Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 9/8/2010 , . . MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE OF HEARING: September 8,2010 TO: Springfield Planning Commission FROM: Mark Metzger, Planner PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Major Variance-Wetland ISSUE: Pete Corbarrubia has submitted an application for a major variance to reduce the hardship created by the protection of an inventoried wetland and by the placement of a city storm water pipe on his property. A variance process for wetland hardships is allowed by SDC 4.3-117 and by state law. The applicant Is also requesting variances to various dimensional standards related to the placement of structures on the site. DISCUSSION: The subject property is almost inundated by the wetland that east-to-west along the base of Potato Hill. A city storm water pipe and utility easement cuts across the only portion of the site which is not within the wetland. The impact of the request on the wetland is estimated to be minimal. Less that 5% of the delineated wetlands on the subject lot would be affected. No appreciable degradation of the wetland's water storage and delay functions are expected if the requested is granted. This application is n2l. for site plan approval. The proposed multi-family development will be subject to Type II Site Plan Review. The variances authorize relief from some portions of the Development Code that may be necessary to allow proper layout of structures on this constrained site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends aooroval of the reauested wetland protection variance. Up to 1,000 square feet of wetland should be authorized for fill if needed. This is in excess of the amount requested by the applicant, but staff believes that the additional fill may be needed to properly locate the proposed structures. Allowing fill of 1,000 square feet would leave 86% of the wetland intact, including the most functional portion of the wetland. Additional variances are proposed: 1) A 5-foot variance to the 10-foot rear-yard setback is recommended for aooroval: 2) A proposed encroachment on the utility easement is not recommended for aooroval: and 3) the S5-foot wide driveway shown on the applicant's drawing exceeds the maximum driveway width allowed by Code and is not recommended for aooroval. ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is requested to conduct a public hearing and make a decision to: 1) approve; 2) approve with modifications or conditions; 3) or to deny the requested variances. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Report and Recommendations Attachment 2: Application Attachment 3: Letter from Don Heauser, 143 S. 59" Street Attachment 4: Planning Commission Order Date Received: q- "$-1' Planner: MM . . Major Variance Type III --Wetland Hardship Staff Report and Recommendation Project Name: Wetland Hardship Variance--Peter and Wendy Cobarrubia Project Proposal: The applicant seeks to building three dwelling units on a lot that is impacted by an inventoried wetland. An application for a major variance has been submitted to resolve a hardship created by protection of the wetland and by the placement of a city stormwater pipe and related easement within the small portion of the site which is outside of the wetland. Such variances are allowed by SDC Section 4.3-117 (J) and by state law to reduce the economic impact of wetland protection on property owners. In addition to the variance to the wetland protection setback, the applicant is requesting a variance to the prescribed side-yard and rear yard set backs, maximum driveway width and the setback from a 36"storm sewer pipe that cut diagonally across the subject property through the area that is not within the wetlands. Case Number: ZON201o-0001O Project Location: Vacant-End of 59th Street, south of Main Street. Assessor's Map and Tax Lot: 17-02-34-33 TL 503 Existing Use: Vacant Land Use Designations Zoning: Medium Density Residential Metro Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Overlay Districts: N/ A Applicable Refinement Plan and Designation: N/A Processing and Appeal Dates Application Submitted Date: July 23, 2010 Development Review Committee Meeting: August 10, 2010 Planning Commission Hearing: September 8, 2010 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSiTION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Planner III land Use Planning Mark Metzger 726-3775 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Jesse Jones 726-3720 Public Works Engineering Sanitary & Storm Sewer, Utilities Clayton McEachern 736-1036 & Easements Deputy Fire Marshall Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 726-2293 Community Services Manager Building Dave Puent 726-3668 OWNER/APPLICANT APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia loran Waldron 35643 Camp Creek Rd. land and Water Environmental Services Springfield, OR 525 5E Main Street 541-954-1202 Roseburg. OR 97470 541-726-672-0393 Attachment 1-1 Date Received: 1-'?'IO Planner: MM ftt, ,-I p . . Figure 1. Wetland and Storm Sewer Impacts on the Subject Site. I. Executive Summary A variance process for wetland hardships is allowed by SDC 4.3-117 and by state law. The variance was created to address the type of circumstance that affects the applicant. The subject property is almost completely inundated by wetlands. In addition, a city storm water pipe and utility easement cuts diagonally across the portion of the site that is outside of the wetland. The combination of the wetland and the storm water pipe has rendered the property largely unbuildable. Neighboring properties immediately east of the subject site were granted development permits by the Corps of Engineers and Department of State lands in 2003, just 2 years prior to approval of the protections from which the applicant seeks relief. The requested impact on the wetland is minimal. Less that 5% of the delineated wetlands on the subject lot are proposed by applicant for fill and mitigation. No appreciable degradation of the water storage and delay functions are expected by staff if the requested variance is granted. Staff recommends approval of the wetland setback variance. Attachment 1-2 . . This application is not a site plan. Multi-family developments like the one proposed must go through Type II Site Plan Review. The requested variances will authorize wetland fill and provide relief from certain development standards that will allow more efficient placement of structures on the site. Staff has responded to the proposed variances with recommendations to approve some and to deny others. In doing so, staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed to fill more than the .007 acres shown on the submitted drawings. The recommendation to allow more fill than requested is based on staff review of the proposed structure placement. It is felt that additional space will be required for development to compensate for an expanded utility easement on the subject property that is required to allow for maintenance and potential replacement of the storm water pipe on the subject site. The applicant has requested variances to various dimensional standards. These include as-foot reduction in the ID-foot rear yard setback standard; a variance to the utility easement setback; and a variance to the maximum driveway width allowed in the MDR zoning district. A letter was submitted bv Don Heauser. owner of a duplex about a block north of the subject site (See Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Transmittal Memorandum dated September 8, 2010). His letter reinforces the observation that during wet weather months water ponds and flows across the subject property. He suggests that "substantial mitigation should be required in order to make sure that water is not simply displaced to adjacent properties" causing issues for where none existed before. Placement of future structures will come under the scrutiny of site plan review. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that new construction will not cause damage to adjacent properties. Mitigation payments and or actions are determined by the Oregon Department of State lands and or the US Army Corps of Engineers. The following "Recommended Actions" are proposed by staff for Planning Commission consideration in response to the application: Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be approved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a l-Way Single-family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 3S-foot maximum for a 2-Way Multifamily Residential driveway. Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the ID-foot rear yard setback standard shall be approved to allow a minimum 5-foot setback from the property line for any rear yard or side yard. Attachment 1-3 . . Recommended Action #3: The applicant's request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the property . Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan lavout to show a 20-foot wide utilitv easement over the 36" storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new easement. II. Procedural Requirements SDC Section 4.3-117 (J.) allows the use of the variance process to remedy a situation where applying the adopted wetland setbacks and protection, would "render the property un buildable." Such variance applications are required to comply with the approval criteria for either the Major Variance criteria, as specified in Section S.21-130, or the Minor Variance criteria specified in Section S.21-125. Finding # 1. SDC Section 5.21-130 (A.) identifies a Major Variance as "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;" The applicant owns property that is sufficiently impacted by the wetlands on his property as to make it practically unbuildable without relief. In addition, the City of Springfield has constructed a stormwater line that cuts across the portion of applicant's property that is outside of the wetlands. There is a 10' wide utility easement over the pipe which further reduces the buildable area on the lot. The proposed fill and development of a portion of a wetland in this situation best fits the definition of a Major Variance as described in. Finding # 2. SDC Section 5.21-120 (B) indicates that major variances are reviewed under a Type III procedure. SDC Section 5.1-135 states, "Type III decisions are made by the Planning Commission or Hearings Official after a public hearing. Type III decisions may be complex in nature and generally use discretionary approval criteria. Finding # 3. SDC Section 5.1-135 'states that 'Type 11/ applications are reviewed as described below: A. Type 11/ applications are submitted to the Development Services Department. The Director shall determine application completeness. Attachment 1-4 . . B. The Director sholl provide newspaper notice and mailed notice to the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to the appropriate neighborhood association as specified in Section 5.2-115. In addition, the applicant shall post 1 sign, approved by the Director, an the subject property. For all Type 11/ mailed notices, an affidavit will be completed by staff stating that the required notice was provided to the appropriate individuals. Any person may provide written comments to the Director through the day of the public hearing or may testify in person. C. The Director shall distribute the application to the Development Review Committee or the Historical Commission for comments, where applicable. D. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The Planning Commission's or Hearings Official's decision shall include findings that address all of the applicable approval criteria and/or development standards and any written or oral testimony. E. The Planning Commission's or the Hearings Official's decision is the City'sfinal decision, unless appealed. The decision is effective the day natice is mailed ta the applicant, property owner and those persons who submitted written or orol testimony. The notice of decision shall include an explanation of the rights of each party to appeal the decision. F. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council as specified in Section 5.3-100. The Hearings Official's decision may be appealed within 21 calendar days to the Land Use Board of Appeals as specified in Section 5.3-100. Any action taken to begin development prior to the expiration of the appeal period is solely at the applicant's risk and expense. The City assumes no liability or expense if the development is ultimately terminated based upon the outcome of the appeal.H Finding # 4. Development Services Department staff reviewed the variance application and support materials and deemed it complete on July 23, 2010. Finding # 5. Mailed notice of the proposed variance and the Planning Commission hearing was sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject site on August 10, 2010. Finding # 6. A letter was submitted by Don Heauser, owner of a duplex about a block north of the subject site (See Attachment 3 to the Planning Commission Transmittal Memorandum dated September 8, 2010). His letter reinforces the observation that during wet weather months water ponds and flows across the subject property. He suggests that Hsubstantial mitigation should be required in order to make sure that water is not simply displaced to adjacent properties" causing issues for where none existed before. Placement of future Attachment 1-5 . . structures will come under the scrutiny of site plan review. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that new construction will not cause damage to adjacent properties. Mitigation payment and or actions are determined by the Oregon Department of State lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Finding # 7. Notice of the proposed variance and the Planning Commission was published in the Register Guard on August 16, 2010. Finding # 8. Copies of the application materials were sent to various departments and to partner utilities and agencies for review. A Development Review Committee meeting was held on August 10, 2010 to receive and discuss the comments submitted by review participants concerning the proposal. Finding # 9. A public hearing concerning the proposed major variance was held before the Springfield Planning Commission on September 8, 2010. Conclusion: The procedural requirements for processing a major variance have been met. III. Review Criteria Major Variances-Criteria SDC Section 4.3-117 (J)(l) states that variance applications for wetland development setback areas shall require compliance with the Major Variance criteria specified in Section 5.21-130 and additional criteria specific to the wetland variance found in Section 4.3-117 (J) (2). The following section analyzes the submitted application against these approval criteria. SDC Section 5.21-130 indicates that the "...Approvol Authority may approve or approve with conditions a Major Variance on finding that all af the following approval criteria are satisfied, otherwise the request will be denied: A. An unusual conditian exists that is unique to: a lot/parcel, building or structure; lat/parcel size, shape ar topography; the location or size af physical improvements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related ta the property that would deprive the awner af rights commonly enjoyed by other praperty owners similarly situated in the same zaning district; B. