Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 680 - Hutsell Non-conformingJJ (c.~ {~ ~. t it PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 680 A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL, FORA "TYPE A NONCONFORMING USE CLASSIFICATION" FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH PRE- EXISTING COVERED OFF-STREET LIMITATIONS {Applicant (s) : HutselI} (37 2W l OAC Tax Lot 7$00) Recitals 1. Applicant resides in a single family residential structure where a single car garage mot the minimum off street parking requirement at time of construction. Present code requires that off street covered parking be upgraded to present standard when. building is enlarged. Applicant has requested to have the existing home reclassified to a Type "A" nonconforming use as a remedy far the 0.22 acre parcel located on praperiy identif ed by Jackson County as Account 10144785 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. The reclassif cation will allow the single family residential structure to be expanded with the present conditions since the findings of record demonstrate that present site conditions are inadequate to accommodate additional offstreet covered parking. 2. On, November 1, 2005, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted aduly-noticed public hearing on fihe application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Cade apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.64, Off Street Parking and Loading B. Chapter 17.56, Nonconforming Uses Section 2. Finding and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference alI f ndings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.54, relating to parking requirements when structures are enlarged, required number of off street parking spaces. Planning Commission Resolution Na. b80 (1 ll1/2005) B. Chapter 17.56, relating to the criteria for which a reclassification to a Class "A" nonconforming use may be granted. Section 3. Conditional A roval. The applications for site plan and conditional use permit herein is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A" attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 17.56. Passed by the Planning Carnmission and signed by rrte in authentication of its passage this 6th day of December, 2005. .~ ~ '' ~ ~h Planning Co issio Ch ATTEST: fir' ' ~-d~/6~~1~' City Representative Approved by me this 6ch day of December, 2005. /' G ~ Planning Commissia C Planning Commission Resolution No. 680 (111112005) Planning Department ~.~-- --.~,_._ p~ //~~ ii --- ... .. ......... -- STAFF REPORT ENT[1I"'1~L_..~__-_..__.__._-- -_._.~___._..------'fomHumphrey,AICR ~7~ ~ ~'"~" Community Development Directorl Assistant City Administrator STATT REPORT November 1, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a request for a variance from the two car cover off street parking, or in lieu thereof classification as a Class "A" Nonconforming structure located in the Residential (R-1) Zoning District on Property Identified as Tax Lot 37 2W lOAC, 7$00, X13 South Central Valley Drive; lay and Stephanie HutselI, Applicants. STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner BACKGROUND: The applicants' have submitted a building permit application to the City for a master bedroom addition to their home. The house presently has a one car garage and the applicants' are requesting to vary from the two-car covered off street parking requirement, and as such is classified as anon-conforming structure. In addressing the variance request there are two possible solutions. The first is to consider a variance to the minimum off-street parking requirement of two spaces. As a variance the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Section 17.$0.410{D). The variance criteria is very restrictive and not often authorized. The second option is to define the structure as a Class "A" nonconforming structure. In accordance with Section 17.56.010 Nonconforming Uses Currently, the property, as anon-conforming structure, is by default a Class "B" nonconforming structure. Under the Class "B" regulations any enlargement of the structure requires elimination of the nonconforming use/structure. However, as a Class "A" Nonconforming Structure expansion is permitted "...provided such improvement are in accordance with all applicable codes in effect at the time of the improvements". The proposed addition complies with all coverage, height, and setback requirements of the current code. Per Section 17.56.040 the Planning Commission has the authority to designate a nonconforming use/structure as a Class "A" subject to compliance with the following criteria: 1. Continuance of the existing use or structure would not be contrary to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the spirit of this title; 2. The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming property is not likely to depress the values of adjacent or nearby properties, nor adversely affect their development potential in conformance with present zoning; ~~~ 