Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit Correspondence 1987-07-08SPRTNGFIELD CIIY OF SPRINGFIELD Office of Community and Economic Development Ms, Vioia Hess 32L2 Yalley Meadow Ct.Springfield, Oregon 97479 Juiy 8, 1987 Subject: Renewal of Mobile Home permits at above address Dear Ms. Hess: This wilI confirm that your permits for mobile home setup, prumbing andelectrical connections have been renewed to allow you to adjust the location ofthe mobiie home to conform to existing propu.ty tinu setback iuqri""ments.These permits have been renewed for ilr. .u^"r""pr.pou" only, and do not inciudeauthorization for other alterations or additions. Any other alterations oradditions shall be accomplished under other permits issued for the property.(our records show that there is another valid permit issued to the property forthe construction of a seif-supporting accesso"j "t"ucture adjacent to the mobilehome.) Regarding the renewed permits, please be sure to request the necessary inspec-tions for the relocated unit "i the appropriatl stages. rnspections will berequired for the new or rerocated rooiings, plumbing connection, eiectricalconnection and for the initial and finai setuJ (afier aU steps and skirting are inplace. Please feel free to call this office if you require further information. Sincerely, /*%:/a* Don Moore, Building Inspector cc.Dave Puent, Building Official Jack Bucher C and E Mobile Home Serrrice, 39213 Jefferson-Scio Dr., Scio, Or. g7JT4 rt 225 North 5th street springfield, oregon 97477 so3/726-37s3 ,i 3Lt2 L.L ut€ 7 -e. * -- -?a r\ry9 d 7 ZUa t -Qa ${o { \0 i \ 6d Av c 0r \J\ (t, f\ i bq /; g ///rrr1.0 ouJ 4 4 f. & { \a,t\rbg \l\., September 9, 19BB t---a-- I ine along the C\. City Of Springfield Ronald LeBlanc 225 Eifth Street Springfield, Or 97 471 32\?. .-t -f RE: Unhappy with your Services Dear Mr. LeBlanc, Thank-You for your recent l-etter of concern for my frustrating experience with the various departments in our City Hal 1. I would also Like to thank-You for the consideration and your concern on the contamination to a free flowing waterway in Va11ey Meadows Subdidision: The maintenance Department has contacted me and said this will be taken care of and I would like to add was very courteous. I am stiIl concerned when an obstruction of blackberry bushes and taI1 grass, prevent you from seeing the on comingtraffic to the north on 31st Street, and you have to easeinto the street to make sure you have clearance. If this occursagain, I will take a picture from my car so the problem can be resolved. ERROR,.,,IN -SETBACKS? AMENDMENTS TO CONVENATS AND RESTRICTIONS:IF AS YOU STATED: It is the responsibility of the property owner, to move mobile, when a permit is issued from the city and then someone finds it in error--- 1 Why did you plea bargin for the 16 year mobile on lot+ 3300 ? I feel we have some conflicts in interest, as a taxpayer when I had a 10'error, f received noconsideration. Too bad I didn't have you on my sideso you could just change the ru1es. It was brought to your attention and several questionsnot answered when I had my problem with a setback. The surveys were very conflicting and pins could not belocated. The Va11ey Meadows subdivision was done in Oct. L919 and Scion Acres in Dec. L979. ( Both orginal survers are deceased.) When there is this much conflict When questions were asked they should have been answered. 2 3 Why does the maps show the line of my property up with the middle of the Street? It now lines sidewalk. to up oage 2 4 Why did the deve I opment orginal developer of Valley Meadows of the sidewalk and improvements if assure me no longer pay forit belongs that I 'mis mine?to the owner of Sciotl Acres? Can not paying taxes now on the land you that 5 what is the reserve strip for on lot # 17700 in scion Acres? Also what are the rules of use on this strip? Before a permit is given to this lot for mobile placement, hopefully someone wil] have an answer. If not who knows, The person buying the ]ot could be in Real Estate, a lawyer or a licensed surveyor. Since it adjoins my property 1ine, I