Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 9/3/2009 . . Major Variance for Loss of Use of Property-Wetland Development within the Development Setback under SDC 4.3-117 (Jill and 2) ZON2009-o0022 Planning Staff Response to DIM Questions Question #1: Aside from the Locally Significant Wetland and storm drain easement are there other obstructions to development that can be identified? Staff report that there is flooding of the street and subject property during the rainy months. The flooding may be sufficient to impede access to the driveway_ The extent of the water height in this location should be assessed to determine how much fill is needed to prevent damage to structures (moisture/mold, standing water beneath the houses). Based on a landslide hazard map informaiion provided by the Oregon Department of Mineral and Industries (DOGAMI) the subject property may be affected by land slide hazards. See map attached at the end of this document. The site appears to be affected by Hydric soils which are often expansive and require special construction procedures. Question #2: Can we identify incorrect assumptions about the Locally Significant Wetland and storm drain easement that would prevent approval? The classification of the wetland and its "significance" under state law were determined using information prepared by a consultant. The state concurred with those determinations. Question # 3: What are the next steps to get a Major variance Application reviewed and is there significant information missing from the attached draft application that needs to be included? The procedures for applying for a Major Variance are contained in the application form that can be found online. A copy of the application form is attached to this document. The application, if submitted, should focus on the approval criteria found in 4.3-117 (J)(2) and in 5.21- 130. These sections contain the approval criteria for approving the proposed development. I would recommend that you organize your proposal around these approval criteria and respond to them in detail. These criteria are shown below: SDC 4.3-117 (J)(2) Development Setback Area Variances-Criteria J. Development Setback Area Variances. 1. Variance applications for development setback areas shall require compliance with either the Major Variance criteria specified in Section 5.21-130 or the Minor Variance criteria specified in Section 5.21-125; and 2. In the case of loss of use of the property, the following additional criteria shall apply: Date Received: Planner: MM 1-'j ~D1 ff /-+ CD . . a. The application of the standards of this Section renders the property unbuildable; b. The applicant has exhausted all other options available under mapping errors specified in Subsection 8.4., above and the development area setback variance specified in Subsection 3., below; c. There shall be no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erosion, or slope stability, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; and d. The loss of native vegetative cover shall be minimized. 5.21-130 Major Variances-Criteria Major Variances involve discretionary decision-making and apply to those Variances that are not Minor Variances as specified in Section 5.21-125. The Approval Authority may approve or approve with conditions a Major Variance on finding that all of the following approval criteria are satisfied, otherwise the request will be denied: A. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure; lot/parcel size, shape or topography; the location or size of physical improvements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property that would deprive the owner of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district; B. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the development standards of this Code or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual Development Plan or other applicable plans or studies; C. The Variance shall have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the same zoning district and/or vicinity, or the request can be conditioned so that there are no significant adverse affects; D. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. above shall not arise from a previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need; E. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition. Make sure that you suooort vour assertions about the imoact of your develooment on the wetlands and on nearby properties with objective evidence. For example, if you say that placing fill in the wetland will not cause impacts to neighboring properties, provide evidence to support that point. The property currently floods during the rainy season and has standing water on site. You should document how the volume and the location of required fill materials will affect the flow of water. Where will the displaced water flow to? Will the fill impede the flow of water and raise water levels on properties upstream of the proposed site? Think of other potential impacts and fully document your assertions. & . . Please show the proximity of the development to the tree line that defines the forested portion of the wetland. Question #4: Can you, from your department's perspective, support this Major Variance Application in light of the minimization of impact to the locally significant wetland? Without more detailed plans it is not possible to offer an opinion at this time. In general, the code offers the opportunity to conduct some development. I would prefer that the development include two units and preserve the full 68'-foot swath of wetlands without the intruding garage on the south end of the development. Certainly, the forested area and whatever drainage way that exists must be preserved. The proposed dwellings do not show planted setbacks from the street and neighbors. These homes must comply with landscaping standards and should be designed to compliment the existing dwellings in the neighborhood. Please review the design standards for residential dwellings before submitting these plans for consideration by the Planning Commission at the variance hearing. Landslide Hazard (DOGAMI) _.0. ~,J1- - - --'-r- -'-r Ti I , --- .u_ "'"'~. (V . . Hydric Soils (these soil types are often expansive and require special engineering) -- . . .JL -'-'t"- 1 1-- -'-I-.Y Stormwater Facilities @)