
R€Qus:T
.?Ab\
VICIN ITY M AP
p
Tirrre:
Date :
PIace:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal'
I
a
1\tLro?
l4oo
NO 5CA-A C
s7
S-t
fr,
l5 co
c'r'a E+o
ACCess
EA5aFleur
4roco
IN S E.T
t r I t t I t i r r ' t t I ! t t
'
l I r I t t I I t t I I t I t I t t t r r t t I t t t I f I t r t r t t r t a r t t t tt t r r t t trt r rrr rr rrr r r rt rr t t t r r trrrrrr rr r t t t rr t r t t r t ! r t r t,. r r r t t a t t t r ! t r t r r I
) ,jrjj:t rrl i:i)RTGAGiE, l-i[:l ;]CLDti?.'/E:iD0R 0R SiLLER: ORS CHAprEi{ 215 REQUTRES rii.\r7 li- 1r)rJ RFCriYt i;1ls:l0ilci. Ir i:usT pR0ilpTt-y 8t F0RxARDED T0 Ti{E prjRC}lAsER.,'rll'tt"tllttrltttrttttttttttttt'tattttrttrttrttttrttrattrrrrtttrrartttrtrtrtrfrrlartrtrrtrtrrrrratttrttrttratttrttrrtrrrrt.rrrrr.rrrtrrl
FOR AIIY Ii]F.lI?i'llrTIC:I OiI IHE PROPOSAL COIIIACI THE PLANnIIIG DiVISIO,Ii"):r?ill0r.l!i pln1lc siRvlcE cutLtt:iGlt:5 iASi BTH AVEiruEi EUGiirE, cRtGrrr :)r401/?yottt (50r 6g7-.i06.1
(.
-P
R
Z
;!
-
tli
/At9e.l 3e'Dte ::0
3:€ruGFreu>
I
I
33co
31o o
tooZoolo64oo
es,E
1us4i5ao
36o o
34ao
4oo
3 3oo
5c:-7zc o
'oaC5lca
103
-'cD
v
5tT€
\lane county
Because of an error in the notification procedure, the new
appeal period for the attached planning action will begin
on 0ctober 2, 1984 and be final on 0ctober L2,1984.
We apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your
pati ence.
1.
Gary
LCOG
iel le, Hearings Official
LAND MANAGEMENT DIV/PUBLIC WORKS DEPT t 125 EAST 8TH AVENUE / EUGENE, OREGON 97401 / (503) 687-4061
PA 1133-84
PA 1544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item /11
Page 1 of 6
LANE COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICIAL
REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE AND A MAJOR LAND PARTITION
(CONTESTED)
Application Summary
Lloyd Thomas (Michael Yeager, agent) . 2999 Wayside Loop. Springfield, 0R 97477.
Assessor's map 17-03'22-4.1, tax 1ot 3500 and assessor's map 17-03-23-3.2, tax
loEs 200 & 300. Appeal of an administrative approval for a land partition (PA
1544-84) and a varj.ance to allow a 13 to 15 foot wide access easement where 20
feet is required by the Lane Code (PA 1133-84).
Hearing Date: August 9, 1984
(Record held open until August 31, 1984)
Decision Date: Septembe ? 4, 'lgt.4
Appeal Deadline: September 14, 1984, Lane County Board of Commissioners
Statement of Criteria and Standards
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Lane Code 1,0.L22
Lane Code 10. 135
Lane Code 13.050
Lane Code 13.500
Facts Relied Upon [FildL!ss )
1
2
J
The properties subject to the land partition can be identified as tax
200 and 300, assessor's map 17-03-23-3.2. The property subject to
variance is tax 1ot 3500, assessor's map 17-03-22-4.1.
locs
the
The properties subject the two applications are subject to the jurisdiction
of the Eugene-Springfield }letropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The
properties are within the urban growth boundary of the }Ietro Plan and are
designated for 1ow density residential use. They are zoned RA/U Suburban
Residential/Interim Urbanizing Combining District.
The properties subject to these applications are surrounded by developed
tax lots on three sides and the }lcKenzie River on the north. The
surrounding tax lots are zoned RA and are also within the urban growth
boundary of the }Ietro P1an.
