HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 2/27/2009
"t - .-.~.
~
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON
}
}ss.
}
~~@[EDm~!1!I'
[ N' f~.... C 11:/
JOfll:(;{,' ~ . 'i I
.~.J
By
County of Lane
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that in my capacity as Secretary, I prepar~d and caused to be mailed
copies of Notice of Decision Type /I Minor Variance DRC2009-00002
(See attachment "A") on February 27,2009 addressed to (see Attachment
"B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully
prepaid thereon.
.w
Brenda Jones I /
Planning Administrati~ Specialist
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
( ~tA.Mt;f::27, 2009 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
\..p(dministratiVe Specialist, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary
act. Before me:
~
~
OFFICIAL SEAL
Ocacllc KELLY
NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 420351
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15, 2011
~'/&L/
My Commission Expires: 't /I~/I/
Date Received: ]../:n~'
Planner: AL / /
...';
I,
TYPE II MINOR VARIANCE
STAFF REPORT & DECISION
Project Name: Geoff Cossen Partition
Project Proposal: Minor Variance for a Proposed Parcel Fronting onto a North-South Street
Case Number: DRC2009-00002
Project Location: 2660 G Street
Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR
(Metro Plan)
Refinement Plan Designation: N/A
Application Submitted Date: Jan. 8, 2009
Decision Issued Date: February 27, 200~ .
.Decision: Approval with condition
Appeal Deadline Date: March 16, 2009
Associated Applications: ZON2008-00076; PRE2008-00070; SUB2009-00003
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
I POSITION
I Project Manager
I Transportation Planning EIT
I Deput:: Fire Marshal
I Public Works Engineer
I Public Works Engineer
I Building Division
REVIEW OF
Planning
Transportation
Fire & Life Safety
I Utilities. .
Sanitary & Storm Sewer.
I Building Code
PHONE
726-3784
726-3679
726-2293
736-1036
736-1036
726-3668
NAME
Andy Limbird .
Jon Driscoll
Gilbert Gordon
Clayton McEachern
Clayton McEachern
Dave Puent
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM
OWner/ Applicant:
Surveyor:
Geoff & Elizabeth Cossen
445 E. 50th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97405
Joe Ferguson, PLS
2130 Daphne Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Date Received: '7. /;..7 ~1
Planner: AL r '/ ~
. .
~
NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant submitted a Type II Variance Application to the City of Springfield requesting a minor variance to
the 60 feet of frontage required on north-south streets in accordance with Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Section 3.2-215. In accordance with SDC 5.2l-125.A, a numeric dimension may be adjusted by up to 30
percent through a minor variarce. The applicant's request would facilitate a 2.lot partition pursuant to Planning
Action SUB2009-00003. The proposed partition would divide a rectangular corner lot with frontage on G Street
and 26th Street into a vacant L-shaped parcel (parcel I) and a rectangular parcel containing an existing house
(parcel 2). The parcel containing the existing house would derive access from 26th Street. The L-shaped vacant
parcel would have corner frontage on G Street 'and . 26th Street, but would not meet the minimum 60-foot
frontage requirements for 26th Street. The applicant is requesting reduction of the required 60-foot frontage to
45 feet of frontage, a variance of 15 feet (25%). Proposed Parcell otherwise meets the requirements ofSDC
3.2-215 for frontage on an east-west street (G Street) and at least 6,000 W.overall parcel area.
,
REVIEW PROCESS:
This application is reviewed under the Type II procedure listed in SDC 5.1-130 and in SDC 5.21-100. The
Director shall approve the Minor Variance if the applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the applicable
criteria listed in SDC 5.21-130. This application was accepted as complete on January 8, 2009, and this decision
is issued on the 50th day of 120 days mandated by the state.
SITE INFORMATION:
The subject site is a rectangular-shaped lot comprising approximately 12,825 ft2 (0.29 acres). The property is a
corner lot with frontage on G Street to the south and 26th Street to the west. The Assessor's description for the
subject property is Map 17-03-36-11, Tax Lot 9100 and it is municipally addressed as 2660 G Street. The
subject property contains an existing dwelling and accessory building in the northern half of the property. The
site is zoned and designated Low Density Residential (LDR) in accordance with the Metro Plan. The subject
property is bordered on the north and east sides by single family homes on LDR zoned properties. Approval of
the proposed partition would create two LDR parcels: one containing the existing house with frontage on 26th
Street, and an L-shaped vacant parcel with corner frontage on G and 26th Streets.
