The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021 09 21 AIS Hamovitz Major Variance AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/21/2021 Meeting Type:Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.:Melissa Cariño, DPW Staff Phone No:541.744.4068 Estimated Time: 10 minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel while Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality ITEM TITLE: MAJOR VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING SETBACK LOCATED AT 5409 IVY STREET AND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR’S MAP 18-02-04-00, TAX LOT 300. ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and deliberations, and approve as presented, approve with changes to the findings or conditions, or deny a request for a Type III Major Variance application for the construction of a new garage/shop that does not meet Springfield Development Code (SDC) setback requirements. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has requested a review of the Major Variance criteria (SDC 5.21-130) for a proposed garage/shot located at 5409 Ivy Street (Map 18-02-04-00, Tax Lot 300), which does not meet SDC setback requirements for the Low Density Residential (LDR) zoning district. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: PC Order –811-21-000198-TYP3 Exhibit A: Applicant Site Plan Exhibit B: Vicinity Map Exhibit C: Staff Report and Findings Attachment 2: Applicant Submittal for Major Variance DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Planning Commission is asked to consider approving a Major Variance request for a reduced front yard setback for a proposed garage/shop on the applicant’s property located at 5409 Ivy Street (Map 18-02-04-00, Tax Lot 300). The property is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR), and SDC 3.2-215 states that there is a minimum 18-feet front yard setback for garages and carports. Initially, the applicant sought Right-of-Way (ROW) Vacation approval in late 2020 (Case #811-20-000240-TYP4), but due to complications, the applicant is now seeking Major Variance approval to reach his goal to build a new detached garage and shop on his property. The attached Staff Report finds that the proposal meets the Criteria for Approval for Major Variances under SDC 5.21-130. The Planning Commission may do the following for this Type III Major Variance request:  Approve the application with conditions as presented;  Modify the findings and/or conditions of approval; or  Deny the application based on the Commissions’ findings in response to criteria found in SDC 5.21-130 The Planning Commission’s decision is final unless appealed to the Springfield City Council as provided in SDC 5.3-120. BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON FINAL ORDER FOR: MAJOR VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 5409 IVY STREET IDENTIFIED AS TAX ASSESSOR’S MAP 18‐02‐04‐00, TAX LOT 300 ] ] 811‐21‐000198‐TYP3 ] NATURE OF THE APPLICATION Major Variance Approval for the front yard setback for garages/carports from the required 18‐feet from the front property line to approximately 2‐feet for a side‐facing garage as shown in the submitted Site Plan, which is Exhibit A to this order. The subject site is located at 5409 Ivy Street (Map 18‐02‐04‐00, Tax Lot 300). The subject property is shown in the Vicinity Map for the subject site, which is Exhibit B to this Order. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.2‐115. On September 21, 2021, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on the proposed Major Variance application. The staff report, written comments, and any testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing were entered into the record. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the proposed Major Variance request is consistent with the criteria of SDC 5.21‐130 with specific conditions of approval. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit C. ORDER/RECOMMENDATION It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that Case Number 811‐21‐000198‐TYP3 be approved as conditioned in Exhibit C. This ORDER was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on September 21, 2021. ____________________________ ____________________ Planning Commission Chairperson Date ATTEST AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 1, Page 1 of 8 Job: Revisions: Date:EdgEllis Design Group, llcP.O. Box 40277. Eugene, Or 97404541-556-7620 cellwww.ellisdesigngroupllc.comSite Plan (Floor Plan shown for clarity) 2 Site Plan SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0" Symbols Legend - Line Weights HAMOVITZ PROPERTY - Garage Conversion & Addition5409 Ivy StreetSpringfield, Oregon 97478Contact Information: Bruce Hamovitz509.240.2402 (Cell), bahamovitz127@gmail.com (Email)2020.HAM 6/28/2021 PROPERTY LINE WALL AND WINDOW, ETC. (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) CENTERLINE OF STREET EDGE OF DRIVEWAY OR WALKWAY, ETC. (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) POWER POLE (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) Legal Description A parcel of land lying in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, Township 18 South, Range 2, West of the Willamette Meridian, and being further described as follows: PP OVERHEAD POWER LINES, PHONE AND DATA LINES, ETC. (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) Site Notes 1. 