The tax lots to be created b1- the proposed partitioning will be .44 acres
and .45 acres, respectively, in size. Reference to the vicinity map
provided by the staff shows the resulting tax lots wi-lI be of similar size
to a large majority of tire existing tax lots in the area. No tax lots
within 100 feet of the of the partitioned property are greater than 5 acres
in size.
4
v it llii_3l
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item ill
Page Z of 6
The properties receive police protection from the Lane County Sheriff'sDepartment and the Oregon State Police. Fire and water service areprovided by the City of Springfield and the Springfield Utility Board,respectively. The Rainbow Water District provides water to the properties.
Access to the properties is provided by private easement. Sewage disposalwill be provided by an on-site subsurface sewage system.
The applicant purchased the property subject to the partitioning after it
became land-locked and withouE knowledge of that situation. The land-locksituation was created by the developer of the First Addition to the BuenaVista subdivision (through the sale, circa t964, of rax 1ot 2g00 to theowner of tax lot 400) in apparent violation of an oral understanding withthe applicant and the subdivision plat which shows tax 1ot 2900 as areserve strip. In order for the to provide access to the partitioned 1otthrough tax 1ot 3400 (owned by the applicant) the applicant would have rotear down. a carport, a utility room and a workshop. The location of theapplicant's drainfield in the front yard of tax lot 3400 would prohibit therebuilding of some of the structures to be torn down.
Because of existing vegetation on the border of tax lots 3500, assessor's
map 17-03-22-4L and tax lot 100r assessor's map 17-03-23-32, the use of the
easement subject to the variance will not significantly affect tax lot 100,through vehicle headlights or noise, to a negative degree.
5
6
2
1. THE REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION (PA 1544-84) IS APPROVED
THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE }liNIilU}I EASE}IENT REQUIRENENTS OF LANE
CODE 13.050(s)(c)(iii) T0 ALLOW Al( EASEITENT oF 13 FEET IN iiIDTH (pA 1133-84) IS APPROVED subject to the recordation of this easemenr.
Justification for Decision (Conclusion )
I. PLAN CONFORI'IITY
The properties subject to these applicat,ions are within the urban growthboundary of the Metro Plan and are designated for 1ow density residentialdevelopment. Since the properties are outside of the City of Sprj-ngfield, theproperties are classified as urbanizable lands. As such, they are subject tothe requirements of Metro Plan Growth llanagement Po1 i.y #tZ which requires thatthey be designed accordirtg to the development standards of the City ofSpringfield whj,ch will eventually provide a minimum 1eve1 of key urban servj-esto the North Springfield area. This policy requirement is implemented t.hroughthe provisions of the /U Interim Urbanizing Combining District zoningdesignation on the property (i.e., see Lane code 10.122-35-50). As the the /UDistrict has been acknowledged by the state as being adequate to implement thegrowth management policies of tire ]letro Plan, ]lecro Plan compliance shall be
measured by compliance with the provisions of the /U Discrict.
Decision
PA 1133-84
PA t544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item /11
Page 3 of 6
II. ZONE CONFORI'IITY
A. Lane Code 10."122
The proposed partitioning will create two parcels of .45 acres and .44 acres,
respectively. In conformance to Lane Code 10 .122-40 (2), the resulting tax lots
are of similar size to a majority of parcels located within the area; all of
which are less than 5 acres in size.
The applicant has signed an annexation agreement in conformance to the
requirements of Lane Code 10.722-a0(1)(c). The proposed residential land use
conforms with the Metro Plan diagram and the applicant's major partition plan
serves as the conceptual plan required by Lane Code 10.1-22-40(1)(a) and 10.722-
4s(2).
In support of the conclusion that this conceptual plan (major partition map)
achieves the ultimate densities provided by the lletro Plan, findings of fact
regardi-ng the standards of Lane Code 10.122-50 are as follows:
2
1 The Metro Plan diagram designates the area for 1ow density residential
use.
The surrounding tax lots are of a similar size to the parcels
resulting from the partitioning. Additionally, the limited access to
the partitioned parcels would preclude greater density on the
partltioned parcel
The character of the adjacent parcels was fixed prior to the adoption
of the }letro P1an. Redivision of all adjacenc parcels except for tax
1ot 100 on the west would be impossible without the destruction of
existing structures.