would appreciate an answer. This brings up a serious quiestion and since you are now in the Real Estate business. Since my lot was in error, it created the Lot # 3800 to lose B'on the west side, and also 10' in their back yard. They only lost their fence, which Mr. Price tore down before they moved in, and they were very surprised at the loss of their tot as the real estate showed them.and they also thought it was theirs. Now we have Lots 3700 thru 1800 and haven't you wonderedjust how far all of them are off?'You should think about it before you keep on giving permits. If this had been checked out or anyone would have listened., I'm sure the 10'error could have been solved without dispute, and several thousand dollars wasted. But then when it's not your money spent, who cares. Yet you had the nerve to plea bargain your error and pass it off with a hardship case, and now you tetl me your staff felt it should be amended be- cause it was a Dec. 76 Mobile and met the standards. To date it hasn't been landscaped, and no railings on west side Porch. ( In fact they don't even have a porch and they have been there for over a year.) I am very disappointed, because rules and restrictions cu-n b. changed when the City makes the error. The Restrictions and rules aren't worth the piece of paper they are written on when you as a City decide to change it to cover up your errors. PAYMENT FOR PAVED STREET: (VA1}CY MCAdOWS/SCiON ACTCS U StTCCt) I have asked this many times, I want to know who paid for the correction paving of U Street and N. 32nd. This was done in- correctly in original development and had to be redone when Mr. price started with the improvements. I don't want to know who pavedValleyMeadowsCt.Pleasereadtheb}.iawsofl-hesubdivision. ilr. Price i; the owner of Scion Acres, and as a taxpayer I don't want to pay for Mr. prices development paving. ( map enclosed for your convience and hiqhlighted. ) Page 3 I have the following questions answered and would appreciate the that I would also like correct answers. t- 2 What is the year in Scion Acres? mobiles on the following lots 1600, 800 and 400? of theLots # Has lot 3000 and If not why do we and a camper? lot 3100 in VaIley Meadows have a clutter of wood and been sold? chunks, sawdust ct. log My point is why does Restrictions to Convenats only apply to some and not to others. Our City and developing needs to berevised so these errors aren't made and my biggest complaint was and stil1 is. If we would get our questions answered and notshuffled from Department to Department and stil1 no answer, maybeyou wouldn't have bitter taxpayers such as myself. We pay your wages to plan and enforce our city, so you bet we wonder why mostof the taxpayers have lower income than you, yet we have thehighest property taxes in the State. Maybe we should be annexed into the City of Eugene and not even have a Springfield, Or. I have appreciated your letter dated August 29th and since you are doing part of your jobs now, I trust I can expect an answer to my other question. Waiting to hear from you. Thank-you for your time. Sincerely, Geroldine MI thorn toh. # 3900 Valley Meadows Ct. cc: The Honorable Peter DeFazio Larry Hi11, St. Rep. Bill Du4rer St. REp SPFlTNGFTELE, CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Office of the Mayor/City Manager Augus t 29, 1988 Geroldine Hilhorn 3212 Valley Headovs Court Springfield 0R 97477 Dear Hs. Hilhorn: This Ietter responds to correspondence forvarded to me by Congressman DeFazio,soffice. You had vritten the Congressman regarding a variety of issu"s relatingto the City of Springfield. Let me begin by thanking you for taking the time to express your concernsin vriting. After reading your letter, it vas apparent to me that you hadexperienced some very frustrating situations during a short period of time.Because ve believe service to the citizens of our community is our top priority,it disturbs me that you have been unhappy vith that servicl. f have researched each issue presented and hope the explanations provided wilIassist you in further understanding the sj.tuations: ]) Error