Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Planner 4/11/2022A,Drub^L- AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. Gounty of Lane ) !, Shannon Morris, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am an Administrative Specialist for the Planning Division of the Development and Public Works Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. lstate that in my capacity as inistrative cialist, I pgepared and caused to be mailed copies of ?fLff wrl>ft * d-(ris4,h /6?--\ OFtjlClAL STAMP/rSA\ KELLY R NoTARYhtffiF) NoTARY PUBuo oBEcoN\W7 coMMtsstoN No. eB434T: My comil4lsstoN ExPIRES MARCH 18' 2023 X,L. U'L My Commission Expires: (See attachment "A") on' t 't t | ,2022 addressed to (see tAttachment "8"), by ffitobeplacedinaU.S.mailboxwithpostageiuIly prepaid thereon. Shannon Morris STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane !k,2022, Personally appeared the above named Shannon M s, Administrative Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: U MutcXl U SPRINGFIELD TYPE II MINOR VARIANCE STAFF REPORT & DECISION % OREGON Project Name: Koza Partition - Parcel Frontage Variance Project Proposal: Minor Variance allowing for reduced frontage for one parcel within a two-parcel partition Case Number: 8l l-22-000058-TYP2 Project Location: 700 Block of S. 67tr' Street (Map 18-02-03-l l, Tax Lot 8000) Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR (Metro Plan) Refinement Plan Designation: N/A Application Submitted Date: Mar. l, 2022 Decision Issued Date: April 11,2022 Decision: Approved with condition Appeal Deadline Date: April 26, 2022 Associated Applications : 81 l-20-000241-PRE (Development Issues Meeting); 8l l-21-000184-TYP2 (Tentative Partition Plan) CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM l I E POSITION NAME PHONE Proiect Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784 Transportation Planning Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-t034 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire & Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-3661 Public Works Enqineer Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036 Public Works Engineer Sanitary & Storm Sewer Clayton McEachern s4t-736-t036 Building Official Building Code Chris Carpenter 541-744-4153 Applicant:Applicant's Representative:Owner: Cindy Koza 88489 Stephens Road Springfield OR 97478 Katie Keidel Metro Planning Inc. 846 A Street Springfield OR 97477 Cindy Koza 88489 Stephens Road Springfield OR 97478 Attachment A *t-t t- ,n 't I{ cn 1 t r I RBVIEW OF NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant submitted a Type II Variance Application to the City of Springfield requesting a minor variance to the lot frontage requirements of Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 3.2-215. In accordance with SDC 5.21- 125.A, a numeric dimension may be adjusted by up to 30 percent through a minor variance. The subject property is within the Hillside Development Overlay district because it has slopes exceeding l5o/o and portions of the site are above 670 feet elevation. In accordance with SDC 3.2-215, parcels on north-south streets where slopes are l5-25o/o require at least 90 feet of frontage and 10,000 ft2 of area. Parcels on north-south streets where slopes are 25-35o/o require at least 150 feet of frontage and 20,000 ft2 of area. Proposed Parcel I has slopes of 15-25% and meets the area and frontage requirements of SDC 3.2-215. Proposed Parcel 2 has slopes of 25-35% and meets the area requirements of SDC 3 .2-215 . The applicant is requesting a variance to the 150-foot frontage requirement forproposed Parcel 2. The parcel frontage request is for I l0 feet offrontage on a parcel with slopes ranging from25-35o/o and where 150 feet is required, a variance of 40 feet or 26.70/o. The minor variance is the minimum required to achieve the parcel configuration depicted on the applicant's approved tentative plan, which provides a compliant parcel frontage and area for proposed Parcel 1 and a compliant parcel area for proposed Parcel2. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under the Type II procedure listed in SDC 5. I - I 30 and in SDC 5.21 - 1 00. The Planning Director shall approve the Minor Variance if the applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable criteria listed in SDC 5.21-125. This application was submitted on March 1,2022 and accepted as complete on March 22, 2022. This decision is issued on the 20'r'day following completeness and 41't day overall of the 120 days mandated by the state. SITE INFORMATION: The subject property is located in southeast Springfield on the west side of South 67tr' Street just to the north and downhill from the intersection with Glacier Drive. The site is a vacant, square-shaped parcel that contains moderately to steeply-sloping wooded hillside. The property comprises approximately 0.93 acres and is zoned and designated for Low Density Residential (LDR) development. On August24,202l the applicant obtained tentative land division approval for a two-parcel partition in accordance with File 8lI-21-000184-TYP2. A condition of the tentative partition approval requires a minor variance to the Parcel 2 frontage. Approval of the requested minor variance would allow the frontage for Parcel 2 to be reduced below the minimum 150-foot requirement for frontage on a north-south street per SDC 3.2-215. The requested variance does not reduce the lots below the minimum dimensions prescribed in SDC 3.2-215 for at least 45 feet of frontage and 4,500 ft2 of area. DECISION: Approval with conditions, based on the findings in this report. WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding 1: Applications for Limited Land Use Decisions require the notification of property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 74-day comment period on the application (SDC5.l-130and5.2-ll5). Theapplicantandpartiessubmittingwrittencommentsduringthenoticeperiodhave appeal rights and are mailed a copy of this decision for consideration. Procedural Finding 2: In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to property owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject site on March 23, 2022. Staff responded to one telephone inquiry but no written comments were received. 