There are currently no precise, long-range plans for providing public
facilities to the area.
The conditions of the annexation agreement between the applicant and
the City of Springfield satisfy the requirement that the ultimate
density in the area be as close to 6,000 square feet in area per
dwelling unit as possible, given the existing land use patterns.
5 The area is not designated for Medium Density Residential by the lletro
Plan diagram.
B. Lane Code 13.500(2)
The applicant requests a variance from the standards of Lane Code
13.050(5)(c)(iii) which require the minimum width of easements to be 20 feet (PA
1133-84). The criteria to be met are as follows:
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone orvicinity which result frorn lot size or shape, topography or other
circumstances over which the property owner, since the enactment of
this Chapter, has had no control.
a
4
5
I L-PA i133-84
PA 1544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item //L
Page 4 of 6
2
The properties subject to the partition became land-locked prior totheir sale to the applicant. The applicant became aware of the lackof access to this property only recently. The only other way accesscould be provided wourd be through the 1ot housing the applicant'shome, tax lot 3400. and then only if a workshop, a carport and autilitl' room l/ere removed. These sttluctures could not be relocated onthe property because of the existence of the drainfield in the frontyard.
Obviously. the circumstances affecting the applicants does not applyto other properties within tire RA District, it is due to ownershippatterns on the surrounding lots and were not under the control of theapplicant.
The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right ofthe applicant which is the same as that enjoyed by the other prJperty
owners in the same zoning district in the area.
The property right being sought is access to otherwise buildable 1and.The acquisition of this right is supported by the policies of theMetro Plan which call for the property subject to this application tobe developed for 1ow density residential useage and which encourageinfilling for efficiency of public services.
i
The variance would conform with the purposes of this chapter andwor:ld not be materially detrimental to the property in the same zoneor vicinity in which the property is located, or otherwise conflict orreasonably be expected to conflict with the comprehensive plan.
As noted earlier in this ciecision, the application conforms t.o theprovisions of the /U Interim Urbanizing combing District which was
adopted to implement the urbanization policies of the lletro Plan. Theonly material detriment to property in the viciniry, automobileheadlight glare to tax 1ot 100, has been addressed in the conditionsof approval to this application.
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate
the difficulty.
The applicant is seeking a 7 foot variance to the required easement
standard of 20 feet. Testimony at the August t hearing on this matterindicates that this vari-ance represents the distance between thegarage on tax lot 3500 and the property line of tax 1ot 100. The
approval of the variance will permit the maximum width possible which
will a11ow access past the garage and the neighboring vegetation on
the property 1ine.
5. The variance is not the result of a self-created hardship
As explained earlj-er. the parcel subject to the partition was land-
locked in apparent violation of oral promises between the applicant
and the developer of the r,rb,liu'i=ion and the subdivision plat irself
which indicated tax 1ot 2900 l'as to be a reserve strip. This occured
3
4
PA 1133-84
PA 1s44-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda ltem il1
Page 5 of 5
prior to the applicant's purchase of the property and without
applicant's knowledge. The hardship of not allowing the applicant's
property to be developed or making the applicant tear down a carport,
utility room and workshop would be a hardship of a magnitude which far
exceeds that in granting a variance to the existing access standards
of the Lane Code.
C. Lane Code'13.050
The applicantrs application for a major partition is subject to thefollowing criteria of Lane Code 13.050 (PA 1544-84):
1. Conformity with the comprehensive plan.
The analysis of conformity with tl're lletro Plan has been addressed in
the PLAN C0NFORI'IITY section of this decision and the discussion
regarding the requirements of the Interim Urbanizing Combining
District. These analyses are incorporated by reference.
Conformity with the zoning.
The analysis of the requirements of the RA/U zoning of the property
has been discussed earlier in this decision and is incorporated by
reference.
3. Relation to adjoining road system.
There are no major or secondary roads existing which could be
continued or extended to serve the property subject to the proposed
partitioning. Acce-ss through privare easement is the only
alternative.
