The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit Correspondence 1984-12-04 (2)SPRINGFIELD CMT OF SPRINGFIELD Department of Public Works CERTIFIED LETTER December 4, t984 Mr. Gary Ensign 3789 0regon Street Springfield,0R 97477 Dear Mr. Ensign: Several weeks ago, this office received an inquiry regarding a fence built higher than the maximum allowed height of 3-t/2 feet in the fifteen footfront yard setback area at 3789 0regon street, Springfield, Oregon. Our records show that you are the owner of this property. An inspection of your property found the fence to be 5 feet high. In addition, there was no permit issued for the fence construction. Please refer to the attached explanationof fence requirements for interior lots. The inspector who responded to the inquiry about your fence has informed me that you may rylsh to request a variance before the Building Board of Appeals. The next available meeting wilI be scheduled for January 10, 1985. The deadline for submittal is 10 working days before the meeting date, or December 27, 1984. Enclosed is an application form for your convenience. Also enclosed is an information pamphlet which explains Board of Appeals procedures and authority. The applicant must carry the "burden of proof", i.e., he or she must present information to the Board that wil'l substantiate his or her request. The Board may approve a variance request if it finds that the nature of the request meetsthe conditions Iisted under "Variance Cond'itions" on the attached pamphlet. If you wish to apply for a variance, you must submit the request for hearing application and a'll other pertinent information, along with the $aO.OO fee, by Thursday, December 27, 1984. If you decide not to appeal by the above mentioned date, the fence must comply with all applicable City Codes and/or 0rdinances bythirty (30) days from the date of this ietter (Janulry 4,1985). If you appealo however, the fence may remain as is until a decision is rendered. In response to your inquiries concerning other possible violations in your neighborhood, please accept the following response: 1. The house at 275 South 38th Street was connected to the sanitary sewer in 1975. The house at 265 South 38th Street was also connected to the sanitary sewerin 1985. As for construction work in progress at this address, the work is 2 225 North Sth Street . Springfield, Oregon97477 o 503/726-3753 Mr. Gary December Page - 2 covered under a valjd bu'ilding permit. As long as work progresses and does not lapse for a period longer than 180 days, a perm'it is valid indefinitely. Please direct all questions to the Springfield Building Safety Division at 726-3753. Si ncerel y, Sa1 1y Environmental Inspector SJ:lc CC: Ensi gn 4, 1994 Don l4oore - Building Inspector Dave Puent - Acting Superintendent of Bu'i'lding Encl osures - (, t tr =cF E,rzo Iso oz o o!Iz o t!lI 6 {No a(., {(,| o, BOARD x7{3 !etrl- H6 E={o7 -aAPPEATS The Board of Appeals is composed of five citizens from the community ?ppointed by the Mayor. Since the Board deals with miny i..r,ni.ul mattersinvolving various phases of the construct'ion industry, iorr of its nBmbersare selected based on the training and/or experience fhey have in either thedesign or constryglion phase of t[e industry; Idealrv iirenl'ih" Bou.d hasat least one archit"g!,- one engineer, one general coniracto" unA one special-ty contractor. The fifth npmber of the Boird represents the general cit"iren.yarid has no direct relationship to the constructibn inauitrv. -ilie Superintena[ntof Bui'lding serves as Secretary to the Board and assists t-he Board th theperformance of its duties and functions. THE BOARD A large percentage of the work of the Board consists of hearing variance orinterpretation requesis from certain provirioni-of r o.ii-ciiv"diaes/ord.inancesincluciag the-springfield Zoning.code', Lr,.-sp.ingf"ield-eiiy-toj. and the BuildingSafety Codes relat.ing to the foilowing. "- -r''"J' Ier wvqs : 5. Sign Requirements6. Local Fire Code provisions7. Housing Code ReouirementsB. H'i stori cal Commiss i on Referral s ITS DUTIES 1. Lot Coverage2. Building Height Restrictions3. Yard and Fence Requirements4. Solar Access To approve a Variance, the Board must consider the following: 1' That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditionsapplicable to the property or intended use *rai Jo;;t-;;;iJ-gln..ur1y to otherproperty or clasp of use in the same vicinity and zone.