HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Correspondence 1988-11-03-- I lot 5- 3s-
SPRINGFIELO
DEVELOPMENTSEEYICES
ADL4IN ISTRATIO:'l
PLANN/NG / BUILDiNG
PUBLIC WOFKS
M ET RO POLI TAN WAST EWAT E B M AN AG E M E N T
225 FltTtl SiilEEr
SPRI I,!G F I E LD, OR 9)-.1 7 7' (503) 726-3753
Novernber 3, 1988
Mr. Kenneth Myers
211 Citrus #120
Escon<rido, cA 92027
Subiect: Zoning of property at 3505 Main Street, 101 anct 151 South 35th Street.
Dear Mr. Myers:
Thank you for your letter ot L0/23/BB. i
understano why you feel an error hasreviewing our fi les and your property,
Mid-Springfield Refinement Plan was adopted
There is no doubt that these buildings were designed with commercial uses in mino.It is al so quite apparent that the upstairs portion of the larger bui loing wasintended for residential use. Ilhen the refinement p'lan was u6ing p.epa.6o *ereliecl on: 1 ) Assessor's information, which showed both conrnercial ani resi'oentialuses for this property; 2)a fielo survey that substantial ly verified theAssessor's information; 3) surrouncting lano uses (your southern oLilding abuts acul-de-sac that is developed with multi-iamily units); and, 4) written notificationto all property owners of any proposed re-zohings. The combination of these factsled to the recommendation for multi-family zoning for 101 anct 151 South 35thStreet.
It't apparent to me that the evidence relieo upon did not relate the whole story.
fo. example, the southern builoing is exclusively conrnercial, the center builoingis commercial and resioential and the northern building iooks as if it may beentirely residential. l^le also assumed you were aware of the proposed zone chinge
because the letters we sent to you (enclosecl) rvere not returned by the post office.I oon't mean this as an excuse, but only as an explanation of the events.
We are iust as anxious as you to resolve this matter. To that eno, we w'i llinitiate a plan amendment/zone change (at no cost to you) so that you miy retaincommercial zoning on each of these parcels. However, commercial ioning- on thisproperty does not al low residential use. Continuation of residential use wi I I be
considered a lawful pre"exist'ing, non-conforming use subject to discontinuation if:1) the rest'oential units are destroyed by fire in excess of 50% replacement cost;0r, 2\ the resiclential units are abandonect for more than 90 consecutive days.Please r^efer to Article 5, rvhich you cited in your letter fn reference tocommercial activities, for more information.
The conmercial use'of your builrtings is subject to our present code requirement ofslte pla! review whenever a change in occupancy occurs. This requirement ensuresthat minimum development standards (encloseo) have been satisfieo. 0nce al Irequired improvements are instal led, no further revien is necessary.
agree with much of what you said and can
been made. I can also understand, after
why your zoning was changeo when the
,*c\.d**>-''rfl
.:.
I will send you notice, at the above address, of the time and place of the publichearing for this plan amendment/zone change. If you have any questions about theinformation in this letter, please contact me at your convenie-nce.
Coroial
Mott
Development Cooe Aoministrator
cc: Greg I,{interowd, planning & Building Director
Joe Leahy, Ass'istant City Attorney
enc.
t, /.r f 'r/
:.-i I -l
ra')b tl
October 23, 19BB
Mr. Greg Winterowd
225 North 5t,h
Springf ieId, Oregon 97477
Dear I"1r . Wi nterowd,
Recently I entered into a lease agireement wherein a tenant would
uti I ize my tommercial bui ld,ings loca[ed. 6-at 3505 Main, ft0t South
35th, and 151 South 35th. The tenant was refused a business license
on the girounds that the bui lding was in an area zoned f or
residential use. This effectively injures his abiiity to conducL
business, and also causes a conflict with the previously approved
property use.
I bel ieve that an administrative
facts of the zoning are inconsistent with
III. The sidewalk areas now in p
the City of Springfield
commerc iaI bui ltl.ings .
VI
VII. The three bui ldings on the
were all built by the same
center.
error has occurred as the
the rul ingr.
Please consider the following:
I
piace for approximatelv B vears.