in setbacks on ro rt ovned u and Viola Hess located atey {eadovs Court fn 4Vi ss rece1 C ty permits andpassed inspections for a manufactured housi ng unit at 3212 Valley MeadovsCourt. She vas later informed by the City that her neighbor, Hr. price hadhis property surveyed vhich ind icated that your mobile home vas encroa chingon his property. This resulted in the need to relocate your mobile ho me.The City permits and inspecti ons vere based on the plot plan provided by Ms.Hess. In looking at her plot plan (attached), and the survey later providedby I{estern Engineering, I can see t hat the inspector vouLd have app roved thesiting of the unit as it met the se tbacks requirements accordi ng to the plotplan and the property lines as mar ked. Unfortunately, the plot plan andproperty lines vere inaccurate.Because i t is the res ponsibility of theovner to indicate the property lines, I am comfort able that the CityBuilding Department acted appro priately in this ma tter. This is certainlyan unfortunate and costly situa tion for you, and ve can appreciate yourconcern. 2)P t for streets vithin t/all Meadovs Subdivision You asked vho paidrte pavement v rnt su Lvls on. The mprovements vere to be paidby the project developer, Ca pital Hanagement o f Eugene. Hovever, becauseof delinquent payments, the City foreclosed on the subdivision propertiescausing the responsibility for the streets to r evert back to the city. 3) Tal1 rass on the corner of 31st an d U Streets You indicated thateveryoneyour nei r t e City t summer to com plainabout taII grass near 31st and U Stree tS, but nothing vas done.The City 503 7:6--1700 L 225 Fifth Srreer a -epringfieid. OR 9;J;;a does have an ordinanee that prohibi ts grass and veeds above I0 inches inheight after June 15th. This issue r^,as brought to the attention of ourFire Marshal, Mike Hudman, who researched the files. He found one complaintat 3lst and U Streets dated 7-29-87. An inspection of the location vis madethat same day (7-29-87) and the inspector found it in compliance vith theordinance. If you have future concerns of this naturer you may contact the Department of Fire and Life Safety ar 726-3737. 4) Amendments to Covenants and Restrictions of VaIl Headovs Subdivision -our concern r ted to t e ty act ng as property ovners o severaforeclosed lots to amend subdivision covenants and restrictions. As you may be avare, the Ci ty ovns a large n umber of properties in Springfieldas a result of bancroft foreclosures.lJe are actively involvedin sell ing those properties to recover losses to the city,s taxpayers. During negotiations of the sale of the lot in your subdivision, itvas discovered that the mobile home in question did not meet the re-quirements of the covenants and restrictions set forth by the developerrequiring a mobile home to be a 1977 or never. Since the mobile home vasmanufactured in'rDecember't of. L976, its proximity in age vas close to the covenants and restrictions and staff felt the amendment r^ras justified.our Property Hanager and our city Surveyor visited property ovners in yoursubdivision to obtain signatures in favor of the proposed amendment to thecovenants and restrictions alloving for the mobile home. Beeause the City ovned ten of the tventy-tvo properties and only a majority of the ovnersvere needed for the amendment, the Property Manager decided he only neededthree additional ovners in favor to process the amendment. The first tvoovners he approached vere favorable. He then contacted you and you vere notin favor of the proposal, hovever, the next ovner visited vas in favor.Therefore, vith your exception, there vere no other denials of those asked.Host importantly, it vas determined that the construction standards for themobile home vere appropriate for the covenants and restrictions. 