DECISION: Approval with condition, as per the findings in this report.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Procedural Finding I: Applications for Limited Land. Use Decisions require the notification of property
owners/occupants within 300 feet of the subject property allowing for a 14-day comment period on the
application (SDC 5:1-130 and 5.2-115). The applicant and parties submitting written comments during the
notice period have appeal rights and are mailed a copy ofthis decision for consideration.
Procedural Finding 2:
owners/occupants within
received.
In accordance with SDC 5.1-130 and 5.2-115, notice was sent to property
300 feet of the subject site on January 12, 2009. Three written comments were
Comment #1 from Joel & Jill Daniken, 821 26th Street, Springfield 97477:
"Concerning 300-foot Public Notice for Minor Variance Application at the location of 2660 'G' Street which we
received on January 13th, 2009 from applicant Geoff and Elizabeth Cossen. Our first concern is in regarding
the five foot private waste water easement serving Parcel 2 and 821 2(/h Street. Before the proposed new
driveway is poured for Parcel 2, the 2f/h Street side, our sewer pipe connection is on the south side of our home,
under the laurel hedge traveling under current gravel driveway of Parcel 2 and continues toward 'G' street
2/27/09
Minor V ariance DRc200ji)Ddeo~eceived' z. ~/7 /,;#"1
Planner: AL . 7"
Page 2 of7
:("
approximately 7'-10' out from the existing home (parcel 2) on the west side of 26'h .Street. This sewer pipe
serves both our home 821 26'h Street and 2660 'G' Street, already existing home. Therefore, our sewer pipe
would need to be replaced with new up to code sewer pipe before any driveway is poured. We would like to
know if the above applicants, Geoff ond Elizabeth Cossen will be paying the entire cost involving the new up to
code sewer pipe? Our second concern is regarding the C. private five foot waste water easement serving 821
26'h Street. Where is this located? Can bark a mulch be used there or grass? Where is it located? Concerning
no.' 15, duplex to be served by existing unused sewer lateral, 30 Ueet] west ofSE corner. .Where is that located?
Staff Response:
Staff met with the Danikens at the City's Development Services office to explain the proposed partition. Staff
included the comment from Mr. & Mrs. Daniken regarding the proposed partition to ensure the respondents
receive a copy of both staff reports and decisions when they are issued. A detailed response to Mr. & Mrs.
Daniken's concerns is provided in the partition staff report and decision (SUB2009-00003).
Comment #2 from Jan Peterson, 2575 G Street, Springfield 97477:
"PLEASE, check with the police department. You'll find the MANY records generated by inhabitants of
DUPLEXES in the neighborhood. WE DO NOT NEED MORE CRiME and 'UNDES1RABLES' IN TJi1S
NE1GHBORHOOD. Home owners property values will be lowered by another highly visible low-end shacky
rental. The ancient house on the property now is somewhat of an eyesore....and the new unit will no doubt be
just as bad......in keeping with the established 'style' or lack thereof Will the roofridgeline line be continous
[sic).....as 1 was told is required by the City to be considered a duplex? Your tentitive [sic] partition does not
show on attached roofline. Without tearing down the existing house will a duplex be possible? Are the sizes of
the newly partitioned lots large enough to each be considered a legal lot? .....one that meets current code? Jf
you approve this Application, it WiLL set a precedent. Other owners and rental owners without civic pride
(AND no aesthetic sense of beauty), will put a low end shack on their property too. PLEASE do not approve
this. (Jfyou approve it, please require the owners to bring both units into the 21st century with A1TRACT1VE
exterior touches....like stone work, quality siding and roofing and professional quality landscaping)." .
Staff Response:
Staff included the comment from Ms. Peterson regarding the proposed partition to ensure the respondent
receives a copy of both staff reports and decisions when they are issued. A detailed response to Ms. Peterson's
concerns is provided in the partition request staff report and decision (SUB2009-00003).
Comment #3 from Joe Suminski, 888 26th Street, Springfield 97477:
"1 oppose a varioncefor 2660 'G' Street. There are two reasonsfor my opposition.
1. According to the map he's asking for a variance on N. 26th street. This street is already clogged
with cars parked on both sides of the street due to houses being built so close that there's no place
to put cars, boats, trailers, etc.. We don't want a precedent to make structures even closer.
2. 15 yards is not enough distance from the road for safety or curb appeal. Please reject this petition.