II> The buildings went through plan check and zoning of the
City of Springfield before they were constructed.
I acefor are
the
on property given toright to bui Id these
IV. The street improvements were assessed and paid on the basieof commercial land use.
V As a condition for erecting commercial buildings on
Street, a strip of the lot on Main Streot which facedStreet was deeded to the City of Springfie[d.
35rh
35th
The f ire hydrant now in place on 35t,h Street was paid bythe current landowner as part of the conclitions of building
on the Iots under commercial zoning: (cost $5,000). It was
originally to be on the property line between a Iot on Main
Street and the iot f.rcing 35th Street, but was moved backto aI low for rnore f ire protection f or the adjoining
properties.
Southeastowner as
side of the Streeta smal I shopping
VIII. The Criteria for Designating Commercial Land requires
,-'. .
The JuIy I986 Mid-Springfieid Refinement Plan (amended
March l9B7) depicts the affected property as vacant and
zoned for residential use. Tj11-buildinqs have been in
the land to be within 200 feet of Main Street, which it
does. AIso, under the same criteria, para 2.b, the land is
separated from the residentiai; para 2.c, the points of
contact are well defined; para 2.e, the lots have always
been of commercial use; and para 2.t, the property has a
small scale shopping center on it now. Para 3 is also met
and I ask for continuance of the commercial flesignationunder para. 4.
IX. These two commercial buildings are the only properties
between 28th and 42nd Streets within 2OA feet of Main
Street which are not still under commercial zoning.
I have been in California for four yearE and have never
received notice of any pending or actual zoning changes.
Had the notices in fact been sent and received by tll€, I
would have answered them. I believe that when such an
event is planned, any notices are sent by certified mail,
as the possibiiity of the owner not receiving the notice
could be the loss of property use.
XI. The segregation and rezoning of my property is inconsistent
with the zoning of the area, specifically the moving of the
residential zone into the conmercial zone.
As the property owner, I met al I costs, requirements and
conditions to quaiify for the commercial buildings. I deeded land
to the City; I paid for the fire prolection, and improved the lots.The costs were substant-iaI in property value transferred to the
City.
This change in zoning appears to be an error, and I request a
record check be compieted so my utilization of the property is nothindered. No notification of zoning change was ever received by meor any agent; the buildings have been in place for an extendedpet'iod of time, and the result is inconsistent with condition for
bui Iding.
x
The bui Idings were constructed under vaI id bui lding(Article 5); they have been maintained (Articie 5.030);property has never been abandoned.
permits
ancl the
f request thatproperty can continue.
the error tre corrected so my use of the
PIease evaluate the findings and I shail appreciate aprompt repIy.
Sin re
|L,t & llas K. E. llqgu,t
211 Ci.ttu #120
Eacond,idrt,Ct q7o?0
Kenneth E. Meyers
ru4
SPRINGFIELE,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Office of Community & Economic Development Planning and Development Department
CERTIFIED LETTER
\
August 23, 1988
Mr. George R. Messer
5128 D Street
Springfiel d, 0regon 97477
Subject: 101 South 35th Street, Electrical Merchandise License
Dear Mr. Messer:
I received your Electrical Merchandise License for review. The property you
have I i sted for your busi ness i s 101 South 35th Street (Assessor' s Map
L7-02-3L-42 Tax Lot, 05002).
This license has been denied by the Planning and Building Division because the
property is not zoned for your proposed use.
This property was zoned Medium Density Residential as part of the
Nid-Springfiled Refinement Plan in 1986. The owners at of record at that time,
Kenneth & Delpha Meyers, were notified in writing orior to t,he pub'lic meetings
and pub'lic hearings about the rezone.
Because this property was zoned l4edium Density Residential subsequent must
conform to that zoning. Commercial uses are not permitted in residential
di stri cts .
I am sorry this site did not work out for your proposed business, if you wantto call me prior to applying for a license I wil'l be glad to check the zoning
for you.