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the develapment standards of this Code or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Canceptual Develapment Plan ar other applicable plans or studies; C. The Variance shall have na 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; Attachmenl1-6 . . D. The unusual condition described in Subsection A. abave shall not arise from a previous Code violation or rely only on loss of profit or financial need; E. The Varionce requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition. n Findings with Respect to the Approval Criteria Found in SDC 5.21-130 '~. An unusual condition exists that is unique to: 0 lot/parcel, building or structure; lot/parcel size, shape or toooaraohv; the location or size of ohvsical imorovements; or other similar circumstances not anticipated by this Code but related to the property that would deorive the owner of riahts commonlv enioved bv other orooertv owners similarlv situated in the some zonina district;" Figure 2. Comparison of Allowed Development on Adjacent Lots Prior to 2005 Finding # 10. Figure 2 above illustrates how neighboring properties developed in 2003 were allowed to build within the same wetland area. The developer obtained fill permits from the Oregon department of State Lands and Corps of Engineers and also paid into a wetland mitigation bank in exchange for being allowed to build the two houses east of the subject site. Springfield's current wetland protections were adopted in 2005. Finding # 11. The applicant owns property that is sufficiently impacted by the wetlands on his property as to make it practically unbuildable without relief. In addition, the City of Springfield has constructed a stormwater line that cuts across the portion of applicant's property that is outside of the wetlands. There is a 10' wide utility easement over the pipe which further reduces the buildable area on the lot. Attachment 1-7 . . Finding # 12. It is the opinion of staff that the combined impact of the wetland protections and the City constructed storm sewer and related utility easement constitutes an unusual condition related to the topography of the subject lot and the location and size of a physical improvement (storm sewer) on the lot that deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district. "8. The Variance shall not be inconsistent with the develapment standards of this Cade or of any applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, Conceptual Develapment Plan or other applicable plans or studies;" Finding # 13. The variance requested by the applicant, allowing fill and mitigation of a small portion of the subject lot to build a three-unit development is specifically allowed by the Springfield Natural Resources Study, a functional plan of the Metro Plan that was adopted in 2005. The purpose of the variance allowed by the Study is to provide relief to property owners who property has been rendered largely unbuildable by the protection of wetlands. The variance may be granted if the criteria found in SDC Section 4.3-117 (J.) are met. Specific findings with respect to Section 4.3-117 (J.) are found below. In principle, the variance requested is allowed by the Springfield Development Code and by State law. There are no other applicable Refinement Plans, Conceptual Development Plans or similar documents that would be inconsistent with the requested variance. "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;" Figure 3. Surrounding Uses. ~: :~~ ~.. ~ . . f. ,pie <: .. < -ir 'f t~ )f ",. -j ., . ~i ~,j,. '1 .:'i~~:.tI ~ ,..... ~. io ': Attachment 1-8 . . Finding # 14. Figure 3 below shows that the uses surrounding the subject site include other duplex and triplex developments. The development density proposed is consistent with the allowed density within the Medium Density Residential zoning district. The development that would be allowed by the variance is consistent with other development in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. " 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;" Finding # 15. The condition that has precipitated this variance request did not arise from a previous Code violation. The issue of financial viability is a consideration of the proposed variance as is allowed by the Development Code and by State law. The presence of the wetland and the wetland protections adopted in 2005 has rendered the property largely unbuildable. Complicating the development of the property is a 36" stormwater pipe that traverses the property through the small portion that is outside of the wetland. There is a lO-foot recorded easement over the pipe, but in fact a larger easement is required by the City to provide adequate access to replace the existing pipe with a larger pipe in the future. It is anticipated that such a replacement will be required in the future to convey the increasing volume of stormwater runoff stemming from new development. " E. The Variance requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition. " .':.; Proposed Variance to Maximum Driveway Width Standard 1d-- "1d 1d P Figure 4. ........ I./'l ,,.';', ... ': .:':..- '.:- .!.: ~6 )(24 SINGLE ... .. ~.~. ~ . ". ;':"-';,;..:"" ::- ,.:~. DWELLING .:....f;.~.:~......~;.:~.~.:~.:'..~....~:~.:.:..:,:.' :c ~;:.~:~~.:.~~..~.~:..~;. ~ .',' .", . r.n .' . .' . "'"""'-' GARAG r:' . ,,'. . . ,~. --4 ..t.........'......l.. - ',..."'::..........,.. fg .:..r:.;....:~~~.:.-::~ :.~, r..:::..~..:~:.~.t..;. ", ,~..:.~.......,. I' ...~..... ,J ....~. ::'.. -..-.'...........,..1.....':._( --t ............ .... .;'1..........: .....:,....-.;..:. ........:....... .' .'. I ,'.,.,.. -'0 .0 1.... ...t-i::'." . '.',' . . .'~. '. ..' .t. ~.. ':.. '. _:~ .' ,~: ~..". ":":'';f)~ ::<. '';.''~' .~. ,": <",.; '..~ ~"""I :. '!. . ;',';;'.:~ .;.:...;;:ti11~vn:-....(:~.; ':"'i"!:,'::"~:'; ".\...".. ........~.:.,.....:.~.v l' . J:'................; ....... . .. -0. ~ .' ..:Q~\ .,..,.:0.._...". .1'.... '," . ." '.:~\~.~:~;~ ~:i:~~ :;.j.~;?F{:~:' .t~~j(~' ::; i :'.; : '" . :-"~,'''',:-,:,:".",,O:..'.~,''.f'.~ ','.." :pr:6i!".. . CJ1 CJ1 .., III III r+ \0,0 ~ The applicant shows a 55-foot wide driveway. The maximum allowed width for a driveway is 24-feet for single family and duplex developments, 35 feet for multi-family developments (SDC 4.2-120). Attachment 1-9 . . SDC 4.2-120 IC), Table 4.2-2 Drivewav Desitm Soecifications I-Way Driveway 2-Way Driveway Transition Width Width Width Driveway Land Use Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Throat Death Single-family and Duplexes(3) 12 feet 16 feet 12 feet 24 feet(l) 3 feet 3 feet N.A. Multifamily Residential 24 feet 35 feet(l) 5 feet 8 feet 18 feet(2) (1) Driveway widths and throat depths may be varied if no other reasonable alternative exists to accommodate on-site development needs and traffic safety is not impaired. (2) Measured from the face of curb to the first stall. (3) Single driveways serving single-family and duplex dwellings shall be paved for the first 18 feet when abutting a curb and gutter street; these driveways may be graveled for the remainder of their length. Driveways abutting unimproved streets shall be graveled. Finding # 16. The applicant proposes to build one 55' wide driveway. The proposed width exceeds the maximum allowable driveway width of 35' for a Multi-family Residential Development set forth in 5DC 4.2-120 (c), Table 4.2-2. Figure 4 above shows the general layout of the site and the proposed driveway. Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be approved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a 1-Way Single-family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35-foot maximum for a 2-Way Multifamily Residential driveway. Finding # 17. The applicant requests a variance to the 10-foot rear yard setback that is required for residential developments. The applicant shows 5-foot setbacks which are allowed for side yard setbacks. The applicant's drawing does not show the front entrance of the proposed dwellings which is used to define the side yard and rear yard of the structures (See Figure 5 below). Finding # 18. Staff believes that the requested 5-foot variance from the 10-foot setback standard is a reasonable allowance considering the presence of the wetland and stormwater pipe which complicate development on the site. The proposed 5-foot setback is consistent with the 5-foot minimum setback for side yards. Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the lO-foot rear yard setback standard shall be approved to allow a minimum 5-foot setback from the property line for any rear yard or side yard. Finding # 19. The subject lot is .24 acres in size. About .16 acres of the site are impacted by the inventoried wetland M-05. M-05 is about 9 acres in size and traverses the base of Potato Hill (Mountaingate Development). large sections of M-05 are forested. The subject lot is Attachment 1-10 . . mostly open field and grasses. The wetland is classified by state criteria as a "locally significant wetland." The main hydrologic function of M-OS is water storage and delav. Wetlands act to store and slowly release runoff into receiving streams. Without such storage and delay, runoff would quickly drain to receiving streams causing local "flash flood" events that cause erosion and sedimentation of receiving streams. Finding # 20. Runoff from Potato Hill is a primary hydrologic source of water for the wetland. The thin soils overlaying the on the basalt rock on Potato Hill causes water to seep from the base of the hill. During wet periods, the south half of the subject property experiences flooding from the runoff as it accumulates at the base of Potato Hill and flows from east to west across the subject site. Figure 5. Side Yard and Rear Yard Variances, Wetland Variances 1d !J1 o q 1dJ I ...Mi.23' o '0 o. i B.T.S. This is a 5-foot variance to the required 10-foot setback standard from the rear property line. 5.00' .v .v This is a 5-foot variance to the required 1D-foot setback standard from the rear property line. it .v Finding # 21. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation to the Oregon Department of State lands that was approved by letter of concurrence on April 24, 2009. The applicant proposes to impact .007 acres (305 sq. ft) of the .16 acres of wetland on the subject lot. Attachment 1-11 . . Finding # 22. The hatched area on Figure 5 above shows the proposed impact area where the duplex unit is proposed for construction. Figure 1 and 2 are aerial views of the site which provide greater context for viewing the subject property in context with the wetland and the neighborhood. Finding # 23. Staff analysis of the wetland area concludes that the essential functions of the wetland (water storage and delay) can be maintained if the variance is approved. Recommended Action #3: The applicant's request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the property. Finding # 24. The property is also encumbered by a 36" storm drain line that runs diagonally across the northern portion of the lot that significantly reduces the buildable area of the Jot that is not part of the wetlands. The City is increasing the pipe size of its storm pipes immediately down stream from the subject site from 36" to 42". Similar measures may be needed to increase stormwater conveyance capacity through the subject property. Finding # 25. The existing storm drain line on the subject site is within an existing 10' easement. The existing 10-foot easement is not sufficient to allow maintenance or repair of the pipe, let alone replacement to increase capacity. Increased the capacity of the stormwater system will reduce the flooding that occurs on the subject property and on other lots in the neighborhood. Public Works staff indicate that the easement over the storm water pipe will need to be increased to 20' to allow for maintenance, repair and possible replacement to increase capacity. Finding # 26. The tentative site layout submitted with this variance application will not allow for pipe maintenance or replacement, if required, to increase the system capacity and reduce flooding. Finding # 27. Staff does not believe the subject property can be developed with the number of dwelling units shown without a reconfiguration of the layout. A new configuration may require additional impact to the northern portion of the wetlands on the site. A total impact of up to 1000 square feet (.23 acres) should be allowed to provide additional flexibility for the applicant to prepare a design that complies with the Recommended Actions found in this report. The expanded impact on the wetlands should not interfere with the water storage and delay functions that are provided by the wetland on the southern portion of the property. Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan lavout to show a 20-foot wide utility easement over the 36" storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new easement. Attach men! 1-12 . . Findings with Respect to the Approval Criteria Found in SDC 4.3-117 SDC Section 4.3-117 (J.) states that variance applications for development within wetland setback areas shall require compliance with the Major Variance criteria specified in Section 5.21-130; "and in the case of loss of use of the property, the following additional criteria shall apply: 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 caver shall be minimized." The following section of this report analyzes the proposed variance with the approval criteria found in Section 4.3-117 (l)(2). "0. The application of the standards of this Section renders the property unbuildable;" Finding # 28. The subject lot is .24 acres in size. Of this, .16 acres are within the delineated boundary of wetland M-OS, leaving .08 acres (3484 sq. ft.) of the subject lot outside of the wetlands. The delineated boundary of the wetland does not include the prescribed 2S-foot development setback from the wetland that was adopted in 2005 as part of the Springfield Natural Resources Study. Finding # 29. The minimum lot size in the Medium Density Residential zoning district is 5000 square feet. Without a variance to the adopted wetland protections reduce the buildable area on the subject lot (3484 sq. ft.) to a size smaller than a legal lot. Finding # 30. A 36" storm water pipe cuts diagonally across the .08 acres that are not affected by the wetland. The pipe is protected by a lo-foot utility easement which is recommended for expansion by the Public Works Department to 20 feet. A 20-foot utility easement will remove about .04 acres (1742 sq. ft.) additional acres from the buildable area outside of the wetlands. The remaining unencumbered area on the subject lot is about .04 acres (approximately 1742 sq. ft.). "b. The applicant has exhausted 01/ other options available under mapping errors specified in Subsection 8.4., above and the development area setback variance specified in Subsection 3., below;" Attachmenl1-13 . . Finding # 31. The applicant has provided a letter of concurrence from the Oregon Department of State Lands confirming that delineation of the wetland on the subject lot. There is no wetland mapping error to be corrected. Finding # 32. The setback variance specified in SDC Section 4.3-117 (J) (3) refers to "setback averaging" which is not an applicable tool for resolving the wetland impact in this instance. The delineated boundary and not the 25-foot development setback render the property unbuildable. "c. There shall be no significant adverse impacts on water quality, erasion, or slope stability, or these impacts have been mitigated to the greatest extent possible; and" Finding # 33. The applicant proposes to fill and mitigate about .007 acres of wetland. This is less than 5% of the wetland area on the subject lot. If this amount was increased to .023 acres as proposed by staff in "Recommended Action #3," the reduction of the wetland area on the subject lot will be about 14%. About 86% of the wetland area on the lot will be left in tact. Finding # 34. Development is proposed on the northern edge of the wetland. Stormwater ponds on the southern portion of the property and flows west across the street. The wetland serves to collect and store runoff during storm event and delays the flow of runoff into receiving drains and streams. The water storage