5) Contamination to a free flovin vate in ValI Meadovs Subdivision -ou re er to a cre f t runs through a t next to you, v youindicate is ovned by Mr. Price, Sicon Acres.You stated that Mr. Price hadalloved dumping of debris, etc., on the creek bank and that recently someonevas blading that debris into the creek. Chapter 4, Article 1-4 of the CityCode, rrlJater Pollution," prohibits the dumping of offensive substances in any vatervays vithin the corporate rimits of the city. As per your telephone conversation Iast veek vith my Administrative Assistant, Cindy HcClenathan, Ed Black from our Maintenance Department r,ri11 be contactini youfor an appointment to reviev this problem. As I have stated earlier, Hs. Hilhorn, service to the citlzens of our communityis top priority for this organization and the City Couneil. Uhile ve cannotchange the series of events leading to your frustrations, hopefully the researchand additional information provided vill be helpful to you. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.W Ci ty Hanager CH at tachments cc: The llonorable Peter DeFazio Hike Ke11y, Director of DeveLopment Services Mike Hudman, Fire Marshal Dave Puent, Building 0fficial Ed Black, Acting Haintenance Manager aa) -Jt '6 F Lt't. \,/'rJ \It ta / /r,\) .{F o t 6'4-'oz eA 9 J t' rJr /'7.. 4 4 /+- p ')a 4,(), tz\>/ 'oo r /o I ,' \) **//c.'-' '\!.\: I -l- - +)l t*-' $ /s, z -|-rf 7r,r- (;// y2f. h'}\ s\ \ Lc:- P L/ rv ?LDvIDED Bq As rl Lss" It l- r Fc.rretL ' plAP OF ENCUOACIHN/'EU.I:s Upa LCI L d&tc-z, StCOxJ ACaE5 (FT3t5.3t-l) f.': b9: WILLAM H. fr)CV,o*rler tA/Egrzer.L Eur-ruEE Ear\Jo CansuUfa11-fs1...5 wrLlJlMETrE €i7 'euGE}E, @.ll-D.E JLr. ,'.tO' ).1 S.At 6 ,! 0I ,) ,}I +' t-l_. a!{r st r-1.oatu,;2 l--lovlg I I , or?-r.i4 lJ- t/4 r'J'tt t/4 S:C 3C f l7rs. R 2 vt't" tt LATiE COUNTY t'. rOO 3ft rla l, Oz )o ol9-Ol !i t702302tTHIS MAP IS TO A55I5T TOCATING PROPERTY. THE CO},TPANY AssUruSNO LIABIUTY FOR INACCURACIiS. -T- ....>* =-;F Fa : I r2OO S T r:cp? o o: I U JOa: IlF t2i' I .i) o o a I \ t:l: oi9-oo r ll= I500 \ ----\-'\-- IFEoz. + .- -.r :.<l-raF-).1 ,I- - -.,.-Bt1l&,;.|l.{--irri. !''-, ]:*ir:.r.- !.--1.-.: r. !600 f roo !2oo sloo l.-:-_-. ''- ,t'ont ,\Ci\"-3 il$i}tr;... ..r;:'.-lar ,;.. irl -.1.:-*:'*t{l*{Exr}k:\ '!t;- .- .;i'r ij;::;: :t:.;i:3r;:li-ri.'{*?k"}7r--::.F-..: a- lft rtr !t Jt sa, ri I I r fo.j rrO3 t0g) K@ rrOO JCOO r9E zru a':OrlC:2300 D 2COO JPRINGFTELD CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Office of the Mayor/City Manager Augus t 29, 1988 Geroldine Milhorn 3212 Valley Meadovs Court Springfield 0R 97477 Dear Ms. Milhorn: This Ietter responds to correspondence forvarded to me by Congressman DeFazio,soffice. You had vritten the Congressman regarding a variety of issues relatingto the City of Springfield. Let me begin by thanking you for taking the time to express your concernsin vriting. After reading your letter, it vas apparent to me that you had experienced some very frustrating situations during a short period of time. Because ve believe service to the citizens of our community is our top priority,it disturbs me that you have been unhappy vith that service. I have researched each issue presented and hope the explanations provided will assist you in further understanding the situations: 1)Error in setbacks on ro ovnedr ou and Viola Hess located at L2 Val ey eadovs rt -n o a Hess rece ved ity perm ts and passed inspections for a manufactured housing unit at 3212 Valley MeadovsCourt. She vas later informed by the City that her neighbor, Hr. Price, hadhis property surveyed vhich indicated that your mobile home vas encroaching on his property. This resulted in the need to relocate your mobile home. The City permits and inspections vere based on the plot plan provided by Ms.Hess. In looking at her plot plan (attached), and the survey later provided by llestern Engineering, I can see that the inspector vould have approved the siting of the unit as it met the setbacks requirements according to the plot plan and the property lines as marked. Unfortunately, the plot plan and property lines vere inaccurate. Because it is the responsibility of the ovner to indicate the property lines, I am comfortable that the City Building Department acted appropriately in this matter. This is certainly an unfortunate and costly situation for you, and ve can appreciate your concern. 