Staff Response:
Staff advise that the requested variance does not affect the required building setbacks from public streets and
adjacent property lines. In accordance with SDC 3.2-2'15, a dwelling constructed on the proposed corner parcel
would have - at a minimum - a 10-foot setback from both street frontages, a 10-foot rear yard setback and a 5-
foot side yard setback. The dwelling could not be built closer to the street as a result of the requested' variance.
Staff would like to clarifY that 15 yards is equivalent to 45 feet, which greatly exceeds the. required building
setbacks for any type of structures in Springfield residential land use districts.
The applicant is required to provide at least two paved off-street parking spaces for each dwelling unit on the
site, including the existing house. This should ensure there is no additional pressure for on-street parking if the
property is partitioned and. developed with a single-family dwelling or, duplex.
2/27/09
Date Received:
Minor Varianc,eD..RC;2009-00002 Planner: AL
to/z."1 /~pr
I I
Page 3 of7
'j
. CRITERIA OF APPROVAL:
SDC Section 5.21-125.D states, the Director shall approve the Minor Variance if the applicant demonstrates
compliance with all of the applicable approval criteria: .
1. Locational or dimensional problems have been identified that can be resolved by a Minor
Variance;
Aoolicant's Submittal: "Adjustment of parcel dimensions up to 30% is authorized in 5.21-125.A.2."
Finding 3: The dimensional problems have been identified in the narrative and on the Tentative Plan
Map as submitted. The applicant is requesting a variance to the 60-foot parcel frontage requirement,
and requesting that the City approve a corner parcel with 45 feet of parcel frontage on a north-south
street (26th Street) to alleviate the problem. .
Finding 4: The subject property is located on the corner of a north-south and an east-west street.
Finding 5: SDC 3.2-215 indicates that corner parcels shall be 6,000 square feet in area with at least 60
feet of street frontage on a north-south street and 45 feet of frontage on an east-west street.
Finding 6: As shown on the Tentative Plan Map, the proposed parcel meets the minimum requirements
for 45 feet of frontage on an east-west street .(95 feet proposed) and at least 6,000 rr of parcel area
(6,647 rr 'proposed). As noted above, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 60-foot north-south
street frontage requirement to allow 45 feet offrontage for Parcel I, a variance of 15 feet. The proposed
minor variance would be a 25% reduction in lot frontage, which is an allowable percentage reduction if
all the. variance criteria in SDC 5.21-125 are met.
Finding 7: As shown on the Tentative Plan Map, the site contains an existing house that prevents the
vacant parcel from meeting the frontage requirement on 26th Street. Additionally, the applicant is
proposing to dedicate a 5-foot strip of public right-of-way for G Street, which further reduces the
amount of parcel frontage on 26th Street.
Finding 8: The applicant has submitted a concurrent application for tentative partition plan approval
pursuant to Planning Action SUB2009-00003. The applicant's tentative partition plan would create a
separate, conforming parcel for the existing house (parcel 2). The tentative partition plan must be
approved and recorded for the Minor Variance to be effected on the Final Plat.
Conclusion: The findings above show that locational problems have been identified. As proposed,
Criterion I has been met.
2. The proposed adjustment is the minimum/maximum necessary to alleviate the identified
dimensional or locational problem;
Aoolicant's Submittal: "The 45' north-south dimension is constrained by the dedication of additional
public right-of-way on the south side, and on the north side by the minimum 5-foot building setback
from the existing residence."
Finding 9: The applicant is requesting a variance to the required 60-foot frontage to allow a 45-foot
frontage for Parcel I. As identified in the project narrative, the proposed 45.foot frontage is the
maximum that can be achieved while still addressing the required property line setbacks for the existing
2127109
Date Received:
Planner: AL
Minor Variance DRC2009-00002
0- 7/ .,)o9f
I .
Page 4 of7 .
.'
'i
house, and the 5-foot public right-of-way dedication for G Street. The requested l5-foot variance is the
minimum necessary to alleviate the dimensional problem.
Finding 10: The subject parcel is in the LDR Zone, which is subject to solar setback requirements as set
forth in SDC 32-225. New structures on proposed Parcel I will be required to meet these standards.
The applicant is proposing to retain the existing dwelling on Parcel 2, and the applicant or future
landowner will be required to abide by the solar setback requirements of SDC 3.2-225 when applying
for a building permit on Parcell.
Condition of Approval:
1. Future residential construction on Parcel shall comply with the Solar Setback Requirements of
SDC 3.2-225.