4. Redevelopment plan .
For purposes of this application the major partition plan sha11 serve
as the redevelopment plan. This plan was found to conform to the
requirements of the /U District.
5. Access.
The approval of the applicant's request for a variance to Lane Code
13.050(5) (c) (iii) satisfys access requj-rements.
6. Control strip.
There are no control strips invo.Lved in this application and thus this
requirement is not applicable.
7 . Utility and watercourse easements.
There are no utilit.v easemencs r.'hich must be dedicaced by this
paritj-ton and there are no waEer courses which traverse the property.
2
PA 1133-84
PA 1544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item il1
Page 6 of 6
8. Pedestrian and bicycle ways.
No pedestrian or bicycle ways proposed or required as a part of this
part it ion .
9. Dangerous areas.
The site is located in and adjacent to the floodplain and all
development will be subject to the requirements of Lane county's flood
hazard regulations.
10. Grading, excavation and clearing.
A11 development must comply with flood plain regulations.
11. Land for public purposes.
No public agencies have expressed a concern for additional public landto be dedicated by the approval of this application.
12. Sewage facilities.
Tax 1ot 200 has received septic tank approval and tax 1ot 300 mustalso receive such approval as a condition of development. The
annexation agreement signed by the applicant addresses the concern ofthe }letro Plan the regarding eventual provision of a minimum 1eve1 of
key urban services (i.e., public seqierage) to the property.
13. Water supply.
Water is currently available to the property thtough the Rainbow 14at.erDistrict.
Respectfu lly Submitted,
C+,';, O*-*.;Z
GarytL. Darnielle
Lan'e County Hearings Official
GD: clblgdlcho
\
/fr\
{i#n
13r
-FL.,
:n
E
IIIiIog)
"t
lEl taJf11tir
t$
BXI,.r\lL.4
lltaJ
IrL
EIlr(J
U)
ITIEJ
CD
(D
f-F
,-ffihi:,o =-n
--i.: .* :')
i) (: ,D
rl
) ?_ (+:.
.:. -, -J. vr
-Y
={+C'.: .r = i+tDq:a
L/1 =,D !.-
r--+0A
O t,) .+i+(+ aa ')J !.
iY r. i<- -\-1 : rD<
--5 t< J. r+C=5l,rr)
= Or=erC aa.f c v)rDJO,O- c+ :r--j rt'orD (f' (D c,,(a'D
=1o EJ.-! < rt:fo_iD (a
' -t a"-UOoro
JgJ!n(D(< oa!<(,
i, J.(Dc3-rr}-c--o'orx-='{r_iNl>
lD J'i<'(f- -1 o
o-1'o
O i:r.) -J=
O r+O-cJ c(< 3a
Ci-t, k r+=(+-a.
=-Qn
q,J
r)
O rU1
=r*
JrDO
-t -{rD {5
C+ tn urrDJxc+ f+ r.O(,tn C+
9 'D{L =-O-(t!_
7 -crt!
='D-O -1-', (DO-r(/i (DlD -_': ..
_. aJ
ra
(++c
C)
r-'
i
r:
a:r
I
I
I .,'
, r:)
; r!'1
il*
!n
IIrlul
io^'
ir"
::J
a
--:rJ
C-rrl(-
-t
=-J
--t;1-l
=l
ti\
(--
II
e
i
,€
itr
n
t3
rro
{
U
-rc
5
D,
IJ
ara,
$
o
>s
I
C,
f'
\y
Rrlt
t
Nls\
IN
lP
l\
tr
lp-
{sN
\
c\
\
N
\
U
\
N
GJ
J
,--b
tDNi*
I(^)o
F-
I
-:'
a_.)
-v,
:-d\r
,.^
L-
r11
-t
\,
:f t I 'J'1
Tz(r--
_t =- 5- --
'-t -'/. -.
e ::
!--i
al
I
I
I
I
l\Nln
K\
i*irl
d
iTIt
ITi\
i
I
t
i
h
It
ir\
I:\i\
itl-
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
!I
l.-
@
a)-7
car/ t.