3. The use or structure was lawful at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be served by strict application of tlae provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not conform; 4. The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures and, considering current growth and development trends, is not reasonably expected to come under development pressures during the next five years; 5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied and used for the purpose for which it was designed; 6. Continuance of this nonconforming use will not in any way delay or obstruct the development or establishment of conforming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properties in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. FINDINGS: __- The applicant's findings of fact (Exhibit "A") are for a variance from the two-car off-street requirement and address the approval criteria as set forth in Section 17.$0.010(D) which state that "a variance may be granted...where the strict application of the provisions of this title would result in unnecessary hardship". As a supplement to the findings staff has included by reference, additional applicant correspondence Exhibits "B", "C" and "D". Of the five criteria that must be met in order to grant a variance the applicant's finding's do not make a compelling argument for approval on two accounts as follows:: 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City, such as beautif cation or safety. Finding: The applicant's findings address economic advantages, not beautification, or safety. The addition will be to the rear of the property and not noticeable to the general public. 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. Finding: Many o_f'the homes in the general neighborhaod are limited to single-car garages. The applicant's situation is not unique. For these reasons the variance should not be approved. However, it can be found that the property complies with the Class "A" Nonconforming criteria as follows: 1. Continuance of the existing use or structure would not be contrary to the public health, safety or welfare, or to the spirit of this title; Finding: Continuance of the structure, and expansion of the structure, would be for purposes of use as a single family detached residence consistent with the purpose of the underlying R-I zoning district. T{ie addition of a master bedroom will not adversely impact the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood, nor otherwise -- S - adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the intent of the R-1 zoning district. 2. The continued maintenance and use of the nonconforming property is not likely to depress the values of adjacent or nearby properties, nor adversely affect their development potential in conformance with present zoning; Finding: The expansion of the structure will not depress property values, or otherwise adversely affect the development potential of properties within tl:e general neighborhood. The subject structure, when expanded, will comply with all set back, coverage, and height requirements of the R-1 district. 3. The use or structure was lawful at the time of its inception and no useful purpose would be sowed by strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not conform; Finding: The proposed structure, with asingle-car garage, was initially constructed in accordance with all applicable zoning requirements. Prohibition of the proposed expansion would serve no useful purpose other than to restrict the size of the residence, and subsequent livability. As previously noted the proposed expansion will comply with all applicable setback, coverage, and height requirements directly applicable to the addition. The property's ability to accommodate atwo-car garage is ,because of the current location of the residence and floor plan, void. 4. The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses or structures and, considering current growth and development trends, is not reasonably expected to come under development pressures during the next five years; Finding: The property is within a neighborhood that of homes constructed in the same period and containing only aone-car garage. It is unlikely that within the next five years the general neighborhood will experience development pressures that will significantly alter the current character of the neighborhood. 5. The property is structurally sound, well-maintained, and occupied and used for the purpose for which it was designed; Finding: As illustrated in Attachment "C"the existing residence is structurally sound and in good maintenance, occupied and used as a single family dwelling consistent with the underlying R-1 zoning district. 