4/8/22 Minor Variance I I I - 2 2 -00008 5-TYP2 Page 2 of6 Finding 3: SDC Section 5 .21-125 .A2 states that the Director may adjust the numeric standards for parcel frontage by up to 30%, provided the dimension does not fall below the minimum frontage required in the LDR district. Finding 4: The applicant is requestinga26.T%o variance forparcel frontage forproposed Parcel 2. The requested variance would allow for ll0 feet of frontage on a north-south street with slopes of 25-35%o, where 150 feet is required. The minimum frontage for standard parcels in the LDR District is 45 feet. SDC Sectiort 5.2l-125.D states that the Director must approve the Minor Variance if the applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable approval criteria: CRITERIA OF APPROVAL: 1. Locational or dimensional problems have been identified that can be resolved by a Minor Variance; Applicant's Submittal: "Proposed Parcel 2 meets SDC 3.2-215 requirementfor minimum parcel size on lots/parcels in the Hillside Overlay District with slopes up to 35(% (20,000 sq ft) at 30,646 sqft, but does not meet the requirementfor streetfrontage 050fl. The proposed tentative partition plan depicts ll0feet of street frontage where 150 feet is required, which is a deficiency of 40 feet or 27(%. To meet the parcel frontage requirementsfor proposed Parcel 2 the applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Variance (27%o) for streetfrontage.for Proposed Parcel 2." Finding 5: The dimensional problems have been identified in the narrative and the applicant is requesting a 26.7% variance to the 150-foot lot frontage requirement for hillside parcels on a north-south street. The applicant is requesting that the provision for reduced parcel frontage applies only to Parcel 2 within the tentative partition area. Finding 6: The subject property has only 200 feet of total frontage on South 67tr' Street so the applicant has configured the partition to create a compliant parcel (Parcel I ) in terms of street frontage and area. Parcel2 meets the area requirements but lacks sufficient frontage for a hillside parcel with25-35oh slopes on a north- south street. The tentative partition configuration provides for two buildable parcels accessible from an existing public street while preserving the steepest portions of the property with a private conservation easement. )The proposed adjustment is the minimum/maximum necessary to alleviate the identified dimensional or locational problem; Applicant's Submittal: "The Minor Variance allows Proposed Parcel I to meet ISDC] 3.2-215 compliance standards regarding both Area and Street Frontage and allows for Proposed Parcel 2 to maintain compliance with Area standards. Approval of a Minor Variance of 27%for Street Frontage requirements is the minimum necessaty solution for successfully alleviating the dimensional constraints regarding this prop o s ed ten ta tive p ar t i t i o n.'' Finding 8: The applicant is requestinga26.T0/o reduction to the lot frontage requirement of SDC 3.2-215, which would allow for Parcel 2 to be created as depicted on the applicant's tentative partition plan (Case 8 1 1 -2 I -000 I 84-TYP2). The proposed variance provides for two buildable parcels that would be otherwise compliant if they had frontage on a north-south street but at lower elevation or with lesser slope gradient. Minor Variance 8t 1-22-000085-TYP2 Page 3 of 64/8/22 Finding 7: The applicant has obtained tentative partition approval for the property pursuant to Case 8 I 1 -2 I - 000184-TYP2. Condition of approval #i for the tentative partition requires a variance for the Parcel2 frontage to be approved prior to platting of the partition in its current configuration. The Minor Variance would be implemented with the Final Partition Plat. Conclusion: The findings above show that dimensional problems have been identifred. As proposed, Criterion I has been met. Finding 9: In the materials submitted with the tentative partition plan the applicant has demonstrated that two potential building areas exist along the South 67tr' Street frontage of the property - one within each proposed parcel. The requested minor variance would facilitate residential development of the parcel to the extent practicable when factoring in the steeply sloping hillside areas in the western half of the property. Finding 10: The partition area is in the LDR zoning district, which is subject to solar setback requirements as set forth in SDC 3.2-225. Under current Development Code provisions, new structures on both parcels within the parlition area will be required to meet these standards. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 or the Development Code provisions in effect at the time of applying for residential building permits. Condition of Approval: 1. Future residential construction within the partition area must comply with the Solar Setback Requirements of SDC 3.2-225, or the Development Code provisions in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Conclusion: The requested lot frontage variance is within the parameters of SDC 5.21-125.4 and is the minimum necessary to alleviate the dimensional problems on proposed Parcel 2. As conditioned herein, Criterion 2 has been met. 3. Where applicable, the request shall result in the preservation of on-site trees 5" dba and above; Applicant's Submittal: "No trees will be impacted by approval of this yariance." Finding I l: In accordance with SDC 5.19-100, a tree felling permit is required if more than fivetrees greater than 5" diameter are proposed to be removed from the property over a l2-month period. The property has not obtained a Tree Felling Permit, although this is conditioned by the tentative partition decision. The site contains mature coniferous trees and localized tree removal will be required to establish building footprint areas for Parcels I and 2. The specific locations and types of trees to be removed will need to be detailed in the applicant's Tree Felling Permit. The western half of the property is to be preserved as wooded hillside subject to a private conservation