HeSring
/
ne Council of Governments
MRTH pLAZA LEVEL psa/ rzs EAST EtcHTH AVENUE / ructNe , oREGoN stqor lTELEpHoNE (5o3)rce7-4;:a3
September 4, 1984
Ms. Ruth Bryant
Community Development Supervisor
Lane County Land Management Division
Public Service Building
125 E. 8th Ave.,
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Ms. Bryant:
Please find attached Lane County Hearings Official approval of the Thomas
requests for a major partition (PA 1544-84) and a variance to the easement width
requirements of Lane Code 13.050(5)(c)(iii) (pA 1133-84).
Da rn ielle
s Officer
GD:gd
PA 1133-84
PA 1s44-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item /11
Page 1 of 5
LANE COUNTY HEAR!NGS OFFICIAL
REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE AND A MAJOR LAND PARTITION
(CONTESTED)
Application Summary
Lloyd Thomas (Michael Yeager, agent) . 2999 Wayside Loop, Springfield, OR 97477.
Assessor's map l7-03-22-4.1, tax lot 3500 and assessor's map 77-03-23-3.2, tax
lots 200 & 300. Appeal of an administrative approval for a land partition (PA
1544-84) and a variance to a1low a 13 to 15 foot wide access easement where 20
feet j-s required by the Lane Code (PA 1133-84).
Hearing Date: August 9, 1984
(Record held open until August 31, 1984)
Decision Date: September 4, 'lg8/-
Appeal Deadline: September 14, lg84., Lane County Board of Commissioners
Statement of Criteria and Standards
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Lane Code IO.l22
Lane Code 10.135
Lane Code 13.050
Lane Code 13.500
Facts Relied Upon (Findings)
The properties subject to the land partition can be identified as tax lots
2OO and 300, assessor's map 17-03-23-3.2. The property subject to the
variance is tax lot 3500, assessor's map 17'03'22-4.1.
The properties subject the two applications are subject to the jurisdiction
of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan). The
properties are within the urban growth boundary of the Metro Plan and are
designated for low density residential use. They are zoned RA/U Suburban
Residential/Interim Urbanizing Combining District.
The properties subject to these applications are surrounded by developed
tax lots on three sides and the McKenzie River on the north. The
surrounding tax lots are zoned RA and are also within the urban growth
boundary of the Metro Plan.
The tax lots to be created by the proposed partitioning will be .44 acres
and .45 acres, respectively, in size. Reference to the vicinity map
provided by the staff shows the resulting tax lots will be of similar size
to a large majority of the existing tax lots in the area. No tax lots
within 100 feet of the of the partitioned property are greater than 5 acres
in size.
1
2
J
4
PA 1133-84
PA rs44-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda ltem ll1
Page 2 of 5
The properties receive police protection from the Lane County Sheriffrs
Department and the Oregon State Police. Fire and water service are
provided by the City of Springfield and the Springfield Utility Board,
respectively. The Rainbow Water District provides water to the propertj.es.
Access to the properties is provided by private easement. Sewage disposal
will be provided by an on-site subsurface seh/age system.
The applicant purchased the property subject to the partitioning after it
became land-locked and without knowledge of that situation. The land-lock
situation was created by the developer of the First Addition to the Buena
Vista Subdivision (through the sa1e, circa 7964, of tax 1ot 2900 to the
orrner of tax lot 400) in apparent violation of an oral understanding with
the applicant and the subdivision plat which shows tax lot 2900 as a
reserve strip. In order for the to provide access to the partitioned 1ot
through tax lot 3400 (owned by the applicant) the applicant would have to
tear down a carport, a utility room and a workshop. The location of the
applicant's drainfield 1n the front yard of tax 1ot 3400 would prohibit the
rebuilding of some of the structures to be torn down.
Because of existing vegetation on the border of tax lots 3500, assessor's
map 17-03-22-41 and tax lot 100, assessor's map 17'03'23-32, the use of the
easement subject to the variance will not significantly affect tax lot 100,
through vehicle headlights or noise, to a negative degree.
THE REQUEST FOR A LAND PARTITION (PA 1544-84) IS APPROVED.
THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE I'IINIMUM EASEI'IENT REQUIREMENTS OF LANE
CQDE 13.050(s)(c) (iii) To ALL0W AN EASEI'IENT OF 13 FEET IN WIDTH (PA 1133-
84) IS APPROVED subject to the recordation of this easement.