Cordi a1 ly,
Xr-t"*w-)
copy to:
thia L. Harmon
Development Permit Coordinator
Jackie Murdoch, Code Enforcement 0fficer
Greg Mott, Development Code Administrator
Joe Leahy, Assistant City Attorney
Cynthia Pappas, Economic Development Assistance
Lisa Hopper, Licensing Supervisor
225 Fifth Street o Springfietd, OR 97477 ' 503/726'37 53
nflEnfl@RAm!DUnfl CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
TO
November 1, 1984
Joe Leahy,
Assistant City Attorney
FROM David Puent,
Plans Examiner/Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Final Building Inspection at l,0L South 35th Street, Springfield,
Oregon (17023t4205002)
0n September 27, L982, I was requested to conduct the Final Building Inspection
for the structure located at the above referenced address. Apnroval for occu-
pancy was not granted because of several miscellaneous building items that had
not been completed and the fire hydrant, required as part of Site Plan Review,
had not been installed. Mr. Meyers was instructed that the items noted, includ-
ing the installation of the fire hydrant, needed to be completed before occupancy
of the upper floor could be approved.
0n November 3, 1982, I was again requested for a Final Building Inspection of the
structure. A11 of the items noted, with the exception of the installation of the
fire hydrant, had been satisfactorily completed. Mr. It'leyers was informed that a1-
though the structure, itself, had been approved, occupancy could not be granted
until the installation of the required fire hydrant was resolved.
A deposit was made by Mr. Ir{eyers to the Springfield Utility Board on March 14,
1983, for the installation of the hydrant. The hydrant was installed in less than
a month from the above date. Verification of installation was given to ne by the
Springfield Fire Department and the project was finaled shortly thereafter.
C\
David Puent
Plans Examiner/Building Inspector
DJP/1h
aflEnf,@mAm!D u CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
October 25, 1984
FROM:
SUBJECT:
TO Joseph J. Leahy, Office of City Attorney
Dennis Shew, Deputy Fire Marshal
KEN MEYERS PROPERTY AT 135 SOUTH 35th STREET, SPRINGFIELD
In response to Mr. I^Iardrs Letter dated September 17, L984.
1t6) The Fire Department requiremenL r^ras that a hydrant be installed on the
south side of Main Street to provide adequate fire f1ow. The closest hydrant
was on the north side of Main Street and r^ras not acceptable as a primary
hydrant because of heavy traffic on Main Street. The hydrant in question was
installed approximately tBO feet south of Mr. Meyers property which was
within the maximum acceptable distance of 350 feet for commercial buildings.
ll7) The criteria for requiring Mr. Meyers to pay for the installation of the
hydrant is that as property is developed and systems are extended, the
developer of the property pays for the extension regardless of who benefits.
rh
JOB NUI.IBE,R {L,1t s,./> /'V5 -n
3s* $r,
(z*.btc 7. o,€{ M-nin)
DATE NECEIVED:22- g
ZONE:
a-uz*,t,uzLd U/
dL,dr,-n rl-
ADDRESS:r I
RES I I)ENT:Pii0.rlE:TYPE:
0lrtNER:PHONE:
RL,SS:
)
I-\DD
REFEIIRED TO:
't l:INS FIND
/-zz -yJ -/wate Jtr , t /1-o /->a--ef-
CoMpLAINTANT: /L(r' /.(_
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
NOTIFIED:DATE:
EY
NO'r AN ORDER
REFERIIAL TO C
crttlt d N4L L &,r+
a
)
ROSECUT
AC'TI PDND NG
\tl
La
r INAL ACTION:ft tNvnulo I nrrunnet El,tloLD . E RECIIECK .INALED
II.iDIVIDUAL COI'IPLAINT DATA
r)
NOTES:
[,efitfrcste of @ccupnnr?
CITY OF SPRINGFIETD
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Tltis Certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 306 of the tlniforru Building
Code certifying that at tlte tirne of isruance thh structure was in compliance witlt the aaious
ordinances of the City regulating building construction 0r uie. For the following:
occ. G.orp 82 Type constrr.r,on VN-l hr Fi.e Zone NA use Zon C4
Owner of Buildi Kenneth l4eyers 3505 l4ai n Street
Buitding 101 South 35th St.Permit 793224
a March 17, 1983
Buildins Officiol
POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PTACE
/9,,*w