Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 7/2/2008 " AECEIVED July 2, 2008 Hand Delivered By: JUL 022008 .~Ca-rv-I~ sue,~oo'8 -Oc?Od..- ~ Mr. steve Hopkins Urban Planning Division City of Springfield 225 Fifth st. Springfield OR 97477 RE: MUltiple Residents/Owners' Adverse Comments to E-Z Living Estates Proposed Subdivision Case No. SUB2008-00029 Dear Mr. Hopkins, Introduction This is literally a "Not Iii My Backyard" challenge to the proposed eleven lot subdivision. That is, all but three of the lots are actually adjacent to the below signed protestors' backyards. Essentially this could also be termed an "alley subdivision" because the narrow access street proposed behind these commentors' single family residential homes is no more than a glorified alley. The main reason that we are challenging this subdivision and its proposed eleven lots, many of which are only postage stamp in size, is because the cluster sUbdivision, based on the proposed lot sizes, is not compatible with existing, long-established, single family, one-story homes. The goal of tpe cluster subdivision alternative is not met to reduce the impact of this new development on the established neighborhoods on each side of the subdivision. This is emphasized when you realize that the residential density of this tentative plan increases the actual population density on tax lot 4300 by 1100 percent. ( ,.' Further, there is no way, with the number of lots proposed below, that the Director could condition the Tentative Plan under Springfield Development Code, ("SOC") Section 15.12-125. with the information below, the commentors believe that the Director must deny the application because "conditions cannot be attached to satisfy the approval criteria." S 15.12-125. In the alternative, if the Director is disposed to grant this plat with conditions, we request that you elevate this proposed Director decision to the Planning Commission for further consideration pursuant to S 5.1-130 as a Type III decision, because of discretionary decisions that need to be made. Further, in the event that the decision is approval with conditions, then we request that you present any proposed conditions in a mailing to all the signers of these comments and allow twenty-one days to respond to the proposed conditions. 1 07-02-08P03:14 RCVO criteria Not Comnlied With Initially as discussed above the proposed multiple unit subdivision is in a Low Density Residential Neighborhood. The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the character and current structure of the neighborhood surrounding it. Further, the proposed subdivision will not contribute generally to the conservation of property values because of much greater noise and over-density to the existing neighborhood, with particular regard to the neighboring properties listed below. 1. Public Notice Is Inadeauate under SDC criteria 5.1-130B. SDC section 5.1-130 governs Type II Administrative Application Decisions. While commentors do not challenge adequacy of the 300 foot written notice, they do challenge the adequacy of the posted notice to the general public. This second type of notice is especially important because of the number members of the community that use the multi-use path that runs directly South of the property, also known as the "EWEB Bike Path." As of the afternoon of Thursday, June 26th, (a week into the comment period), no visible sign was on the property noticing the proposed subdivision. While a sign was posted on the afternoon of the 27th, its orientation and size are such that it would not be seen by anyone walking west on the multi-use path, and it is difficult to see by persons proceeding east on the path. Specifically SDC ~ 5.1-130B, states in relevant part: In addition, the applicant shall post one sign, approved by the Director, on the subject property. Since no sign was posted during much of the comment period to give the necessary public notice, the Director must deny the application because of the failed public notice. 