2. 3. LOCATE AND MAINTAIN ALL ACCESS WAYS, RIGHT-OF-WAYS, PUBLIC-UTILITY-EASEMENTS AND EASEMENTS ON AND THRU SITE AS REQUIRED. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING, INVESTIGATING AND EXAMINING ALL CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE BUILDING AREA PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4.ALL DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE FROM FINISHED SURFACE TO FINISHED SURFACE (GYPSUM BOARD, TILE, GLASS, PANEL), UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. LOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES, SEWER AND ROOF DRAIN LINES FOR NEW CONNECTIONS AS REQUIRED. VERIFY AND MAINTAIN. EDGE OF UNDERGROUND ROOF DRAIN LINES, ETC. (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) EDGE OF ROOF OR GUTTER, ETC. (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) VERIFY AND COORDINATE WITH THE CITY AND APPROPRIATE AGENCIES THE DISCONNECT OF EXISTING ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND UTILITIES TO GARAGE SITE AS REQUIRED. VERIFY 5. Ivy Stree t NPROJECT ADDRESS: BRUCE & ANITA HAMOVITZ 5409 IVY STREET SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97478 MAILING ADDRESS: TAX MAP NUMBER(S):1248630 MAP & TAX LOT NUMBER(S): 1802040000300 ZONED:RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZE (EXISTING):10,200.000 SQUARE FEET .23416024 ACRES 5409 IVY STREET SPRINGFIELD, OREGON 97478 Commencing at the intersection of South 55th Place with the centerline of Ivy Street; and run thence North 88 degrees 00' West along the centerline of said Ivy Street and its Westerly extension, 460.33 feet; thence North 40 degrees 34' 00" West, 38.03 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; from the Point of Beginning run thence South 40 degrees 34' 00" East, 85.00 feet; thence South 49 degrees 26' 00" West, 120.00 feet; thence North 40 degrees 34' 00" West, 85.00 feet; thence North 49 degrees 26' 00" East, 120.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, in Lane County, Oregon. PROPERTY OWNER(S): Property Ownership 120.00' SOUTH 49° 26' 00" WEST 120.00' NORTH 49° 26' 00" EAST 85.00'NORTH 40° 34' 00" WEST85.00'SOUTH 40° 34' 00" EASTPOINT OF BEGINNING LOT SIZE (ADDITION): 1,045.510 SQUARE FEET .02400160 ACRES PROPOSED: PROPOSED COMBINED TOTAL:11,245.510 SQUARE FEET (TOTAL) .02581618 ACRES (TOTAL) LOT SIZE (TOTAL):SIDEYARD SETBACKEXISTING SETBACKWATER SHUT OFF CONTROLS 'CENTURY LINK' DIGITAL & DATA NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC SUPPLY POWER VAULT ALL ELECTRICAL SUPPLY TO RESIDENCES WITHIN DEVELOPMENT ARE BELOW GRADE.6. ALL WATER RUNOFF FROM ROOFS ON RESIDENCES WITHIN DEVELOPMENT ARE BELOW GRADE TO AND THROUGH CURB AT STREET FOR STORM SEWER SYSTEM. 7. WATER METER FOR PROPERTY 0 10 50 75 100 FEET203040 EXISTING PARKING STRIP TREES. TYPICAL CURRENT DESIGNATED "RIGHT-OF-WAY" CITY OF SPRINGFIELD RC DB UP RANGE GARAGE CONVERSION GROUND FLOOR PLAN UP CO SSDBWDF DB DB SOAK TUB/SHOWER TOWELS/STORAGE SHOES 20' X (2) = 40 L.F. Art Studio Master Bedroom Laundry Hallway Hallway Master Closet Exercise Room Pantry Kitchen Dining Entry Guest Bathroom Master Bathroom Hallway EXISTINGHEAT PUMP 24'-3"(SETBACK COMPLIANT)REMODELED GROUND FLOOR PLAN Deck DN LIVING ROOM ADDITIONREMODELED GROUND FLOOR PLANF Living Room SD SETBACK 18'-0"5'-0"(MINIMUM SETBACK)(MINIMUM SETBACK)New Detached Garage 18'-0 " (M IN IMUM SETBACK) 15'-0"(CLEA R A N C E)(VERIF Y) DSDS DS DRIVEWAY PLANTING BED PLANTING BED EXISTING WALL (SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY) NEW WALL (SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY)EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 1Attachment 1, Page 2 of 8 i 0 r i sca, _ N sioy .. i 951 hf I p r i sca, _ N EXHIBIT B, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 1, Page 3 of 8 Staff Report and Findings Planning Commission Major Variance Application for Bruce Hamovitz, 5409 Ivy Street Hearing Date: September 21, 2021 Case Number: 811-21-000198-TYP3 Applicant: Bruce Hamovitz Property Owner: Bruce & Anita Hamovitz Site: The 0.23-acre subject property is municipally addressed as 5409 Ivy Street (Assessor’s Map 18-02-04-00, Tax Lot 300). The property is both designated and zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Metro Plan and Zoning Map diagrams. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ REQUEST The Planning Commission is asked to conduct a public hearing and deliberations, and approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for Major Variance Approval for a reduced front yard setback for garages/carports. The applicant aims to build a new detached garage and shop on his property, but the applicant’s plans do not provide the 18-feet minimum setback as required in the Springfield Development Code (SDC) 3.2-215. SITE INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The applicant recently purchased the property located at 5409 Ivy Street (Assessor’s Map 18-02-04-00, Tax Lot 300). The current property owners are interested in constructing a garage/shop on-site in the southwest portion of the tax lot. However, because of the existing public right-of-way (ROW) located along the property’s street frontage, the 18- foot minimum setback requirement as detailed in SDC 3.2-215 for Low Density Residential (LDR) properties could not be met unless the subject portion of public ROW is successfully vacated by City Council or, alternatively, a major variance approval is obtained from the Planning Commission for an approximately 2-foot setback from the front property line, which is a considerable reduction of the required front yard setback. Initially, the applicant submitted a ROW Vacation application in late 2020. The approximately 1,500 sq. ft. area proposed for vacation is a portion of public ROW, which abuts private property located at 5409 Ivy Street. This public ROW was dedicated to the City of Springfield when a former property owner sold the parcel and surrounding lands to Hayden Homes in 2015 and retained the rectangular shape of Tax Lot 300. This section of ROW is inconsistent with the dimensions of the public road ROW in the immediate vicinity because of the additional wedge-shaped portion of ROW abutting Tax Lot 300, which was the subject for the proposed vacation. EXHIBIT C, Page 1 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 4 of 8 After a City Council public hearing on the proposed ROW vacation (Case #811-20-000240-TYP4), further legal research into the vacation proposal indicated that this area of ROW would revert to the tract across the street from the applicant’s property, and not to the applicant. In response to this new information, the applicant determined with City staff that a Major Variance review process is the more appropriate development review process to seek approval for the proposed garage/shop. Notification and Written Comments Notification of the September 21, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the outer boundary of the subject site on August 25, 2021. Staff posted notices on the subject site, the City’s website, and the Digital Displays located in City Hall by September 7th. Notification was also published in the September 12th edition of The Register Guard. Staff received no public comments regarding this application. * * * On April 16, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order 20-16, which requires governing bodies to hold public meetings and hearings by telephone, video, or through other electronic or virtual means whenever possible. On June 30, 2020, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 4212 (HB 4212), which waives requirements under the Oregon Public Meetings Law and other statutes to facilitate public meetings online or by phone. Under HB 4212, the governing body must make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs. House Bill 4212 allows governing bodies to accept public testimony by telephone or video conferencing technology, or to provide a means to submit written testimony (including email or other electronic methods) that the governing body can consider in a timely manner. House Bill 4212 overrides conflicting requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in state law or in the Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan. The September 21st public hearing is being conducted via online meeting platform that allows members of the public to listen to the meeting online or by calling a toll-free number. Members of the public may provide testimony to the Planning Commission by joining the online meeting remotely. Details regarding how to join the online meeting were provided in the Planning Commission meeting agenda and posted on the SpringfieldOregonSpeaks online platform1. Criteria of Approval A Major Variance may be approved only if the Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with the criteria of approval in SDC 5.21-130. CRITERIA OF MAJOR VARIANCE APPROVAL: SDC 5.21-130 contains the Major Variance criteria that are applicable to this application. The applicable criteria from this section are as follows: A. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure; lot/parcel size, shape or topography; the location or size of physical improvements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property that would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district; Finding 1: The applicant provides the following narrative for this criterion: “Due to the way this area was platted for the Hayden Homes’ Pinehurst Residential Subdivision, the ROW dedication was not uniform along Ivy Street. Vacating the ROW would transfer ownership to the Homeowners’ Association, not me. Therefore, I am deprived of having the same amount of property allocated behind the public sidewalk as my neighbors. This prevents me from adhering to Development Code requirements when building the planned garage.” Finding 2: Ivy Street is fully improved to current City standards, and there are no adopted plans to change the street classification, which may lead to the need for additional improvements in the undeveloped right of way edge. Ivy Street is a local street developed with sidewalks, planter strip, and two 10-foot wide travel lanes, which all meet the minimum street standards in SDC 4.2-105.C. As shown in Table 4.2-1 within SDC 4.2-105.C, the minimum overall 1 SpringfieldOregonSpeaks can be accessed at https://springfieldoregonspeaks.org EXHIBIT C, Page 2 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 5 of 8 ROW width is anticipated to correspond to the minimum area needed to accommodate the full ROW improvements by street width. However, at the subject property’s western edge, the full ROW width is approximately 18’ wider than the area needed to accommodate the improvements in the ROW. Finding 3: Because of the way the ROW for Ivy Street was dedicated, the front property line of neighboring lots is located about two feet from the back edge of the public sidewalk while the applicant’s front property line is about 20 feet behind the back edge of the abutting public sidewalk on the west end and angles to about 2 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk on the east end. This is an area of approximately 1,500 sq. ft. that would be considered part of the front yard setback if the ROW boundary was similar to the adjacent properties. Finding 4: The circumstances around the subject property’s right-of-way boundary lines deprives the applicant/property owner from rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same LDR zoning district, because it requires the applicant to set back the garage much further from the sidewalk area than other similarly situated properties. For other LDR properties abutting Ivy Street in the surrounding area, the ROW extends only up to two feet behind the back of sidewalk. The ROW adjacent to applicant’s property, however, is significantly wider on the west side. This difference in ROW location requires the applicant to set back his proposed garage much further from the public travel area (the sidewalk) than he would if the ROW boundary was in line with the others along the street. Finding 5: The configuration of the lot, the location of the ROW, and existing development prevents the applicant from building the proposed detached garage/shop with the required 18-foot minimum front yard setback. While the proposed detached garage is at least 18-feet away from the back edge of the public sidewalk, the building would only be 2-feet away from the property line. Conclusion: As proposed, this proposal meets Criterion A for Major Variance review. B. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the development standards of this Code or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual Development Plan, or other applicable plans or studies; Finding 6: The applicant provides the following narrative for this criterion: “The garage/shop and driveway will be constructed with entrance parallel to the road. No motor vehicles will block the public sidewalk, which is consistent with Development Code requirements.” Finding 7: The subject site is designated Residential on the Metro Plan diagram, which is consistent with the City’s Zoning Map and the policies of the City’s current Transportation System Plan. No changes of zoning or Metro Plan designation occur from vacation of the unimproved right-of-way. Finding 8: The subject parcel is not located in any Refinement Plan so there are no additional standards to conform to for this specific neighborhood. Finding 9: The variance would allow construction of a new garage, and driveway associated with the garage. The new driveway would be located substantially within the ROW area. In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C and Table 4.2-2, footnote 3, driveways serving single family dwellings must be paved from the existing street pavement for a distance of at least 18 feet from the property line when abutting a paved street. To be consistent with this development standard, the applicant’s new driveway must be paved its entire length from the edge of street pavement to the proposed detached garage/shop. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C and Table 4.2-2, footnote 3, driveways serving single family dwellings must be paved from the existing street pavement for a distance of at least 18 feet from the property line EXHIBIT C, Page 3 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 6 of 8 when abutting a paved street. To be consistent with this development standard, the applicant’s new driveway must be paved its entire length from the edge of street pavement to the proposed detached garage/shop. Conclusion: As conditioned, this proposal meets Criterion B for Major Variance review. C. The Variance shall have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the same zoning district and/or vicinity, or the request can be conditioned so that there are no significant adverse effects; Finding 10: The applicant provides the following narrative for this criterion: “My next door neighbors already signed the petition to approve the previous ROW vacation application.” Finding 11: The proposed variance does not have a negative effect on the subject site or adjacent properties because there are no off-site changes to existing access, emergency response, and traffic circulation. Finding 12: The intention behind the 18-foot front yard setback listed in SDC 3.2-215 is to provide enough area between the garage and public travel areas to prevent vehicles parked in a residential driveway from encroaching onto the adjacent public travel areas and preventing full access for pedestrians and other users. Typical front-facing garage designs allow space to park in the driveway as can be seen at other homes in the neighborhood. Finding 13: Based on the applicant’s submitted site plan, the proposed detached garage/shop doors do not face Ivy Street; instead, the doors face east rather than the front of the property. This configuration will not allow vehicular parking between the garage and the sidewalk, but there is still space to park vehicles in the driveway while also not encroaching onto and preventing full access of the public sidewalk. Conclusion: As proposed, this proposal meets Criterion C for Major Variance review. D. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. above shall not arise from a previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need; Finding 13: The applicant provides the following narrative for this criterion: “No code violations are affiliated with this property or variance request.” Finding 14: The unusual condition for the subject property as detailed in Findings 3 & 4 did not occur from a Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need. Conclusion: As proposed, this proposal meets Criterion D for Major Variance review. E. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition. Finding 15: The applicant provides the following narrative for this criterion: “An approval of this major variance will be the minimum necessary for me to construct a compliant detached garage/shop. Without this building, the other renovations become unfeasible.” Finding 16: While the proposed location for the detached garage/shop is located at least 18-feet away from the back edge of the public sidewalk abutting the subject property, it is located only approximately 2 feet away from the front property line. As described in Findings 12 & 13, the intention of the SDC’s 18-foot setback is still met with the applicant’s proposal and variance request. EXHIBIT C, Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 7 of 8 Finding 17: To meet the required 18-foot minimum front yard setback and to keep close to the configuration in the submitted site plan, the building for the proposed detached garage/shop would need to be relocated further north on the property and the square footage would need to be reduced considerably to meet other setback requirements (side, rear, accessory structure setbacks) listed in SDC 3.2-215 due to the location of the existing dwelling unit on site. The size and location of the applicant’s proposed garage are reasonable as compared to development on other similarly situated properties. Finding 18: To keep the applicant’s proposed detached garage/shop as planned, the SDC’s required 18-foot front yard setback cannot be met. Because the subject property has an unusual condition (where the public ROW area measured from the back edge of the adjacent sidewalk to the front property line is greater than those of other nearby properties), variance approval would allow a 2-foot front yard setback, which is the minimum necessary to meet the proposed location and size of the garage/shop while still complying to the intentions behind the garage front yard setback requirement. Conclusion: As proposed, this proposal meets Criterion E for Major Variance review. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SDC Section 5.21-135 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Minor or Major Variance review request to ensure the application fully meets the applicable criteria of approval: SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS: 1. In accordance with SDC 4.2-120.C and Table 4.2-2, footnote 3, driveways serving single family dwellings must be paved from the existing street pavement for a distance of at least 18 feet from the property line when abutting a paved street. To be consistent with this development standard, the applicant’s new driveway must be paved its entire length from the edge of street pavement to the proposed detached garage/shop. CONCLUSION: Based on the above-listed criteria, City staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide approval with conditions for the proposal because it meets the Major Variance criteria as listed in SDC 5.21-130. DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY NOTES:  Aside from minor landscaping in the ROW portion abutting 5409 Ivy Street, no structures or fences/walls are permitted unless there is a Right-of-Way (ROW) Use Agreement with the City. See Springfield Municipal Code 3.224(1).  