2)ent for streets vithin t/a1I Meadovs Subdivision - You asked vho paid ort pavement w nt SU on. T e improvements vere to be paid by the project developer, Capital Hanagement of Eugene. Hovever, because of delinquent payments, the City foreclosed on the subdivision properties causing the responsibility for the streets to revert back to the city. 3)l@nerof31standUStreets-Youindicatedthat everyone in your neighborhood ca1led the City last sunner to complain about tall grass near 31st and U Streets, but nothing vas done. The City 716--r70r)225 Fifth Street a Springfieici. OR 911;7 o 503 does have an ordinance that prohibits grass and veeds above I0 inches in height after June 15th. This issue vas brought to the attention of ourFire Marshal, Hike Hudman, who researched the files. He found one complaintat 31st and U Streets dated 7-29-87. An inspection of the location vas made that same day (7-29-87) and the inspector found it in compliance vith the ordinance. If you have future concerns of this nature, you may contact the Department of Fire and Life Safety at 726-3737. 4) Amendments to Covenants and Restrictions of Valley Meadovs Subdivision -Your concern related to the City acting as property ovners of several foreclosed lots to amend subdivision covenants and restrictions. As you may be aware, the City ovns a Large number of properties in Springfield as a result of bancrof t foreclosures. IrIe are acti.vely involved in selling those properties to recover losses to the City,s taxpayers. During negotiations of the sale of the lot in your subdivision, it was discovered that the mobile home in question did not meet the re- quirements of the covenants and restrictions set forth by the developer requiring a mobile home to be a 1977 or never. Since the mobile home vas manufactured in I'December't of L976, its proximity in age was close to the covenants and restrictions and staff felt the amendment vas justified.Our Property Manager and our City Surveyor visited property ovners in your subdivision to obtain signatures in favor of the proposed amendment to the covenants and restrictions alloving for the mobile home. Because the City ovned ten of the tventy-tvo properties and only a majority of the ovners vere needed for the amendment, the Property Hanager decided he only needed three additional ovners in favor to process the amendment. The first tvo ovners he approached vere favorable. He then contacted you and you vere not in favor of the proposal, hovever, the next ovner visited vas in favor. Therefore, vith your exception, there vere no other denials of those asked. Host importantly, it vas determined that the construction standards for the mobile home vere appropriate for the covenants and restrictions. 5) Contamination to a free floving \.,atervay in Va11ey Meadovs Subdivision - You referred to a creek that runs through a lot next to you, vhich you indicate is ovned by Mr. Price, Sicon Acres. You stated that Mr. Price had alloved dumping of debris, etc., on the creek bank and that recently someone vas blading that debris into the creek. Chapter 4, Article 1-4 of the City Code, rrYater Pollution," prohibits the dumping of offensive substances in any vatervays vithin the corporate limits of the City. As per your telephone conversation last veek with my Administrative Assistant, Cindy McClenathan, Ed Black from our Maintenance Department vilI be contacting you for an appointment to reviev this problem. As I have stated earlier, Hs. l{i1horn, service to the citlzens of our communityis top priority for this organization and the City Council. I{hile ve cannotchange the series of events leading to your frustrations, hopefully the researchand additional information provided vi11 be helpful to you. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.)w Ci ty Manager CH at tachments cc: The Honorable Peter DeFazio Mike KeI1y, Director of Development Services Hike Hudman, Fire Harshal Dave Puent, Building 0fficial Ed Black, Acting Maintenance Hanager r o F \IJ / Lt'to /ta /r- X P /f,4-'oz la o rJ -+ tc /*- cA 9 J c,rl- 1-7 i\rJ I r fi /o/ o' ** '7.-/ I,/s -r. !.