and delay functions occur primarily in the southern portion of the wetland. Approval of the variance will have minimal a minimal impact on wetland function. If 1,000 sq. ft. are filled and mitigated, 86% of the wetland will remain. Figure 6. Subject property looking south on S. 59th Street. Finding # 35. The City is engaged in a project to increase the capacity of storm water drainage of the system in this neighborhood. While not directly related to this application, it is anticipated that the project will mitigate any potential loss in wetland function on the site. Attachment 1-14 . . "d. The loss 0/ native vegetative cover shall be minimized. H Finding # 36. The southern portion of the subject lot includes the forested wetlands. The northern portion is covered with grasses and non-native vegetation. The applicant indicates that the proposed construction will cause some soil disturbance in the northern portion of the lot, but that the area will be re-seeded with native vegetation at the conclusion of construction. IV. Conclusion and Recommendation A variance process for wetland hardships is allowed by SDC 4.3-117. The variance was created for the type of circumstance that affects the applicant. The subject property is almost completely inundated by wetlands. In addition, a city storm water pipe and utility easement cuts diagonally across the portion of the site that is outside of the wetland. The combination of the wetland and the storm water pipe has rendered the property largely unbuildable. Neighboring properties immediately east of the subject site were granted development permits by the Corps of Engineers and Department of State lands in 2003, just 2 years prior to approval of the protections from which the applicant seeks relief. The requested impact on the wetland is minimal. Less that 5% of the delineated wetlands on the subject lot are proposed by applicant for fill and mitigation. No appreciable degradation of the water storage and delay functions are expected by staff if the requested variance is granted. Staff recommends approval of the wetland setback variance. This application is not a site plan review application. Multi-family developments like the one proposed must go through Type II Site Plan Review. The requested variances will authorize wetland fill and provide relief from certain development standards that will allow more efficient placement of structures on the site. Staff has responded to the proposed variances with recommendations to approve some and to deny some. In doing so, staff is recommending that the applicant be allowed to fill more than the .007 acres shown on the submitted drawings. The recommendation to allow more fill than requested is based on staff review of the proposed structure placement. It is felt that additional space will be required for development to compensate for an expanded utility easement on the subject property that is required to allow for maintenance and potential replacement of the storm water pipe on the subject site. The applicant has requested variances to various dimensional standards. These include a 5-foot reduction in the lo-foot rear yard setback standard; a variance to the utility easement setback; and a variance to the maximum driveway width allowed in the MDR zoning district. Attach men! 1-15 . . The following "Recommended Actions" are proposed by staff for Planning Commission consideration in response to the application: Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be approved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a l-Way Single-family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35-foot maximum for a 2-Way Multifamily Residential driveway. Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the lo-foot rear yard setback standard shall be approved to allow a minimum 5-foot setback from the property line for any rear yard or side yard. Recommended Action #3: The applicant's request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the property. Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan lavout to show a 20-foot wide utility easement over the 36" storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new easement. v. APPEALS SDC Section 5.1-135 (E) states that the Planning Commission's decision is the City's final decision, unless appealed. The decision is effective the day notice is mailed to the applicant, property owner and those persons who submitted written or oral testimony. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council as specified in Section 5.3-100. Any action taken to begin development prior to the expiration of the appeal period is solely at the applicant's risk and expense. The City assumes no liability or expense if the development is ultimately terminated based upon the outcome of the appeal. 16 Attachment 1-16 . . City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Major Variance Required Project Information - (Applicant: complete this section) , , , . Applicant Name: Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia Phone: 541-954-1202 Company: Fax: 541-988-5954 Address: 35643 Camp Creek Rd., Springfield, OR., 97478 Applicant's Rep.: Loran Waldron Phone: 541-672-0393 Company: Land And Water Environmental Services, Inc. Fax: 541-672-7170 Address: 525 SE Main, Roseburg, OR 97470 Property Owner: Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia Phone: 541-954-1202 Company: Fax: 541-988-5954 Address: 35643 Camo Creek Rd., Sprinafield, OR., 97478 . ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: T17SR2WS340033 TTAX LOT NO(S): 503 Property Address: Lot is on east side at the south end of 59th Street, Springfield, OR Size of Property: 0.24 Acres 15<1 Square Feet n Description of 11 you are mllng In this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: Variance for impact to wetland and setbacks to build on lot. Narrative attached. Existing Use: vacant SI natures: Please sl nand rint our name and date in the a ro riate box on the next a e. Required Project Information . (City Intake'Staff: complete this section) ", . ' , , g g p y pp p p g Associated Applications: Case No.: ZON 2-D I 0 - 000 I Application Fee: $(o~lf'l. 00 TOTAL FEES: $ r05/. tt5 Signs: Reviewed by: ~ 10 Technical Fee: $ 3 n. 45 Postage Fee: $ 3gs.OD PROJECT NUMBER: ..vr', ,~,..' ....;;,'...~::' ...J"'_'-7""fl11~''''''''''':'(>'\''''~:l?-.';'l;'-N;~'\\:-t""".;;.,.r.iI'''';. .,,;'":"'..."1o-iok~',r.-ii.j ......O;:..t-:,;., - ;~'~~~..r,~" ..~..~....~....~1..:"7... ....'io:~;..~,~,i~..,,.'-.:.~1..i .'......n -' :'~~......,~,.-'!'loo1 0<.., ,..r,,;. ,:::;;.... , Date Received: Cf-lb-fD Planner: MM 93- 1 - 15 l Date Received: " JUL 2 3 2010 Original Submittal Revised 111108 Molly Markarian Attachment 2-1 J 014 . . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD VICINITY MAP ZON2010-00010 Vacant - south end of 59th Street SITE Map 17-62-34-33 Tax Lot 503 North Date Received: JUL 23 2010 Original submittal Attachment 2-2 . . Pete and Wendy Cobanubia Major Variance Application ~l?ri!1!w.~!\! T~ ~g! #. 