-.rI'J r-" 2' That such Varfance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of asubstantial propert{ .]ght possessla uy otheil property in the il*. vicinity andzone' but which is denjed to the propeity in qlesiion or is neiessary to establishof a use essential for necessary service to the public; 3. That the granting of such Variance rryill not beproperty and the character of the neighborhood insafety, traffic, noise, health and sanitation and VARIANCE CONDITIONS Publ i c ti ngi th ho ncompat'ibl e wi th abute fol I owi ng respects : urs of operat'ion. At q 'guasi-judicial'decision rnakinq bod.y, the Board of Appeals must bepresented with complete, accurate information on which to base a'clecision.Thus, in addition to, or as a part of adequately address'inct the above items,it is usual)y also necessar-v to prepare and subrnit certain graphic information. Six copies of all rrritten and granhic informatjon must acconrpan.y al1applications. This information is distributed to Board mernbers sb that theycan familiarize themselves with the rnaterial anC vjsit the site prior tothe meeting. NNul =Uli+, -J t GRAPHIC INFORMATION P,EQUI RED DRAWINGS Include on drawing: l. ) North arrow and abutting streets 2.) Enti re proPertY with all lot dirBn- sions, ex'isting bldgs and dircnsions to b p.ope.ty I ine. ^ 3.) Location and extent X of items being appe a I ed. 4. ) Show al I ci rcum VcASc SITE PLA}I Scile: T/16" = l' or'larger +c*tc c) t d 2 -P e) \) -t- r0 4*r e e-L lJ a"vta& stances on Proper-ty which may bepertinent. (Trees, fences, walls, hedges, conditions on abutt'ing prop- erty, etc. ) ?.) Y.'. $ ?.1 . t.^tv I t-I F,.o-t Vie,o ,-r.^*+iAe Vie ur E LE VAT I ONSmTe: l/4'= l' or larqp Include on drawino:I. ) Minimum of two views of affected build- ing, fence, sign(front and side) Indicate matEr-ials used andaII other per- tinent details. (eg. whether sign is illun inated. ) APPLICATION FEES The fee for an init'ial appl ication is $30.00. Appeals Board decision is $12.00 The fee for a rehearing of an The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of each month in the Public Works Conference Room. Meetings beg'in at 7:30 P.m. In order to prepare information for distribut members sufficient time to review requests prior tall applications and supDorting graphic informatio Safety Division at 'least ten (10) working days pri IG,ETING DATES or to the meeti ng . Appl i cations cheduled meetin w'ilTle hel dSreceived less than ten workin dteountnq mon ion and in order to give Board o meet'ings, it is necessary that n be received by the Building rior to a RIGHT OF APPEAL Decisions of the Board relative to Codes and/or 0rdinances adopted solely at the local level, such as the Springfield Zoning Code, or the Sign Code, rndy be appealed to the City Counci'1. App'licants wishing to appeal Board decisions must file a written request directed to the C'ity Council within iC days of the Board's ruf ing. Dec'is'ionsof the Board relating to local Fire provjsions, the Housing Code, Historical Cor,rmission referrals and to dangerous bui'ldings are final. APPEALS BOARD JURISDICTION The Board also nears cases'involving certain prov'isions of the following Codes. 1. The Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code. 2. The Mechanical Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code. 3. The Electrical S.pecialty Safety Code. 4. The Plumbing SPecialtY Code.5. The So1ar Specia'ltY Code. (The above Codes are State Codes which have been1ocally adopted by the City and wh'ich comprise a part of the Springfield Bu j'ld'ing Safety Codes. ) S'ince the type of action that can be taken by the Board relative to these Codes differs substantr'a11y from what has been described above and since the 'information necessary to substaniiate a request is also essentially different, it is suggested that persons wishing to bring matters involv'ing the above referenced Codes before the Board, first contact the Buitaing Safety Division for specific information. In general, however, be advised that the Boaid of Appeals has no authority to grant variances to any of the provisions of the State Codes. I,lith regard to the State Codes' tlle Board may offer reasonab'le interpretation of code provis'ions and/or rule on the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construct'ion. Appeals to jnterpretations of State Codes must be referred directly to the appropriate State Board within 30 days of the Board's decision. Board dec'isions relating to the Fire and Life Safety Provisions of the State Codes are final. Ahl@ SPR!NGFIELE,CITY 0F SPRTNGFitLD BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS REQUEST FOR HEARING LOCATION OF PROPERTY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ABOVE PROPERTY: Lot #Block #Tract OR Tax Lot # OWNER NAME: ADDRESS: Reference # PHONE: ADDRESS: PHONE: Petitioner is: owner contractor _ Designer Status of Job: Not Started - Under Construction Completed- SPECIFIC ORDINANCE # OR CODE SECTION IN QUESTION: Nature of Request (state fu1lY): - (APPLICANT MUST BE IN ATTENDANCE AT BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OR HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT) Initial Appl ication: $30.00 Modification of Initial Request: $12.00 Date Paid: APPLICAIIT' S SIGNATURE NSTE: Six copies of a drawing(s) sufficient to show the nature of the request must accompinv-t[i; .r;iication. For further information see information pamphi et #l . w SFHITUGFEELD . a^JVL,\uv ri L;_---:l!