\i /5, -/(c- 4,+' to\y ltLm P Ap ?touoE Bl As H Lss" -?7*.? . --- /?..J z I - 1-.^ l- -n't, \ t-t ,7/ao'2 ,4 h'"-\ s\t lt a .i II I I c I/IAP OF EUCZOACEFIEU'T-s Upn 6l L A-C(,A.Z,S|CON ACDE-S F7a,3317) t .5 w!l-i-ar{Err! 5f 'et]6.^E, dL' ll.O-f JL! f .td - ).>.b, *4b FEuc,t, -1-. ,) + V I I -T av ar sa r t-l,oatv3,l-.{o-rg Planning & Development Job. No. Ab. /etu. i JoB ADDREII 32/z WAZ/ /rlafur.t-ry Ctr -SIIPIT OF SPT?.I\TGFIEI,]^ 0FF^ - 0F C0MMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVLLTIPMENT 225 North 5th Street Date TO: Bui I dj ng Di vi sion /2a4bz I CALL FOR REINSPECTION INSPECTOR **** CALL FOR: INSPECTION 7?6-37 I N FORMAT 0N: 726_3753 **** 3f,il,I / MEMORANDUM August 1 6,1 988 TO: Dove Puent, Building Officiql FROM: Don Moore, Building Inspector SUBJECT: Letter from Geroldine Milhorn to Peter DeFozio The motter regording fhe encroochment of the mobile home ond the odjoining occessory sfructure of 3212 Volley Meodows Court wos first brought to my ottention by Mr. Wm. Price, owner of the subdivision properties directly to the north of this property. Mr. Price comploined thot the structures on the Volley Meodows property were locoted portiolly on his property; he presented o legol survey drowing thot he cloimed indicoted thot the encroochment existed. (An odditionol drowing which Mr. Price submitted loter indicoted thot the encroochment wos in excess of 15 feet.) I investigoted the ollegotion on Oct. 24,1986 by visiting the site, ond discovered thot on occessory structure wos being constructed next to the mobile home without the proper permits or inspections. Our records showed thot the mobile home wos instolled with oppropriote permits ond inspections, but on opporently incorrect plot plon wos submitted with the permit opplicotion. Since noone wos home, I followed our stondord procedures, ond left o notice ot the 3212 Volley Meodows oddress, olerting the owner to the olledged encroochment problem ond odvising fhem to obtoin the required permits for the building oddition. I believe thot my first contoct with the owner, Violo Hess, wos in November 1986, when she odvised thot o gentlemon she hod been coring for hod constructed the occessory structure for her ond hod told her thot he hod token core of the permits. He hod recently died of concer prior to thot conversotion, occording to Ms. Hess. I odvised Ms. Hess thot the permits were not obtoined. She inquired qbout verifying Mr. Price's survey, ond I suggested thot her own surveyor could confirm or deny the occurocy of the document. She wos opporently convinced thot she hod more property thon the survey showed.(Mr. Price hod the property corners stoked by his surveyor in fhe field to locote the encroochment in question). Loter in November, I wos osked to discuss the motter with Mr. Jock Bucher, who wos to oct os Ms. Hess' representotive in the motter. Mr. Bucher continued to dispute the locotion of the property line until Ms. Hess' surveyor confirmed the Price survey. Mr. Bucher olso odvised me thot the occessory structure wos not in solvogoble condition ond would hove to be dismontled ond rebuilt. I exploined the permit ond inspection requirments to him ond conveyed Mr. Price's concern for on eorly solution of the encroochment problem. However, full resolution of the situotion wos postponed until eorly l?87 due to the holidoy seoson. Throughout my discussions with Ms. Hess ond Mr. Bucher, I found them both to be quite cordiol ond occommodoting in view of the circumstonces. Eventuolly, the encrooching sfructures were removed or relocoted off the Price property, ond o permit wos obtoined for o new storoge building, lorgely due to the efforts of Mr. Bucher. I hod little or no contoct with Ms. Milhorn, ond wos not owore of her ownership porticipotion in the property until reoding her subject letter. In her letter she opporently feels thot the City is, or should be responsible for correctly locoting property bounderies; o tosk which hos olwoys been o responsibility of the property owner. I hove little or no odditionol informotion thot I con contribute regording the other ollegotions in Ms. Milhorn's letter.