The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous Fence 1999-3-16 . SPRalELD ..- 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 (541).726.3753 FAX (541) 726.3689 March 16, 1999 Phillip Farrington Planning Manager Satre Associates 132 East Broadway Suite 536 Eugene, Oregon 97401 * Dear Phillip, This letter confirms your reading of the Springfield Development Code pertaining to fences in the LDR District for residential uses. A six-foot fence along the through-lot rear yard property line is permitted. The proposal to locate the fence within three feet of the property line and to landscape the area with plants conforming to crime prevention design is commendable. The fence and landscaping should improve the privacy and security within the park and enhance its appearance from the two main streets. A plot plan need not be submitted under these circumstances and Mr. Jinks may proceed with fence conslruction. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 726-3783. Cordially, Planning Supervisor I ;)..lo ~ (ha.c v1 S+. 03/12/1999 17:13 .' .. . ... SATRE Satre A.5ociales, P.C. 132 Ea.t Bm..!"'., Suil. 536 J?Ugcne, Oregon 97401 Phone l41.4M.4721 Fad41.46l.472Z 1.800.662.7094 W'W~.sattcpc.com ~ 541-455-4722 ~~I~t ~~~U0iHI~~ ,............. ........ . .. March 12, 1999 Mel Oberst. Planning Supervisor Development Services Department City of Springfield ' 225 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Re: Springfield Mobile Homc }>ark Dear Mel: This letter seeks your concurrence regarding my interpretation of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) as it reMes to fencing standards for the above property. Over the past several weeks I have been having communications with various City staff conceming the above property (fonnerly the EI Rancho Mobile Home Park) located at 1263 Main Street in Springfield (Lane County Asse~.or's Map No. 17..{)3- 35-41. Tax Lots 8100. 9000 and 9100). The new park owner; Mr. Don Jinks, is working with park managers and slafffrom the City public safety and fire departments . to rectify long-standing issues of trespass, crime, and noise. . As the property has frontage on, and driveway access to, both Main Street and South A Streets, the.park has been plagued with cut-through traffic and other illegitimate access that has prompted safety concerns for park residents. Mr. Jinks seeks to erect fencing along the Main Street and South A Street frontages of the property and close the Soutli A Street access points, but to retain emergency vehicle access. The site is zoned LOR and CC, but the vast majority of the area iswithih. the LDR district. Therefore, the proposed fencing is subject to standards contained in SDC 16.090 (fence standards for residential districts), primarily, . Original communications with planning staff indicated that Mr. Jinks would have to comply with the Discretionary Use procedures and criteria outlined in SDC 16.090(2). To this end, Mr. Jinks had a qualified acoustical engineer conduct a noise analysis which indicated . that background noise levels currently exceed acceptable levels established by Oregon DEQ through applicable OARs. Public safety staff indicated that they did not want a 6-foot tall, sight-obscuring fence erected within the 100foot front yard setback, which was Mr. Jinks' fltst preference. The original proposal for a 6-foot tall fence within the front yard setbaclc would have triggered review the DU procedure based on the provisions in SDC 16.090(2)(c). Fire department staff indicated that they had no objection toc1osure of secondary access points so long as the access points were gated to allow emergency vehicle access. This access requires a 20-foot wide access drive and a Public Works key lock on the proposed gates, Mr. Jinks has modified his proposal to install fencing in confonnance with SDC l6.090(1)(a}2. along ihe front yard setback. As such, fencing within the lO-foot front yard setback along Main Street will be no more than 4-feet tall if unslatted chain link fence is used and no more than 3-feet tall if slatted or sight-obscwing fencing is used. He also acknowledges that fencing will have to confonn with the vision clearance standards contained in SDC 32.070. Planner...., Landscape Architects and Natural R,esource Specialists 03/12/1999 17:13 541-455-4722 ~AI~~ ~~~U~!~lt~ rHUl:... tJ-J -. . Corre.pondence to Mel Oberst Re: Springtield Mobile Home Park Fencing Proposal March 12. 1999 . Page 2 -' Along the South A Street frontage, Mr. Jinks is proposing to gate the driveway entrances in conformance with ftre department dire<:tives, locating the fence three feet in from the edge of the IO-foot through rear yard setback closest to South A StreeL Within this three feet, Mr. Jinks is proposing to install vegctation as re<:ommended by public safety staff in conformance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Specific choice of plant species, their number and locijtion has not yet been determined. My reading of the Code indicates that the fear yard fcncing actually could be right on the property line. The only applicable references to fencing within or along the rear yard setback are SDC 16.090(1)(a) and SDC 18, loo(1)(a), which restrict fence~ to 6 feet in height as Mr. Jinks proposes. Observation of other properties with frontage on South A Strect confirms that fencing has been erected right up to the sidewalk andlor within the first three feet of the rear through yard setback (i,e., the Springfield Utility Board Electric Division maintenance yard, the Hutchins auto dealership, etc.). Therefore, it is my understanding that Mr. Jinks may erect the fencing as proposed without permits, submittals, or other approvals by the City of Springfield. It is my hope that you may concur with this reading of the Code without requiring any elaborate mapping. Mr. Jinks is seeking a written confmnation (an e-mail would suffice) corroborating with my reading of the Code. . These proposals are intended to improve the safety and security of park residents. Access will be more controlled with vehicular and pedestrian ingtess and egress more effectively monitored by park management. Emergencyvehitles will still have necessary access. . Currently excessive noise levels will also be abated somewhat by installation of fencing and landscaping as sound buffers. Communications with City planning staff indicate that there is no specific fence permit and SDC 16,090(2)(a) states that a consttuction permit is not (Cquired to erecting a fence except for those greater than 6-feet in height. However, most recently Ms. Kay Bork infoaned me that planning staff would require the submittal of a plot plan. Given the vintage nature of the park, there is no recent site plan. Without going through an elaborate site plan or DU procedure, Mr. Jinks ha~ asked for simple clarification of Code requirements to minimize his project costs to the beneficial ends described above, He has modified his earlier proposal to conform with Code standards without having to go through a public hearing process. Thanks for your consideration; I look forward to your reply. Sl~Y'O ,~ Ph~dp~, AlCP Planning Manager cc: Mr. Don Jinks