( Concl us ion )
I. PLAN CONFORMITY
The properties subject to these applications are within the urban growth
boundary of the Metro Plan and are designated for low density residential
development. Since the properties are outside of the City of Springfield, the
properties are classified as urbanizable lands. As such, they are subject to
the requirements of Metro Plan Growth Management Policy ltl2 which requires that
they be designed according to the development standards of the City of
Springfield which will eventually provide a minimum 1eve1 of key urban servies
to the North Springfield area. This policy requirement is implemented through
the provisions of the /U Interim Urbanizing Combining District zoning
designation on the property (i.e., see Lane Code 10.122-35-50). As the the /U
District has been acknowledged by the state as being adequate to implement the
growth management policies of the Metro P1an, lletro Plan compliance sha1l be
measured by compliance with the provisions of the /U District.
5
6
1
2
Justification for Decision
Decision
PA 1133-84
PA 1544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item /11
Page 3 of 6
II. ZONE CONFORMITY
A. Lane Code 10.122
The proposed partitioning will create two parcels of .45 acres and .44 acres,
respectJ-veIy. In conformance to Lane Code 10 .122-40 (2), the resulting tax lots
are of similar size to a majority of parcels located within the areal all of
which are less than 5 acres in size.
The applicant has signed an annexation agreement in conformance to the
requirements of Lane Code 70.122-40(1)(c). The proposed residential land use
conforms with the Metro Plan diagram and the applicantrs major partition plan
serves as the conceptual plan required by Lane Code 10 .122-40 (1) (a) and 10 .122-
45(2).
In support of the conclusion that this conceptual plan (major partition map)
achieves the ultimate densities provided by the Metro P1an, findings of fact
regarding the standards of Lane Code 10.122-50 are as follows:
1. The Metro Plan diagram designates the area for 1ow density residential
use.
The surrounding tax lots are of a similar size to the parcels
resulting from the partitioning. Additionally, the limited access to
the partitioned parcels would preclude greater density on the
partitioned parcel
The character of the adjacent parcels was fixed prior to the adoption
of the Metro Plan. Redivision of all adjacent parcels except for tax
1ot 100 on the west would be impossible without the destruction of
existing structures.
There are currently no precise, long-range plans for providing public
facilities to the area.
2
3
4
5
6
The conditions of the annexation agreement between the applicant and
the City of Springfield satisfy the requirement that the ultimate
density in the area be as close to 51000 square feet in area per
dwelling unit as possible, given the existing land use patterns.
The area is not designated for Medium Density Residential by the Metro
Plan diagram.
B. Lane Code 13. s00(2)
The applicant requests a variance from the standards of Lane Code
13.050(5)(c)(iii) which require the minimum width of easements to be 20 feet (PA
1133-84). The criteria to be met are as follows:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apPly to the ProPerty
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or
vicinity which result from lot size or shape, topography or other
circumstances over which the property owner, since the enactment of
this Chapter, has had no control.
2
PA 1133-84
PA 1544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item /11
Page 4 of 6
The properties subject to the partition became land-locked prior to
their sale to the applicant. The applicant became aware of the lack
of access to this property only recently. The only other way access
could be provided would be through the 1ot housing the applicant's
home, tax 1ot 3400, and then only if a workshop, a carport and a
utility room were removed. These structures could not be relocated on
the property because of the existence of the drainfield in the front
yard.
Obviously, the circumstances affecting the applicants does not apply
to other properties within the RA District, it is due to ownership
patterns on the surrounding lots and were not under the control of the
applicant.
The variance is necessary for the preservation of a ProPerty right of
the applicant which is the same as that enjoyed by the other proPerty
owners in the same zoning district in the area.
The property right being sought is access to otherwise buildable 1and.
The acquisition of this right is supported by the policies of the
Metro Plan which call for the property subject to this application to
be developed for low density residential useage and which encourage
infilling for effj-ciency of public services
:
The variance would conform with the Purposes of this Chapter and
would not be materially detrimental to the property in the same zone
or vicinity in which the property is located, or otherwise conflict or
reasonably be expected to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
As noted earlier in this decision, the application conforms to the
provisions of the /U Interim Urbanizing Combing District which was
adopted to implement the urbanization policies of the Metro P1an. The
only material detriment to property in tire vicinity, automobile
headlight glare to tax 1ot 100, has been addressed in the conditions
of approval to this application.