easement. Therefore, the proposed variance will not have any effect on tree preservation on the site. 4. Conclusion: Criterion 3 has been met. The request shall not impede adequate emergency access to the site; Applicant's Submittal : "This Minor Variance request will not impede adequate emergency access to the site.'; Finding 12: The International Fire Code (IFC) requires a minimum 2O-foot clear-width area for fire/emergency access. Finding 13: The Minor Variance request affects the minimum parcel frontage for Parcel 2 in a two-parcel partition that has frontage on an existing, developed public street. The requested variance is intended to split the available property frontage across two parcels, with creation of one compliant parcel and a second requiring the minor variance. Both of the parcels within the partition area have direct access to South 67tr, Street. Therefore, the partition area will have frontage on a developed public street that has more than 20 feet of clear width for emergency access. Conclusion: Based on the above findings, staff concludes that the parcel width variance request does not impede adequate emergency access to the site. Criterion 4 has been met. 4/8/22 Minor Variance 8 I 1 -2 2-00008 5 -TTP 2 Page 4 of6 5. The request shall not unreasonably adversely impact public or private easementsl and Applicant's Submittal: "This Minor Variance requestwill not impact the easements shown on the Site Plan." Finding l4: There are no existing easements that would be adversely affected by the requested parcel width variance. A standard 7-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) already exists along the South 67th Street frontage of the site, and the applicant is proposing a S-foot wide private utility easement across Parcel I for the use and benefit of Parcel 2. There are existing PUEs also running along the westem and northern boundary of the property and these will remain unaffected by the partition. Finding l5: The existing PUEs and proposed private easement are adequate to serve the subject development area and provide for the future extension of utilities to adjacent, undeveloped properties. Finding 16: The requested variance to parcel width for Parcel 2 does not change the partition configuration, and therefore does not materially affect the location and function of the existing and proposed easements. Conclusion: Criterion 5 has been met. 6.The request shall not unreasonably limit solar access standards for abutting properties. In order to meet this criterion, the Director may require that the building or structure be placed as close to the south property line as possible. Applicant's Submittal: "The parcel is sfficiently large; no solar access will be impacted by this Minor Variance request. City staff can review proposed homes for compliance at time of building development." Finding 17: The applicant is requesting this minor variance to accommodate two buildable parcels within the partition area. As stated and conditioned previously in this report, the applicant will be required to comply with all solar access standards as set forth in Section 3.2-225 of the Springfield Development Code, or the Code provisions in effect at the time of building permit submittal (see Condition 1). The applicant's submiual statement above indicates that compliance with solar standards will not be unreasonably limited by approval ofthe proposal. Conclusion: Criterion 6 has been met 7 In addition to the applicable approval criteria specified in Subsections 1 through 6, above, the following approval criteria shall also apply to a request involving parking reductions on infill lots/parcels in the Commercial and Industrial Districts when there is a change of use, addition or expansion that requires Site Plan Review Modification. The Minor Variance for parking reductions shall not apply to MDS applications as specified in Section 5.15-100. Applicant'Submittal: "This Minor Variance request is just a dimensional change to the streetfrontage of a 2-lot partition. No development/parking is proposed at this time." Finding l8: This request does not involve a parking reduction and the property is not located in a Commercial or lndustrial zoning district. Therefore, Criterion 7 does not apply. Conclusion: Criterion 7 is not applicable. Additional Information: The application, all documents, and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and the applicable criteria of approval are available for free inspection and copies are available for a fee at the Development Services Department ,225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon. Appeal: This Type II Minor Variance decision is considered a decision of the Development & Public Works Director and as such may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development & Public 4/8/22 Minor Variance 811-22-000085-TYP2 Page 5 of 6 Works Department by an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 53-f 00, Appeals. An Appeals application must be submitted to the City with a fee of S250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning Commission approves the appeal application. In accordance with SDC 5.3-115 which provides for a l5-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 1 0(c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on April26, 2022. SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI,: 1. Future residential construction within the partition area must comply with the Solar Setback Requirements of SDC 3.2-225, or the Development Code provisions in effect at the time of building permit submittal. Questions: Please contact Andy Limbird in the Development & Public Works Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird(grspringfield-or.sov if you have any questions regarding this process. Prepared By: Limbird Planner 4/8/22 Minor Variance 8 I I -2 2-00008 5-TyP2 Page 6 of6 HffiT CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS 225 5th St. SPRINGFIELD, OR97477 Katie Keidel Metro Pl ann i ng I nc . 846 A Street Springfield 0R 97477 CITY OF SPRINGFIEI.D DEVELOPMENT & PUBUC WORKS 225 sth st. SPRINGFIELD, OR97477 Cindy Koza 88489 Stephens R.oadspringfield 0R 97478 Attachment b