503 T17S R2W S34 QQ33 Narrative Pete and W~l1dy Cobanubia purchased lot # 503 (Springfield Tax Map Tl7S R2W S34 QQ33) at the south end of 59th Street with the intention of building affordable multifamily housing, as allowed by the Medium Density Residential Zoning. (Attachment A: Vicinity Map) Unfortunately, building on the lot has been complicated by the combination of the presence of a storm drain and wetland on the lot. A 36" storm drain runs across the northern end of the lot from a point 18' south of the NE comer to a point 40' south of the NW corner. This storm drain and the 10' easement on each side eliminate most ofthe buildable upland (non-wetland) arcaDf the lot. A Locally Significant Wetland (LSW) covers 0.16 acres of the 0.24 acre lot (Attachment B: Development Plan, with Wetland). The presence of the storm drain was unknown at the time the Cobarrubias purchased the property, and a preliminmy review by Development Services Staff had indicated that even with the LSW a duplex could be built with no site plan review. The Cobarrubias have developed a series of plans over the months and sought advice from the Development Services Department on several occasions. Previous plans included a fourplex, and a large triplex. Both plans covered a larger area of the lot, impacting the majority of the wetland. Working with Staff from Development Services, the plans have been revised and modified in an effort to minimize the impact to the wetland. This final plan impacts only 0.008 acres of wetland. The plan includes a smaller two story duplex and a two story single family house. The duplex has been aligned with the storm drain easement at an angle on the lot to help reduce the wetland impact. The single house is aligned with the property boundary and set back just 5 feet from the line to minimize encroachment into the 20 foot storm drain easement. The positioning of the structures in this plan is the result of many compromises undertake!). to minimize wetland impacts and balance encroachments into the easements and setbacks established by the City. Landscaping will include native plants and restoration <if wetland species which are now sparse on the lot. This plan represents the minirrium level of development that would be cost effective for the Cobarrubias to pursue on this lot. (Attachment C: Site Plan) Lot #503 is the last lot on the east side ofS. 59th Street where it dead ends at the foot of the hill, and is 0.24 acres in size. South 59th Street is only two blocks long in this location, running south from Main Street. The only cross street between Main and the end of S. 59th is Aster. There are two somewhat older single. family homes on S. 59th, and all the other residences are multi family dwellings. Most of the new construction on the street has been two story fourplexes and duplexes. Where S. 59th meets Main Street there are businesses with parking lots including Real Estate and Doctor's offices. The Cobarrubias hope to build residences that are aesthetically pleaSing and that fit the character of the neighborhood; residences that will attract people to rent long term, whom will appreciate the quiet within the city uniquely provided by an end of the Attachment 2-3 , . . . Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia Major Variance Application Page 2 street residence, and the beauty of the preserved wetland on the southern half of the lot. (Attachments D&E: Aerial Photographs, with approximate lot lines added) Accomplishing this level of development will require a Development Setback Area Varianc.e for the side and rear yard and storm drain easement, as well as a Major Variance to allow minor impacts to a LocaJly Significant Wetland. A Development Setback Area Variance is allowed for in the Springfield Development Code, Section 4.3-177 (J)(2) in the case ofloss of use of the property, as follows: a. If the application ofthe standards of this Section renders the property unbuildable, a variance is allowed. The LSW requires a 25 foot buffer. The storm drain requires a 20 foot easement, 10 feet on each side. The back yard and side yard require 10 foot . setbacks. The front yard setback for garages is 18 feet measured along the driveway to the edge of the sidewalk or the back of the curb. Applying these standards results in an unencumbered portion of the lot that is a polygon approximately 16 feet by 40 feet by 5 feet. b. The Cobarrubias have exhausted all other options available under mapping errors and setback averaging. The Oregon Department of State Lands determined that the Local Wetland Inventory mapping was correct as weJl as the classification of the wetlands on this parcel as part of a larger LSW that extends off of the property to both the east and west. DSL concurred with the wetland delineation that was submitted by Land And Water Environmental Services and agreed with the placement of the wetland boundary as shown on the wetland delineation map (Attachment F: Concurrence to Wetland Delineation) c. Although a very smaJl portion of the wetland will be filled, there will be no adverse impacts on water quality, erosion or slope stability. Construction will take place in the dry season and Best Management Practices for erosion and sediment control will be in place. The parcel is flat so slope stability is not an issue. The 0.008 ac~es of wetland impacts will be mitigated for by the purchase of credits in a wetland mitigation bank. d. The loss of native vegetative cover will be minimized by developing ihe north portion of the lot. This portion of the lot has more non-native invasive weeds than the southern portion. Any exposed disturbed ground after construction will be seeded with native vegetation. Attachment 2-4 , . . . Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia Major Variance Application Page 3 A Major Variance is allowed for in the Springfield Development Code, Section 5.21-130 and may be approved if certain criteria are satisfied, as follows: A. An unusual condition exists on this lot such that if a Major Variance is not approved this lot will not be buildable. That would deprive the Cobarrubias of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners similarly situated in the same zoning district. Approving the Variance and allowing construction to take place will only impact a very small portion of the LSW, B. Approval of this Variance would not be inconsistent with the development standards of the Springfield Development Code. It would allow development of this lot to the standards generally applied to other lots in the neighborhood. C. The Variance will have no significant adverse affects on other properties in the vicinity. Placing a small amount of fill in the wetland will not significantly alter the winter surface flows and standing water issues that currently exist. During the September 3rd planning meeting with the Development Services Department, Clayton McEachern, City Civil Engineer, discussed winter time standing water on 59th Street. He explained that it was due to the storm drain not handling the water flow when there was no push and that the drain needs to be corrected. He explained that the fill needed for this proj ect would not worsen the problem, but that flooding of the street would be a problem until the drain is corrected. He also determined that a Geotechnical Engineer would need to be consulted for this project, an elevated pad constructed, and vapor barriers to prevent mold and mildew would need to be included in the construction design. D. The unusual condition described in A did not arise from a previous code violation or as loss of profit orfinancial need. E. The Variance being requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the unusual condition and allow the Cobarrubias to develop .this lot. Previous site plans have been developed that would have resulted in a Variance request for greater impacts, but the Development Services Staff recommended that those' impacts be reduced. Of the two issues that complicate building on the 75' x 140' lot (a storm drain running across the northern half of the parcel, and the southern portion being listed as LSW by the City) a variance .to the LSWis the constraint which can be mitigated for. There are 0.16 acres of wetland on the lot. The main hydrological function of this wetland is water storage and delay. The plan the Cobarrubias are proposing would impact 5% (0.008 acres) of the lot's wetland. The impact would be to the northern most part of the wetland where very little of the water storage and delay occurs. This portion ofthe wetland provides the least capacity for wetland function and value, Attachment 2-5 ------ -e--- -- --e- Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia Major Variance Application Page 4 has the most disturbed vegetation, including weedy non-natives and is farthest from the Oregon ash wooded wetland