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate
the difficulty.
The applicant is seeki-ng a 7 foot variance to the required easement
standard of 20 feet. Testimony at the August t hearing on this matter
indicates that this variance represents the distance between the
garage on tax lot 3500 and the property line of tax 1ot 100. The
approval of the variance will permit the maximum width possible which
will allow access past the garage and the neighboring vegetation on
the property line.
5. The variance is not the result of a self-created hardship.
As explained earlier. the parcel subject to the partition was land-
locked in apparent violation of oral promises between the applicant
and the developer of the subdivision and the subdivision plat itself
which indicated tax lot 2900 was to be a reserve strip. This occured
3
4
PA 1133-84
PA 1544-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item li1
Page 5 of 5
prior to the applicant's purchase of the property and without
applicant's knowledge. The hardship of not allowing the applicant's
property to be developed or making the applicant tear down a carport,
utility room and workshop would be a hardship of a magnitude which far
exceeds that in granting a variance to the existing access standards
of the Lane Code.
C. Lane Code 13.050
The applicant's application for a major partition is subject to the
following criteria of Lane Code 13.050 (PA 1544-84):
1. Conformity with the comprehensive plan.
The analysis of conformity with the Metro Plan has been addressed in
the PLAN CONFORMITY section of this decision and the discussion
regarding the requirements of the Interim Urbanizing Combining
District. These analyses are incorporated by reference.
Conformity with the zoning.
The analysis of the requirements of the RA/U zoning of the property
has been discussed earlier in this decision and is incorporated by
reference.
Relation to adjoining road system
There are no major or secondary roads existing which could be
continued or extended to serve the property subject to the proposed
partitioning. Access through private easement is the only
alternative.
Redevelopment plan.
For purposes of this application the major partition plan shal1 serve
as the redevelopment plan. This plan was found to conform to the
requirements of the /U District.
Access.
The approval of the applicant's request for a variance to Lane Code
13.050(5) (c) (iii) satisfys access requirements.
Control strip.
There are no control strips involved in this application and thus this
requirement is not applicable.
Utility and watercourse easements.
There are no utility easements which must be dedicated by this
parititon and there are no water courses which traverse the property.
2
3
4
5
6
7
PA 1133-84
PA ls44-84
September 4, 1984
Agenda Item /11
Page 6 of 6
8. Pedestrian and bicycle ways.
No pedestrian or bicycle ways proposed or required as a part of this
partition.
9. Dangerous areas.
The site is located in and adjacent to the floodplain and all
development will be subject to the requirements of Lane County's flood
hazard regulations.
10. Grading, excavation and clearing.
A11 development must comply with flood plain regulations
11. Land for public purposes.
No public agencies have expressed a concern for additional public land
to be dedicated by the approval of this application.
12. Sewage facilities.
Tax 1ot 200 has received septic tank approval and tax 1ot 300 must
also receive such approval as a condition of development. The
annexation agreement signed by the applicant addresses the concern of
the Metro Plan the regarding eventual provision of a minimum 1evel of
key urban services (i.e., public sewerage) to the property.
13. Water supply.
Water is currently available to the property through the Rainbow l{ater
District.
Respectfully Submitted,
ielle
Hearings Official
GD: clblgdlcho
cliRl'T r'1cA]',ION OF MAI1.l N(l
TIIIS IS T0 CEti'IIl:Y tlraL 1,Jana Broom scrvcd noLicc of
the public hearing to be held for application PA 1544-84 and 1133-84
initiated by Lloyd Thomas by mailing a copy of the attached to each
of rhe persons listed on Elre at taclred sl.reet , by pl acing said notif icationin envelopes addrt:ssed to each of said pcrs()ns and delivered said envelopesin person to Ehe llain Post 0flir:e (5tlr and l{i,1}arnc'ttc) in iiugcne, en t}re
24th dav of July , 19 84
t