. Conclusion: The proposed adjustment is the minimum necessary to alleviate the dimensional problem.
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;
Annlicant's Submittal: "An existing 6" tree, neither healthy nor ornate, will be remove{dj. New street
trees will be planted with the partition, outside the vision clearance triangle."
Finding II: In accordance with SDC 5.19-100, a tree felling permit is required if more than five trees
greater than 5" diameter are proposed to be removed from the property over a 12-month period. The
applicant is proposing to remove four trees that are larger than 5" diameter. Only one tree is within the
,parcel street frontage on26th Street, and removal of this tree is not contingent upon approval of the
requested variance. .
Finding 12: There are no trees of 5-inch or greater caliper warranting protection that will be affected by
this request for Minor Variance.
Conclusion: Criterion 3 has been met.
4. The request shall not impede adequate emergency access to the site;
Annlicant's Submittal: "The deputy fire marshal has reviewed the pre~submittal application andfound
it acceptable for emergency access."
Finding 13: The International Fire Code (IFC) requires a minimum 20-foot clear-width area for
fire/emergency access.
Finding 14: The Minor Variance request affects the Parcell frontage on 26th Street only. The reducted
frontage on 26th Street will not impede emergency access to the site. Additionally, the proposed parcel
will retain adequate fr(mtage on G Street allowing for unimpeded access.
Conclusion: The proposed frontage request does not impede adequate emergency access to the site.
Criterion 4 has been met.
Date ~eceived: z.hl';"~5'
Planner: AL ,/ ,
2/27/09
Minor Variance DRC2009-00002
Page 5 of7 '
'.
5. The request shall not unreasonably adversely impact public or private easements; and
Aoolicant's Submittal: "The partition will create public and private easements where none exist now,
thereby providing a positive impact."
Finding 15: There are no existing easements that would be adversely affected by the proposed variance
shown on the submitted Tentative Plan Map. As stated in the applicant's project narrative, the proposed
partition would create public and private utility easements to serve the development site and adjacent
properties. The requested variance does not materially affect the location and function of the proposed
easements.
Conclusion: Criterion 5 has been.met.
6. Tbe 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 sonth property line as possible. '
Anolicant's Submittal, "The proposed new parcel is vacant. A new duplex will be a single story
structure 15' south of the existing house which will meet solar standards. "
Finding 16: The applicant is requesting this minor variance to facilitate a property partition. The new
parcels, if approved, will include a vacant parcel to the south ofthe existing single family dwelling. As
noted arid conditioned previously in this report, the applicant or landowner will be required to comply
with all solar access standards asset forth in Section 3.2-225 of the Springfield Development Code
when applying for a building permit on Parcel I.
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 sball not apply to MDS applications as specified in Section 5.15-100.
Aoolicant's Submittal: "Not Applicable - this application doesn't involve parking reductions."
Finding 17: As stated in the applicant's project narrative, this request does not involve a parking
reduction and is not located in a Commercial or Industrial 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 Director and as such may be
appealed to the Planning Commission. The appeal may be filed with the Development Services Department by
an affected party. The appeal must be in accordance with SDC 5.3-100, Appeals. An Appeals application must
be submitted to the City with a fee of $250.00. The fee will be returned to the appellant if the Planning
Commission approves the appeal application. D t' ",. /,,~
' ' . a e ,,,ecelved:--.kth-. __L"_
Planner: AL
2/27/09
Minor Variance DRC2009-00002
Page 60f7
.' ,
(,
I
In accordance with SDC S .3-IIS which provides for a IS-day appeal period and Oregon Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 1 O( c) for service of notice by mail, the appeal period for this decision expires at 5:00 p.m. on
March 16, 2009. .
CONDITION OF APPROVAL:
1. Future residential construction on Parcel I shall comply with the Solar Setback Requirements of SDC 3.2-
22S.
Questions:' Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at
(S4l) 726-3784 or email alimbirrl@.ci.s1)rinl!field.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process.
Prepared B~
./7~
Date Received: )/h7 t..,
Planner: AL r
2/27/09
Minor Variance DRC2009-00002
Page 70f7
Geoff & Elizabeth Cossen
445 E. 50th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97405
Joe Ferguson, PLS
2130 Daphne Street' '
Springfield, OR 97477
Joel & Jill Daniken
821 26th Street
Springfield,OR 97477
Jan Peterson
2575 G Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Joe Suminski
888 26th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Please Send Copies of Both Staff Reports to:
Date Received:~/;<'0'
Planner: AL