area, which extends off site to the south and west. The southern portion of the lot, nearest the hill, where the majority of the water storage and delay occurs, will not be disturbed. The Oregon Department of State Lands has concurred with a delineation of the lot, which identifies the boundaries of the wetland and characterizes the wetland on site as "Palustrine Emergent, Seasonally Flooded/Saturated (PEME), Slope/Flats wetland with a wet meadow vegetation community," This wetland type eKtends off-site to the east and west. PEME is a common Willamette Valley wetland type. The site's Locally Significant status was applied by grouping the site with the Palustrine Forested (PFO) wetlands located at the base of the hill at the south end of the lot. PFO is a less typical wetland type than PEME wetland in the Willamette Valley, especially in urban settings. The PFO extends off site in a band running east/west at the base of the wooded hills south of the residential area. No PFO wetland would be affected by this project, nor would the project cause a break in the overall hydrologic continuity of the wetland. (See Attachment F: Concurrence to Wetland Delineation) The natural pattern of winter surface water flows along the base of the hill to the south, toward the southwest, basically where the ash trees are growing. The building plan would not interfere with those winter surface water flows, or cause standing water on neighboring properties. The main function and value of the wetland on this lot is storm water storage and delay, which would not be degraded by building on the proposed location. Ninety-five per cent of the wetland on site would remain to fulfIll the normal hydrologic functions. If a variance is granted by the City, the owners would apply for a Joint Removal-Fill Permit from the Dept of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which would allow the placement of filJ in the wetland. To mitigate for the fill, the applicants would purchase credit at a Wetland Mitigation Bank that serves the area, or the agencies may request some ofthe mitigation to be improvements to the remaining wetlands at the southern end of the lot. Both the Amazon "Creek Mitigation Bank and the West Eugene Mitigation Bank are in this lot's servi~e area. The Development Plan map (Attachment B) shows the wetland boundaries, the storm drain line, and the proposed dwellings. Impact to the wetland has been minimized to the point at which further reduction would make the lot unusable. The Cobarrubias are seeking a major variance to the setback easements and"the Locally Significant Wetland building restriction to impact 0.008 acres of wetland to build affordable housing for our community. Attachment 2-6 . . . . ATIACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Development Plan, with Wetland C. Site Plan D. Aerial Photo, with approximate lot lines added E. Aerial Photo, with approximate lot lines added F. Concurrence to Wetland Delineation G. Deed H. Preliminary Title Report Attachment 2-7 . '. . . ~ EUGENE & SPRINGFIELD .. &... ROADS & BOUNDARIES BY!lBOl.8& COlOR COOS . 97401 D"", CIIWIID_u, .- -.. -- r" r... DMKtIlGlf\ff..y. 1 ""'...... .... --- .... \) ~ 1ItCCIHI'~..u:cue caJT4l UHOMDIDIIGtf\If..., t ........ .A'.t=. .~ - _IAlITlIIUL . ~OfIKTIIIQ' HIOHWAYS - .....~ VINl1lIlln..l1 ;.,..""\,..-..; . IlMO"INCICINTU alINn,llIIIlOlI..... ,. J'" @n"n: (r J'W'...,..... 1 <-+-+ ....... J 0 1/2 ..- . Cl'TTICMlDAJl' G +- ...... toL\.lOW--'Y r., - JlPOOlII--.uI' MCMXCY COPYAIOHl ~ ) + .-n~ Thf s.ger lUp C4l.. Inc. \...) n._ 401 Me'" b.., "lclne.WllconllnI53' _n~ '" 1Ul11lOllf1 {-414} 63:2.2021 ........... IlTMlTlMlCl10tl -'" T....,L~ . , . ", '. .;,.: . . _..._. . - . .... 1..._. A~~~~~~~ A "'. ----..t .',\\ ~'C:"'I ( . \\ ft:tfachment 2-fF"-' . 5 ..' . . . <r: u SCALE: I" 20' 1; = ...- '.. CO 0,- 1;'~ ~ i;;i~ Ul ~ ~ 0 ::> q <r: ~4 1dJ CO ~l[ I" aa::i 0 w- I B.T.S. w' U z <5 Ul 24.00' r,I.:l z co w :i! Cl E-< Cf1 0 III ;2 q ,;,: r,I.:l ~ ::il p... 16.00' tLl ~ '" ~ '" -l 0 U) Z<r: r,I.:l ~~ E-< ...- U) UQ 5.00' 0 3~ Z ...- O......:l Q .... .... .... d 25E-< -v -v .... .... .... :=> g~ .... .... -v -v .... .... ....~ CO S~ -v .... -v -v -v .... .... ~co Ul co t ..... :i! .... .... '" .... .... .... .... != tLl ..... III '" .... .... .... -v .... .... ~ tLl 0 tLl ::il ;2 ....~ '" :z: .... .... \\tILANDs .... -v 0.. <n '" '" AR~ = ~15 AC~ES DATE: JUNE 15,2010 -l -v -v -v -v REV #1: JUNE 28. 2010 '" '" '" '" '" .... '" REV #2: . REV #3: - i" '" .... '" '" .... '" '" REV #4: - ~ REV # :. '" .... '" .... .... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" -v .... .... '" .... '" '" '" i"'" '" '" -v '" '" '" 71. L. .... '" "'. ~ '" .... '" '" .... .... '" EXPIUOO:H)'\Tf.: l2/jVlO PI: ..I, pet, ,I, Pl. PROJ. #: 10-039 SHEET NO: 1 OF 2 DEVELOPMHllffiMeAt-2WITH WETLAND ATTACHMENT B ! . SCALE: ," = 20' .."'. . :-; ". .... 10.- 1d 1d~ P .'" oi:':,,: ''..:-.-:. ',:..!.= "t6 X24 SINGLE;.::X).;~':;;? ~ :'. '/-r':,y~.);:: DWELLING ....... .,. , ~ i;1~j;~tJ;;;;:~~;i:LiA;;;~~fflJ < . :, ~.,-!, ......'..C.O.~\cll,l;,-."(.... .:..".: ,., " ~..: ,.~..... ....: !. ",'.',' ;~:. 1)~"'-rr-:\tJ.,.... ,-;'. .~. .; ," ..: ", .:', ,", ' ~ . 0 ". ~.:.:.... .....:......Q~\~F:'.:...;..::: .;.~...'..: ',~'. 'e.--," .., ,0. It ~JN~:l/~~:f}H;{\.:~.e;:':":':_':' ..... :?rE>1i, \~j:}::L~~.: :~~. ;l! (J1 to :i! Vl :il ;l! m m. ..... ;l! L~ PI. It ,~ Attac~~~~T C . -<t:: I--< t:O ~ -<t:: t:O B.T.S. 0 U ~ E-< '" ~ "-' P-< ~ 0 It ~ E-< I--< CI) o Z I--< Q d ;:::> t:O It It tj "-' a '" "- U 6 oJII~ z;~ >=!- "'I 'I! ~ ~ :oJ ~2~ ,,>. z:J~ O!=i ",- "'; Z 6 z "' rJ1 ~ ~ ~@ O~ r.z..~ ~O ~0'?3 U;>-< -<t:~ ....... ~~ ~~ .;;>~ ~ i:i2 d t;;o6i ~ CI) '" DATE: JUNE 15.2010 REV #1: JUNE 28, 2010 REV #2: - REV #3: - REV #4: - REV #5: . It I EXPIUTIo:tD.UE: IVll/tO PROJ. #: 10.039 SHEET NO: 2 OF. 2 . . . .......... Attachment 2-12 ATTACHMENT E . ~ f'\'e)\S 4" - ~~O 0, , " Ii' ;' il S 58th SI :I: > !a . . . . ...-.~~ i -'.'~.:.C'i . . ...-.... . U'I ......:...... ...:~./ Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Department of State Lands 775 Sununer Street NE, Suite 100 Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 986-5200 FAX (503) 378-4844 www.oregonstalelands.us. April 24, 2009 Stale Land Board Pete and Wendy Cobarrubia 35643 Camp Creek Road Springfield, OR 97478 Theodore R. KuJongoski' Governor Kate Bl'Own Secretary of Stale Re: Wetland Delineation Report for multi family housing proposed at South 59th Street and Aster Street, Springfield, lane County; T 175 R 2W S 33 and S 34 TL 503; WD #09-0087 Ben Westlwld , Stale Treasw-er Dear Mr. and Mf;;~ Cobarrubia: The Department of State lands has reviewed the wetland delineation report prepared by land and Water Environmental Services, Inc. for the site referenced above. Based upon the information presented in the report, we concur with the wetland boundaries as mapped in Figure 6 of the report. Within the study area, one wetland (totaling approximately 0.16 acres) was identified. The wetland is subject to the permit requirements of the state Removal-Fill Law. A state permit is required for cumulative fill or annual excavation of 50 cubic yards or more in the wetland. This concurrence is for purposes of the state Removal-Fill Law only. Federal or local permit requirements may apply as well. The I\nny Corps of Engineers will review the report and make 'a determination of jurisdiction for purposes of the Clean Water Act at the time that a permit application is submitted. We recommend that you attach a copy of this concUrrence letter to both caples of any subsequent joint permit application to speed application review. Please be advised that state law establishes a, preference for avoidance of wetland impacts. Because measures to avoid'and minimize wetland impaclsmay include reconfiguring parcel layout and size or development design, we recommend that you .work with Department staff on appropriate site design before completing the city