Springfield Utility Board (SUB) advises that there is an existing electric supply power vault located behind the edge of sidewalk and near the western property line of 5409 Ivy Street to serve the proposed detached garage/shop. The vault is located just west of the western boundary of the subject ROW portion that was previously considered for vacation. EXHIBIT C, Page 5 of 5 Attachment 1, Page 8 of 8 SPRINGFIELD City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Major Variance Applicant Name: vvcy owz Phone: r- Company, Fax: Address: S'/D9 /y 5• Spn'A .ft ®/2 i7Y7c A licanfi Rep_____— Phone_ company; _ __ Fax: Address: Pro Owner: Frvcf dxwvr z Phone: S`/ -5:20- Ll3f° Com an Fax• _ .. 9 Address9 /fir S%/cti<_ j.;_,..d_TQi _ Q7Yr------ ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: IF' D1.'OY—OO -TAX LOT NO(S): Pro%Perry Address:yO9 Size of Pro art B ZAA Acres Square Feet 91 Description of If you are filling in thiss form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Pro osai: I°_nsfrv('4len Ot 4 Existin Use: ('ra LI 'ew Signatures: Please si n and print your name and date in the appropriate box on the next page. UV4 ysa ,- Cai C:t; (( ir7f 1^f3T iiil i E33tL Cel I Associated Applications: Si ns: Case No.: Date: Reviewed b litie: Technical Fee: $ Posta a Fee: $ TOTALFEES':'-.$ PR07ECT NUMBER: Revised 10.14. 13 kl 1 of 4Attachment 2, Page 1 of 4 Signatures The undersigned acknowledges that the Information In this application is corrert and accurate. Applicants - 7 Date: / 9 Signatur Is not the owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to aQ In Date: Signature Revised IOA4.13 kl 2 of 4Attachment 2, Page 2 of 4 v wy Sweet _ - Minor Variance = up to 30% difference in building setbacks +OR registered surveyor needed; 12.6 feet setback max to qualify for Minor Variance Otherwise, Major Variance application (difference = $2005.15). Intention of development standard/setback still met for Major Variance criteria (SDC 5.21-130.A-E) REDESIGN? Updated drawings/site plan based on actual property lines, not what was anticipated after ROW Vacation How far will paving go along driveway? Attachment 2, Page 3 of 4 In August 2020, my wife, Anita, and I purchased the property at 5409 Ivy Street. The property was in foreclosure and was sold “as is”. Coming from Eugene, we had been looking for a place that we could remodel into our dream home. After looking at this property and reviewing our budget, we took the plunge. We hired Ellis Design Group to help us plan the renovations, which include converting the 900 square foot garage into living space, a stand-alone garage/shop West of the house, and an expansion of the living room area. We also plan to do many upgrades of the existing house, including a paved driveway, landscaping and a new retaining wall by the street. Unknown to us, the property line did not extend to the sidewalk. A surveyor report was included with the title, but we never thought to hire a surveyor to explain the details. That was our mistake. After a preliminary meeting with representatives of the city, we learned that when the previous owner, Barbara Parmenter, had sold the surrounding land to Hayden Homes, she kept this house on a rectangular lot. When Hayden Homes built the street, it created a wedge of land between the street and our home that is designated a Right of Way. We are requesting a Major Variance so that the stand-alone garage can be built. I believe we meet the criteria for doing so: A. Due to the way this area was platted for the Hayden Homes’ Pinehurst Residential Subdivision, the ROW dedication was not uniform along Ivy Street. Vacating the ROW would transfer ownership to the Homeowner’s Association, not me. Therefore I am deprived of having the same amount of property allocated behind the public sidewalk as my neighbors. This prevents me from adhering to Development Code requirements when building the planned garage. B. The garage/shop and driveway will be constructed with entrance parallel to the road. No motor vehicles will block the public sidewalk, which is consistent with Development Code requirements. C. My next door neighbors already signed the petition to approve the ROW vacation. D. No code violations are affiliated with this property or variance request. E. An approval of this major variance will be the minimum necessary for me to construct a compliant detached garage/shop. Without this building, the other renovations become unfeasible. Thank you for your assistance, Bruce Hamovitz Attachment 2, Page 4 of 4