2. criteria 5.12-125 is Not Met Throuah A Varietv of Failures to Como Iv with the Cluster Subdivision criteria Ordinance 3.2-230 One of the criteria of approval for tentative subdivision plan approval under SDC 5.12-120F(13) of the original plan submittal is that "Cluster Subdivisions shall also address the design standards specified in section 3.2-230." Placing of duplex units in Low Density Residential neighborhoods is a tradition in Springfield. This tradition has been continued in the affected LDR neighborhoods. However, they have never been located in the middle of blocks. That is, they have only been constructed on corner lots. Three reasons exist for this: 1. Corner lots are typically larger in size than lots with only one house side facing the street. with the larger lots, the larger size structures can be placed in the neighborhoods without significant visual or community impacts to the LDR neighborhoods. 2 Date ReCeiVed:~(5'6 Planner: SH 2. On street parking is greater on these corner lots, as typically, two units will have more vehicles, than a sin~le family home. 3. Often these units are rentals. As such, activities on those sites are not conducive to a quiet neighborhood, have less impact on corners of neighborhoods, because of generally greater traffic flows, and have less impact on the remainder of the neighborhood. 3. The Prooosed 5th street Setback is Inadeauate Because Aoolicant Used a Sinale Aberrant Residence to Base Her Calculation Off Of While the applicant states the standard, she uses an aberration to attempt to comply with the setback standard to make it compatible with the existing neighborhood. The standard is: Neighborhood Compatibility. New single-family detached, attached, and duplexes constructed with a Cluster Subdivision shall be generally compatible with existing homes. The goal is to reduce the impact of new development on established neighborhoods by incorporating elements of nearby, quality buildings, for example, building details, massing, proportions, and materials. To foster compatible residential development at the higher densities sought by this section. The following standards shall be followed. The applicant claims, as to compliance with the setback requirements of the neighborhood: As shown on the Development Plan, the front yard setbacks for proposed Lots 1 through 4 are within 3' of the existing front yard setback of the existing house to the north. Unfortunately what the applicant does not state is that the lot South of the site has greater than a 30 foot setback. This greater setback distance is even greater for the next tax lot South and the same enlargement exists for all other the tax lots North of the applicant's property to the next intersection. Therefore, the applicant, while trying to get the most out of her property, failed to use the normal setback for 5th st., but rather singled out the single lot with the smallest setback to do her comparison. Therefore, the applicant's setback distance comparison should be dismissed as an aberration and a more appropriate average setback distance of 30 ft. should be required for any units that abut 5th st. Because of the front facing scale of these two story duplexes, these units should even require a greater set back than the single family residences, so their street view would not seem larger than the surrounding homes. Further, the existing structure on the property has a much greater setback than thirty feet. So such greater setback 3 Date Received:..:rjzJlrt) Planner: SH condition should still be considered generous by the applicant. 4. The Aoolicant Admits that She Has Failed to Meet The parkinq , criteria for Such A Subdivision The applicant states: The city of Springfield Code requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant proposes 2 spaces per dwelling unit for the five single-family detached units. For the attached townhouse units, applicant proposes a total of 6 parking spaces for the four townhouse units fronting 5th Street and 4 parking spaces for the two townhouse units fronting the joint access driveway. This would be a reduction of 2 spaces. Based on ITE's Parking Generation (3d Edition), the average peak period parking demand is 1.46 vehicles parked per dwelling unit for townhouses (Land Use Group: 230). Thus, the applicant is asking for an exception of 2 parking spaces. Unfortunately, the design of the proposed structures without any enclosed garages makes this criteria even more important in this setting. Further, parking is not allowed on 5th st. in front of the property. The textbook statement by the applicant is not the norm in the surrounding neighborhood's .duplexes. A perfect example is the duplexes within 1/4 mile of the proposed development. Their location is on the corner of 8th and Q street. These duplexes even have both