-o< D E7P lote i{ri\L' 5t ptP FENCE AND VISION CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS--RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: lnterior lots: A fence not exceeding six (5) feet in height may be located anywhere offilot except for in the required 15 foot front yard setback area. A fence not exceeding 3 l/2 feet in height may be located anywhere on the property line. Reference: S.pringfield Zoning Code, Section 14.05. Corner lots:A fence not exceeding six (5) feet in height may be located anywhere on the lot except in the required 15 foot front yard setback area. The front yards of a Iot are defined as all yards abutting a public street. A fence not exceeding 3 l/2 feet in height may be located anywhere on the property line except in the vision clearance triangle in which a fence may not exceed 2 1/2 feet in height. (Refer to the above diaghram). Reference: Springfield Zoning Code, Section I4.05. 0THER REQUIREMENTS: (Reference: Springfield City Code; Chapter 10, Article B). Permits: A fence permit with a fee of $18.00 is required. Easements: Fences constructed over, along and adjacent to publ ic uti I i ty easements must be provided with gates and /or removable modular sections to assure ready and convenient access by authorized Ci..ty and Util ity Company Representatives for easement maintenance purposes. The Springfield Fire Department requires a minimum of 3 feet, 5 inches for clearance around fi re hydrants. '*r?*,tet l Ilj LI "-)V '1 a T-1-l I I t-iJ SPRINGFIELD CI T OF SPBINGFIELD Department o{ Public Works 1 885- 1 98S Spring{ield Centennial yeor AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane, )) ss. ) I, Dennlr Rordearrx , being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say that I am a competent person over the age of 18 years, a resident of the State of Oregon, and not a Party to or an attorney in the hereinafter mentioned matter. I do further state that I served the original of the attached letter addressed to t{r. Gary Ensiqn. 5789 Oregon Street. Sorinsfield. Oreson from Sally Johnson Mrs. Garv Ensisn , Department of Public Works, upon by delivering to him/her, said letter personally and in person on the 4th day of January. 1985 , at Springfield, Lane County Oregon. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before ne this ZlL day of J 198 5. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON My Commission Expircs: 8/16/86 rl'z- 1e,.,.. .. ?25 North Sth Street o Springfieid, Oregon 97477 ' 503/'126-3705 da.ted January 2. 1985 , CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Springfield City Ha11 Department of Public Works 225 North 5th Street Thursday Febmary 7, 1985 7:30 p.n. 1. Roll Call Members Present: Bob Magee, Randall Acting Chairman to the Board, Darwin Clifton, Bill ) Members Absent: Larry 01iver, Staff Present: David Puent, The minutes of the December 6, received. O1d Business: None Ray Walter Sal1y Johnson, Lisa Hopper, Secretary to the Board 1984 Board of Appeals neeting were approved as 3 4 New Business: a. Gary and Grace Ensign, #85-L The property in question is located at 3789 Oregon Street. The applicant requests a variance from Section 14.06 A.2 of the Springfield Zoning Code relative to fence height and setback requirements in the Low Density Residen-tial (RL) District. The applicant has erected a 5 foot high fence on the property line in the frontyard setback area. Mr. Ensign was present to represent the request. Mr. Ensign explained to the Board that his home and property has repeatedly beenburglarized, vandalized and tresspassed upon and that the only way that he feels he can control this is either to erect a 5 I chain link fence in the front yard orto purchase a gun. Mr. Magee questioned if Mr. Ensign had come into the Public Works office prior to erecting his fence to check on fence height regulations. Mr. Ensign stated that he had and knew that he was in violation when he contracted Sears to erect the fence, but he felt that he had no choice other that to go againstthe intent of the Code. lrtr. Ensign continued his presentation by stating that the fence presents no vision clearance hazard because it is chain link. He stated that most of the neighbors he spoke with about the fence expressed no concern nor negative feelings about its appearance. He presented letters of support submitted by neighbors which are in- cluded with the variance request application. Since the fence has been erected, Mr. Ensign stated that the burglaries have ceased and therefore, he has not hadto call out the Police Department which should be helping to save the City money. Board of Appeals Minutes February 7, 1985 Page 2. Mr. Magee expressed a concern for approving a 5'high fence for Mr. Ensignrs property because the Board would then have to approve similar fences for the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Clifton added that the Zoning Code does not distinguish between wooden fences and chain link fences, but advised the applicant that he could legally erect a 6rhigh fence 15r back from the front property line. Mr. Ensign replied that his lot was too snall to exclude this 15r area and stated that he felt the Zonihg Code should be revised to define types of fencing materials and provide allowances for chain link fences. I4r. Clifton stated that he (Mr.