Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 1/20/2010 . . ~ RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JAN 20 2010 BY:f1~rf,~ lo-t"t p~ STATE OF OREGON) )ss. County of Lane ) I, Karen LaFleur, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am a Program Technician for the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2. I state that in my capacity as, Program Technician, I prepared and caused to be mailedcopiesofSuI:'>Zoo<j-OOO~5 'ila~ ~~- PL/f-- -ProUc/~~" (See attachment "A") on /-2D , 010 addressed to (see Attachment B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box with postage fully prepaid thereon. ~~R~~ STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane ~di1MfM~':;0 .2010. Personally appeared the above named Karen LaFleur, r gram Tec nician, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act Before me: OFFICIAL SEAL DEVETTE KELL V NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 420351 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 15. 2011 &ra-J;~ My Commission Expires: <6/IS-/I/ , I " .'. . . no" \. ~ -L'.' \J\\J~ "'.'\1-\ , ' ", . 'I NOTICE OF DECISION PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT - TYPE I t. . Project Name: Prock I Ariga & Huerta Property Line Ad.iustment .Project Proposal: Adjust the common property line between two developed residential properties Case Number: SOO2009-00025 Project Location:' 930 & 944 Q Street (Map 17-03-26-13, TL#101 &200) Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: MDR (Q Street Refinement Plan) Application Submitted Date: Dec. 21, 2009 Decision Issued Date: January 20, 2010 Recommendation: Approval with Condition Final Property Line Survey Submittal Date: April 20, 20 I 0 Appeal Deadline Date: No Provision for Appeal (SDC 5.1-125.C) Associated Applications: None CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 726-3784 Transnortation Plannin" En"ineer Transportation Jon Driscoll 726 3679 Public Works Sunervisin" Civil Engineer Utilities Matt Stouder 736 1035 Public Works Sunervisin" Civil Engineer Sanitarv & Storm Sewer Matt Stouder 736 1035 Denutv F ire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726 3661 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM Applicant/Owner: SurveyorfEngineer: Applicant/Owner: Orville D. & Linda Prock 930 Q Street Springfield, OR 97477 Fabiola Huerta & Jose Ariga 944 Q Street. Springfield, OR 97477 David Welhnan, PLS D Welhnan Surveying 90686 Northrop Drive Eugene, OR 97402 . . DECISION: Preliminary Survey Approval, with condition, as of the date of this letter. The standards of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) applicable to each criterion of Property Line Adjustment Approval are listed herein and are satisfied by the submitted plans and notes unless specifically noted with [mdings and conditions necessary for compliance. THE FINAL SURVEY SUBMITTAL MUST CONFORM TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS AS CONDITIONED HEREIN. This is a limited land use decision made according to City code and state statutes, and there is no provision for appeal pursuant to SDC 5.1-125.C. Please read this document carefully. t (See Page 4 for a summary of the condition of approval.) OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE DECISION: None. The proposed Property Line Adjustment as conditioned is in accordance with SDC 5.16-100. Future development will be in accordance with the provisions of the SDC, filed easements and agreements, and all applicable local, state and federal regulations. REVIEW PROCESS: This application is reviewed under Type I procedures listed in SDC 5.1-125 and the property line adjustment criteria of approval, SDC 5.16-125. A complete ,application was accepted by the Director prior to the review of the request as specified in SDC 5.4-105, Application Submittal, and contained all information required to begin the review process in accordance with SDC 5.16-100. This application was accepted as complete on December 21, 2009. SITE INFORMATION: The Assessor's description of the subject parcels is Map 17-03-26-13, Tax Lots 101 & 200. The affected parcels include two adjoining, developed residential properties with frontage on Q Street. The parcels contain existing single family residential dwellings addressed as 930 and 944 Q Street. Zoning for the subject properties is Medium Density Residential in accordance with the adopted Q Street Refinement Plan. The east wall of the garage on Tax Lot 200 (identified herein as Parcel I) encroaches approximately two feet into Tax Lot 101 (Parcel 2). 'The applicant's project narrative indicates the purpose of the property line adjustment is to address the building encroachment. The proposed adjusted property line would provide a 5-foot building setback for the existing garage. An existing carport on Parcel 2 would have a 2.7-foot setback from the adjusted west property line. The proposed property line adjustment would increase the size of Parcel I from 11,672 ft' to 12,526 ft' and reduce the size of Parcel 2 from 14,271 ft'to 13,418 ft'. The net area affected by the proposed property line adjustment is approximately 854 square feet. Because there is no increase to the number , of lots before or after the proposed property line adjustment, and the adjustment does not reconfigure a subdivision boundary line, the proposal does not constitute a Replat. A property line adjustment may occur within a recorded subdivision in accordance with SDC 5.16-100. CRITERIA OF PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL: SDC 5.16-125 states that the Director shall approve or approve with conditions a Property Line Adjustment application upon determining that criteria A through F of this Section have been satisfied. A. The property line adjustment shall not create a new lot or parcel. Finding I: The property line adjustment does not create a new lot or parcel. The proposed property line adjustment is intended to address a building encroachment issue and relocates the common property line between two adjoining residential parcels. There is no net increase or decrease in the number of affected parcels. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion A. B. The property line adjustment shall not create a landlocked lot or parcel. Finding 2: The subject parcels have frontage on a public street (Q Street). Although the width of property frontage will be slightly adjusted for both parcels, the parcels will retain frontage and access onto Q Street. 2 . . 'i Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion B. C. The property line adjnstment shall not rednce an existing lot or parcel helow the minimnm lot size standard or reduce setbacks helow the minimnm establisbed by the applicable zoning districts in the Code. Finding 3: The proposed property line adjustment will provide the minimum 5-foot side yard setback between the east wall of the garage and the east property line of Parcel I. The existing carport on Parcel 2 will have just under 3 feet of building setback to the west property line. In accordance with SDC 3.2- 215, accessory structures (including carports) shall have at least 3 feet of side yard setback on interior lots. Finding 4: The proposed property line adjustment addresses the building encroachment issue by providing a compliant side yard setback for Parcell, and provides 90% of the required side yard setback for the carport on Parcel 2 (ie. 2.7 feet, where 3 feet is required). There is insufficient width between the principal structure (garage wall) on Parcel I and the accessory structure (carport) on Parcel 2 for both structures to meet required side yard setbacks. Finding 5: The existing carport on Parcel 2 currently meets the side yard setback requirements of SDC 3.2-215. Staff has determined that reducing the accessory structure setback in favor of meeting the principal structure setback is acceptable. In accordance with SDC 5.8-100, the proposed property line adjustment would result in a legally-created, non-conforming setback for the carport structure. Because the proposed property line adj ustment is an improvement to an existing, non-conforming situation, staff does not recommend either removing a portion of the carport or submitting a minor variance for the carport side yard setback on Parcel 2. Finding 6: To advise current and future Parcel 2 property owners about the legally-created, non- conforming side yard setback for the carport, a deed restriction is required. The deed restriction shall be recorded against the Parcel 2 title and advise the property owner (and successors) that the carport has a 2.7 foot side yard setback, where 3.0 feet is required in accordance with SDC 3.2-215. Upon recording of the deed restriction, the existing carport may remain as-is until such time as it is removed or replaced; any alterations or replacement of the structure would have to meet the side yard setback requirements of SDC 3.2-215. Finding 7: The minimum parcel size for existing properties in the MDR District that are located on a east-west street is 4,500 ft2 (0.10 acres) in accordance with SDC 3.2-215. The proposed adjusted parcels sizes exceed this standard. Finding 8: In accordance with SDC 3.2-2]5, MDR lots on east-west streets shall have at least 45 feet of frontage. The proposed adjusted parcel frontages exceed this standard. Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to or concurrent with recording of the Final Survey, a Deed Restriction shall be recorded against Tax Lot 101 (parcel 2) and evidence thereof provided to the City. The Deed Restriction shall.advise the owners and succeSSors in title of Tax Lot 101 of the following: that the carport has a 2.7 foot side yard setback, where 3.0 feet is required in accordance with SDC 3.2-215; that the carport structure is considered a legally-created, non-conforming structure in accordance with SDC 5.8-100; and that any alterations or replacement of the carport structure shall meet the side yard setback requirements ofSDC 3.2-215. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion C. 3 . . D. The property line adjnstment shall not violate any previons conditions the Approval Authority may have imposed ou the lots or parcels involved in the application. t Finding 9: The proposed property line adjustment does not violate any conditions of previous land use decisions affecting the site. Aside from the proposed property line adjustment, staff was unable to find evidence of any active land. use decisions or conditions of approval in effect for the subject parcels. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion D. E. The property line adjustment shall not detrimentally alter the availability of existing public and/or private utilities to each lot or parcel in the application or to abutting lots or parcels. Finding 10: The proposed property line adjustment does not adversely affect the property frontages where existing utility services are provided to Parcels I and 2. The adjusted property line allows the existing overhead electrical service to Parcel 1 to be contained entirely within the property boundary. Underground utilities are not shown on the property line adjustment survey, but would be unaffected by the adjusted .property line location. Therefore, the availability of public and private utilities is not compromised by this proposal. Conclusion: This proposal satisfies Criterion E. F. The property line adjustment shall not increase the degree of non-conformity of each lot, parcel or . structure that is non-conforming at the time of application. Finding 11: As stated previously, the proposed property line adjustment addresses an existing building encroachment by providing a compliant side yard setback for the principal structure on Parcel I. The proposal provides 90% of the required side yard setback for the accessory structure on Parcel 2. Therefore, the proposed property line adjustment will not increase the degree of non-conformity for the parcels or the existing structures. Conclusion: As previously conditioned herein, this proposal satisfies Criterion F. CONCLUSION: Considering these findings of fact, staff finds the Property Line Adjustment complies with the criteria ofSDC 5.16-125 and approves the application subject to the condition listed below. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to or concurrent with recording of the Final Survey, a Deed Restriction shall be recorded against Tax Lot 101 (parcel 2) and evidence thereof provided to the City. The Deed Restriction shall advise the owners and successors in title of Tax Lot 101 of the following: that the carport has a 2.7 foot side yard setback, where 3.0 feet is required in accordance with SDC 3.2-215; that the carport structure is considered a legally- created, non-conforming structure in accordance with SDC 5.8-100; and that any alterations or replacement of the carport structure shall meet the side yard setback requirements of SDC 3.2-215. SDC 5.16-140 - FINAL SURVEY SUBMITTAL, COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND RECORDATION OF DOCUMENTS A. A Final Survey shall be prepared, stamped and signed by an Oregon registered Land Surveyor in accordance with ORS 92.01O(7)(b), ORS 92.060(3) and ORS 209.250. B. One copy of the Final Survey shall be delivered to the Development Services Department together with any conditioned documents. 4 . . .,' C. Once the Director and the City Surveyor have certified that all conditions listed under Preliminary Survey approval have been met, the Final Survey may be recorded at the Lane County Surveyor's Office. D. The owners of the lots included in the application shall record with Lane County Deeds and Records Property Line Adjustment deeds, as specified in ORS 92.190(4). The Property Line Adjustment deeds shall contain the names of the parties, the description of ' the adjusted line, reference to the original recorded documents, and signatures of all parties with proper acknowledgement. The Property Line Adjustment deeds also shall identifY the Planning file number and shall contain a statement declaring that the purpose of the deeds is for a Property Line Adjustment. Reference to the affected properties by map and tax lot number shall be in addition to reference by legal description. In the case of serial Property Line Adjustments processed under Type IT procedure, each Property Line Adjustment deed for the lots or parcels in the series shall be recorded separately, in the seq';lence of City approvaL E. A copy of the recorded Final Survey and deeds shall be delivered to the Development Services Department together with any recorded documents that may have been required as a condition of approvaL SDC 5.16-145 - EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL The Property Line Adjustment shall become null and void if: A. The Final Survey and any condition of approval have not been submitted to the City in a complete form within 90 days of the date of Preliminary Approval (i.e. by April 20, 2010); or B. The Final Survey is not submitted to the Lane County Surveyor within 30 days of the City approval; or C. The Property Line Adjustment deed or other conditioned documents have not been recorded with Lane County Deeds and Records with the Final Survey. 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. Questions: Please call Andy Limbird in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department at (541) 726-3784 or email alimbird~ci.springfield.or.usifyou have any questions regarding this process. , 5 . . .1;'."'l;J.."1:J;IIi.'{tj;;/~.'.'J:I=tti'J,' a "till DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . ~ PLAN/yING DEPARTMENT 225 'FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 . David Wellman, PLS D Wellman Surveying 90686 Northrup Drive Eugene, OR 97402 ....l,;v~'-vr''Vlc'vl .::JcnVIl."c.;) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477 ~- "4Y ...... Fabiola Huerta Jose Ariga 944 Q Street Springfield, OR 97477 DEVELOPMENTSERWCES PLANNING DEPARTMENT 225 FIFTH STREET SPRlNGFlE~D, OR 97477 ~~~ Orville and Linda Prock 930 Q Street Springfield, OR 97477 b . . . . .