on street parking and attached garages. The west unit has been reported to enforcement for having vehicles parked too close to Q street, blocking sight distances. Thus, any overflow parking will be directed to the impacted neighborhood. Further, while the applicant attempts to justify the loss of spaces directed toward the 5th street units, she fails to take into account that those units' occupants, when parking space limited will park further into the subdivision, occupying other tenants' spaces and will ultimately lead to civil disputes, or parking blocking the already narrow emergency access. This condition of 2 parking spaces per unit should not be reduced, as any decrease will have undesirable impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The Aonlicants' 30 Foot Structure Reoresentation Is Not Comoatible with the Existina Thirtv Year Old Homes in the Communitv The applicant cannot dispute that most of the directly affected properties are single family, single story homes that are approximately 30 years old. While the necessary "shadow" requirements are met, there is no proposed plan to counteract the 4 Date R0reived: Plann",r: SH ~/Z/6~ I . . privacy invasions to the residences directly north and south of the two story units. sight obstructing landscape could be a possibility, but that device will take a number of years to come into place. Further, the units' window area is mandated, and as such, it is unlikely that the applicant can eliminate privacy intrusive windows on the south and north side of the structures. Normally, while two story homes would be allowed in low density residential neighborhoods, there is generally a timing issue of the developer being candid to single story purchasers as to where two story, privacy invading structures will go. Further, in light of the developer wishing to keep the value of the whole subdivision at its maximum, the developer will minimize privacy intrusive windows in the two story structures. Here, the applicant has no incentive except by denial of the subdivision application to insure that privacy protecting design amenities are in place to protect the privacy, as well as the property values, of the existing surrounding neighborhood. r:onclusion Generally, in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, many of the below signers would not be adverse to a development that contained the standard size lots of about the size of lot 11- 4172 sq. ft., as that would be doable financially, and continue with the character of the existing neighborhood. Also, that the structures be single story. ~C~~!~d Legally Notified property Owner 680 T st. Springfield, OR 97477 Below and attached are other property owners or residents that incorporate fully the above comments/challenges as their own comments, and agree with the above comments. 5 Date Received:~ Planner: SH . .' North Side Affected Resident Owners ADNEY RICHARD F JR., 655 NORTHRIDGE AVE GE1'"~7 ADNEY Tracey Diane, 655 NORTHRIDGE AVE J"SC'ffi"" .l\..:r77h- flf1\iJ ADNEY James F., 655 NORTHRIDGE AVE G~ ~1f5"()7 TENNE~SS F~K,B'J6.37 N0lTHRIDGE Avd \j ":::f,r~ t; / ..J,P~,~J'__ /i,q:,"';;z"i oo.;iH'''G'~ . ~~t~~~v , HE~~~',~~VE C/! ~_: - ~ .___ _...=--_. '\ ''-~---\ '1."- -' ~:: ~ ~!;J:t:::;FVE - - -CHE7JNG, ~41 NO~THRIDGE AVE -CHEN' ~1~'r:ORTH~IDGE AVE /-.o;t/ f...'l:1 i~o (1 ',,'-"f) (;.~ 7 r>lriUc\<4 - ~ ~ cI.~'-j),~ ~ ~~ '11.{'7) . / Date Received:~ Planner: SH ::, North Side Affected Resident Owners AtrJ!V(fAdRT=G~AVE ..; U ADtjEY Tracey Diane, 655 NORTHRIDGE AVE ...:na CU;;;:;. ()1b,,(J' " ~evr~TrfR:~.AVE " - ?r 1'.. Date Received: Planner: SH .7) '" ," " S uth Side Affected Resident Owners NER ~EORGIA 47- ~ WANNEt{~lt(:"'6~W^- cpJd.', ~ IRELA#?l~:~:CTST) CAP~S '~ELA liUE, 680 T ST r-;.~ (/~ - ----------- , 1'..---.---.--- __ _ ~~__":":".__,_' \__= -. :~~~=~=~~J 1--- ------ --- Date Received: 1 Plann~r; SH ,I,.' Ji OTHER LOCAL HOME OWNERS BOSTICK AVRA ALLEN, 676 T ST / C ~ ~,;?a.J ./dL~df M~E~'R~:'~~ STONE~RNER~'S 29 ST , .x!V.f/j /h/.h~ ) - - - . ELDEN SHIELDS, 693 T ST ~~ J ,:;::::;-, 7~ l-<:,~ - )/l-cf / ~ ~ JAMES CARL, 5 T ST 17 A.-P. ~ ARENS Nancy(L, 6jl7ffi._ ~ '-""'"<J10Wj '-/ Are~NO, RINE M, 607 T SI. .'-~ <1"""' r. "1,A . : 1JHit>> b\'!" c 1ft-t.....A...L- /' l_ ("".1.' . ~. " 5 e. J>>z # Jit ),yJl~'S .. ;\\}t t.,..",.. I - fh,J~~~~ST,~~._~Q/~ 1:;6/ r.qr ~' ~ JDe~l^ Pc<~~ / '. ~~ 7.--\-zAo 0~ St'. ......... _ z Dale RereNed'~ Planner: SH