- Ensign) would have to go to the Planning Commission and discuss Code changes with them, that the Board of Appeals had no jurisdiction in this respect. Mr. Magee suggested that Staff request the Planning Commission to review fence requirements. Mr. Randall produced a copy of Eugene's fence code which dis- tinguishes between chain link and other materials and suggested that this code be reviewed. Mr. Magee asked Staff if Mr. Ensign could appeal if the Board's decision were negative. Ms. Johnson stated that if Mr. Ensignrs request for a variance is denied, he has the right to appeal to the City Council within 1.0 days from the date of the decision of the Board. Mr. Clifton stated that given the criteria that the Board must justify in order to approve a variance request, he did not see how they could approve the request, but reaffirmed that Mr. Ensign could appeal to the Council. Motion: Mr. Clifton moved to deny the variance as requested based on Staff's ?Iffi'Ii-gs. Mr. Randall seconded. The motion passed unanimously. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions ap- plicable to the property or intended use that do not apply generally to other property or class of use in the same vicinity; There is nothing unique about the property in question that sets it apart from other property on the block, warranting the approval of a 5r high fence. That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a sub- stantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question or is necessary to establishment of a use essential for necessary service to the public; Again, no physical geographical or topographical characteristics separate the applicantsr property or make it different from other properties in the same vicinity. 2 Board of Appeals Minutes February 7, 1985 Page 3. 5 3. That the granting of such Variance will not be incompatible with abuttingproperty and the character of the neighborhood in the following respects:Public safety, traffic, noise, health and sanitation and hours of operation; The granting of this variance would be incompatible with the character ofthe neighborhood because front yards in all itesidential Zones are requiredto have 1ow fences in order to maintain the residential nature of the area. By granting this request, the Board of Appeals would have to grant a1lrequests for higher front yard fences in all Residential Zones. Business from the Board Motion: Mr. Clifton moved to recommend.to the Planning Commission that theffint fence requirements be reviewed with special atiention to arlowinggreater flexibility for chain link fences. Mr. Magee seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Business from the Staff: None Business from the Audience: None The meeting was adjourned at 8:L5 p.m. 6 7 8 SPRTNGFIELD CIIY OF SPRINGFIELD Department of Public Works 1 885- 1 985 Sprinq{ield Centennial year BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF DECISION APPLICAIIT: Gary and Grace Ensign DATE: February 18, 1985 ADDRESS: 5789 0regon Street, Springfield, 0regon CASE N0.: 85-1 VARIANCE REQUEST: Height requirements for fences in the Low Density Residential District CIfi REFERENCE: Section 14.06 A.2 of the Springfield Zoning Code At the Board of Appeals meeting held on February 7, 1985, the Board of Appeals rendered the following decision regarding the above referenced variance request: XX DENIED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or intended use that do not apply generally to other property or class of use in the same vicinity; There is nothing unique about the property in question that sets it apart fron other property on the block, wamanting the approval of a 5r high fence. 2. That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question or is necessary to establishment of a use es- sential for necessary service to the public; Again, no physical, geographicat or topographical characteristics separate the ap- plicantsr property or make it different fron other properties in the same vicinity. 3. That the granting of such Variance will not be incompatibLe with abutting property and the character of the neighborhood in the following respects: Public safety, traffic, noise, health and sanitation and hours of operation; The granting of this Variance would be incompatible with the character of the neighborhood because front yards in all Residential Zones are required to have low fences in order to naintain the residential nature of the area. By granting this request, the Board of Appeals would have to grant all requests for higher front yard fences in all Residential Zones. NOTE: Your letter of appeal was received on February 13, 1985. We will notify you with regard to the hearing as soon as we have a date. 225 North Sth Street o Sprinsrfield, Oreqon97477 o 503/726-3753 )/,azt , COMPLAINT TAKEN BY:nlL IS"S : 11 v TYPE: €f,4LU DATE RECEIVED:to-5-g{(tINDIVIDUAL COMPLAINT DATA RES I DENT : OWNER: ADDRESS: INSPECTOR: REFERRED TO: PHONE: PHONE: NOTES: ZONE: druu t CASE NUMBER: COMPLAINTANT: Ui ADDRESS: nIL3l'tf , Arr- l/ PHONE: NOTIFIED: //7 -2 C tw- ,;/-11-<{E DATE INSPECTION FINDINGS NUI IUt A ND URUTR ) t2-4-y -27- or / ffin -rr.*t */2-A -{xt<c-f a- 1 g REFERRAL TO CITY ATTORNEY: / il-l. rw;/ t- n7.ry'4 /l tD PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: e-C C/?*,',1 ( FINAL ACTION: INVAL ID REFERRAL H()LD RECHECK FINALED ACTION PENDING: j d) ,