or county land use approval process. This concurrence is based on information provided to the agency: The jurisdictional determination is valid for five years from the date of this letter, unless new information necessitates a revision. Circumstances under which the Department may change a determination and procedures for renewal of an expired determination are found in OAR 141-090-0045 (available on our web site or upon request). The applicant, landowner, or agent may submit a request for reconsideration of this determination in writing within 60 calendar days of the date of this letter. CONCUR~i;:tltE T~Iil~ ~E~NEATION ATTACHMENT F @ . . ..' . . Thank you for having the site evaluated. Please phone me at 503-986-5321 if you have any questions. Sincerely, =~ Wetland Specialist Approved by _ ~{ Jane C. Morlan, PWS Wetla ds Program Manager Enclosures ec: Janet Levinson, Land and Water Environmental Services, Inc. City of Springfield Planning Department City of Springfield Public Works Department Benny Dean, Corps of Engineers Gloria Kiryuta, DSL Attachment 2-14 I :41- . tt WETT,AND DELINEATION MAP T 17 S, R 2 W, SECTION 21, QQ 33, TAX LOT #503 SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY, OREGON . . DSL WD # 61- OO~ 1- Approvallssued 01{ ~ 2.'1- Dj Approval EJ[plres 01.\ ~ ~q ~ l!t- N \ 1 \ I I 1 BI 0: t;;1 ~I ~\ 1 I 1 I 1 I STUDY MfA eOUNDMY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL H:>- It 9- PLOT "5 '" l '" P 14 PLOT "2 IP- PLO " ~ 0 CATCH BASIN U "I Z & IP- ~ r/ /" /" /" /" /" /" 1-.zd..LLLLLf/ /" /" /" /" /" /" // /" /" /" ~ o IS 30 60 NOTES_ STUDY AREA = 10.354 san. = 0,24 ACRES. \.InLANDS AREA = 6,768 sa.rT. = 0.16 ACRES SCALE 1'=30' LEGEND: '" ~ DATA PLOT LOCATION wilD 8 Il>- - PHOTO , - PHOTOGRAPH (2LZ! = WETVNO DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL FIUlEO TO 4' HIGH STORM (DRAIN ------~ 9 EXCAV},Tm om:H ~STORM WATER MANHOLE WETlANDS CONTINUE OFFSITE ~sruOY ARfA 8DUNOMY \.IETLAND BOUNDARY AND PLOT LOCATIONS MAPPED BY P.L.S. \.IETLAND BOUNDARY HARKED BY LAND AND \.lATER ENVIRoNHENTAL SERVICES. INC. KIWsn AND ASSOCIATES 607 H1('( 99 NORTH EUGENE. OR 97402 PH (541) 6B6-9211 FAX (541) 484-9631 ~iIf'ilffi~T--'15 UND AND VATER ENYJIlONJ/ENTAL SERVICES, INC. 525 S.E. MAIN ROSE8URG. OR 97470 PH (541) 672-0393 fAX (541) 672-7170. officl!Olondondwaler.biz . . ..... . . August 16th, 2010 Re: Case 1# ZON201O-00010 As a property owner on S. Sgth St. just north of the subject property, I simply want to express that any decision whether to allow development and building on the subject parcel should take into account that . this property is obvious wetlands. Much of the year it has standing water on it and the ground becomes so saturated at cer;tain times of year that there is water visible in the storm drain nearly up to street level in front of the property. Substantial mitigation should be required in order to make sure that the water is not simply displaced to the adjacent properties in the area causing issues where none currently exist. It seems apparent that the property was purchased with full knowledge that the wetlands existed. <2 ~-e-_;- RECEIVED AUG 1 8 ZOlO By: .,.""., ..;..,.1.' .j'lf.:.' .,.:.'....".'1...:.. Date Received: Planner: MM 1- ~-ID "" Attachment 3-1 I . -' . . BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD MAJOR VARIANCE WETLAND HARDSHIP CASE NUMBER: ZONZ01D-00010 FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER NATURE OF THE APPLICATION The application is for a Major Variance to reduce the hardship created by the protection of an inventoried wetland and the placement of a city stormwater pipe on vacant property located south of Aster Street on S. 59th. The property is identified on the Lane County Assessor's Map as 17-02-34-33, Tax Lot 503. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the rear yard setback for structures and to the utility easement setback protecting a 36"storm sewer pipe that cuts across the property. CONCLUSION The application was presented for approval under Sections 4.3-117 and 5.21-130 ofthe Springfield Development Code (SDC) which describe the criteria to be used in approving the proposed variances. On the basis of this record, the primary variance for partial relief from wetland protection standards is found by staff to be consistent with the criteria of approval found in SDC Section 5.21-130 and additional criteria specific to the wetland variance found in Section 4.3-117 (J) (2) and is recommended to the Planning Commission for aaaroval. Staff made recommendations concerning additional variances that were requested: 1) A 5-foot variance to the lD-foot rear-yard setback is recommended for aaaroval: 2) the proposed encroachment on the utility easement protecting a storm water pipe is not recommended for aaaroval: and 3) a variance to the maximum driveway width allowed in the MDR zoning district is not recommended for aaaroval. These general findings are supported by specific findings of fact and conclusions found in the Staff Report and Recommendations that is attached hereto. DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION On September 8, 2010, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to accept testimony and to hear comments on this proposal. The Planning Commission is now ready to take action on this proposal based upon the above recommendation and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing held in the matter of the proposed variances to the Springfield Development Code. The following "Recommended Actions" are proposed by staff for Planning Commission consideration in response to the application: Recommended Action #1: The variance to the maximum driveway width shall not be aaaroved. The applicant should revise the site layout to show two separate driveways along the frontage to divide the driveway into separate entrances for the single family dwelling and the duplex. The driveway for the single family unit shall not exceed the 16 foot maximum for a l-Way Single-family driveway. The driveway for the duplex unit shall not exceed the 35-foot maximum for a 2-Way Multifamily Residential driveway. It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #1, Case Number ZON201D-0001O (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no action be taken at this time). 0 . tf -1- m ate Received: IV Planner: MM (,- 2/ Attachment 4-1 . . .... . . Recommended Action #2: The requested variance to the lD-foot rear yard setback standard shall be approved to allow a minimum $-foot setback from the property line for any rear yard or side yard. It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #2, Case Number ZON201O-0001O (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no action be taken at this time). Recommended Action #3: The applicant's request to impact approximately .007 wetland acres shall be approved. By reason of the discussion found in Findings #23 through #26, it is further recommended that up to a total of 1000 square feet (.023 acres) of wetland be allowed for development, as needed, to provide additional flexibility in the layout of development on the property. It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #3, Case Number ZON20lD-0001O (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no action be taken at this time). Recommended Action #4: The applicant shall revise the site plan lavout to show a 2D-foot wide utilitv easement over the 36" storm pipe. A revised easement document should be prepared and recorded. The revised layout of the dwelling units shall not encroach on the new easement. It is the DECISION of the Planning Commission of Springfield that Recommended Action #4, Case Number ZON2010-00010 (be approved) (be approved with revisions or conditions) (be denied) (no action be taken at this time). THESE DECISIONS were presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on September 8, 2010. ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Attachment 4-2