6. Continuance of this nonconforn~ing use will not in any way delay or obstruct the development or establishment of conforming uses on the subject property or on any adjacent or nearby properties in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. Finding: designation of the property as a Class "A "Nonconforming Structure will not affect its continued use consistent with the R-1 zoning district, nor that of any adjacent or nearby properties. r~w I . Consideration of Resolution No. ,denying the variance from the two car off street parking requirement; 2. Direct staff to prepare findings for approval of a variance; or 3. Consider Resolution No. ,approving findings as per the Staff Report designating the property as a Glass "A" Nonconforming Structure. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of findings designating the property as a Class "A" nonconforming structure far the Planning Commission's consideration per Resolution No. Umpqua Dairy Tenative Land Partition Variance Page 5 of 5 ~ ... S, ~ENTl~AL VALLEY RD. {~) I7RIIIEWAY ~) CUNC WAL((K~~ """~ ~~tflf=WALK1~lL) EL PULE 75.3` __~ ~ x i ~' P ~ - ! ~~ i t E ~, ~ aa3 ~. , ~ i E~src sF~z ~ 1 ~ ` ~I ~ ~~ r ~ ~~ E .~-2' ±~....- 3~' ~ -~ - z ~~ f 4 ~ ~t- ~~ I PROPOSED 825 SQ.FT. ~-~~ ~ BEDROOMS & ' MASTER BATH ADDITION ~ s~TE P~.AN 37 2W 1 OAG Hc~~t'N TAX LOT TS00 ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ Si;DRObMS~AiJ[~'i`IUN owt~ER MR. & MRS JAY F~UTSi*L!. ~i 3 S. Centrat Vagey CentraE Point, t3R 97502 r~iva~~N~s = ;~'~~ ~` 1. 'The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification or safety; I. The variance will allow us to enhance the value of our home and therefore the neighborhood. It will even benefit the city through increased property tapes. The pro,~ect as a whale will increase the beauty of our property and therefore the neighborhood. 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse iEnpacts upon the neighborhood; Z. The variance will not have any known adverse impact on the neighborhood once completed and the addition will be almost or completely invisible from. the front. If the house had a two car garage right now we would be able to build our addition outright. 3. 'The variance will utilize praperty within the intent and purpose of the zone district; ' 3. The variance will continue to utilize the property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. The intent and purpose of the property will not change at all. 4. Circumstances affect the praperty that generally do riot apply to other praperty in the same zoning district; 4. Because the home was already built with a single car garage, and there is no room on eiither side to widen it, circumstances prevent us from remedying this problem. 5. The conditions far which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, 5. 'lie conditions for which the variance is requested were not self unposed by my actions, nor the actions of my agents, employees or family n~en~bers. T`he garage was built at a time when it was ail that was required. This was never .a situation where a portion of the garage was "converted" to a living space, ~. ~~-- /~-T~f1-cF~Y~I~~l`~ ~ ~~ `~ P~.OJ7~C7~ I)I~SCI~PTIOhT ~~I~~ II I I IIII III III I II~I~^ 'We would like to add on three bedrooms and a bath so each of my kids can have there own room, and to prepare for six people getting ready for work or school every mornzng. Our house was built in 1969 with a single car garage. There is not enough room to add a garage on either side. We love the neighborhood and have great neighbors and would like to continue raising our kids here. Our addition will not increase our need for garage space and, in fact, as part of our pro,~ect we intend to add another off street parking spot between our driveway and the fence. We also plan to raise the value and appearance of our home to one of the best in the neighborhood which will benefit the neighborhood and Central Point. Thank You for your consideration, The Hutsells ~ ~-- 11 ffG~v1~ EN f ~ l S. CENTRAL VALLEY RD. (E} DRIVEWAY E} CQNC WALK ~~ID~WAI..K~--(E) ~t PQLE 75.3` ~" c ~ v~ ~ ~~ ~~ , ~ a ~,. y I `C ! ~ -~v,~j~ ~ y LL ~ ,i.... E ~~ I ~2 ~ ~'------- r 3 '*- t _~ _.._~ uv,+ri y ~_~~~~ ~~ i 2 ~tti i 1 fy i y 4 r- 1~ SLTE PLAN NoEZ~~ 37 2W 'I OAG TAX LOT 78Q0 I ~--- PROPOSED 825 SQ.FT. BEDROOMS & ' fVIASTER BAT#~ ADDITION ~~ g~ o ~ BEgRpOMS`AF3[317lON owN~~z MR. & MR5 JAY HIT~Si=Li. 413 5. Ce~trai Vagey Cenh-a! Point, OR 97507 G~R[~7~ aE,~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM THE TWO CAR OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (Applicant (s} : Hutsell} (37 2W 10AC Tax Lot 7800} Recitats 1. Applicant has submitted applications for variance from the two car covered off street parking requirement on a 0.22 acre parcel located on property identified by Jackson County as Account 10144785 in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, November, 2005, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria A licable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Paint Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.64, Off Street Parking and Loading B. Chapter 17.80.010, Variances Section 2. Findin and Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in the City staff reports, and concludes that the application and proposal fail to comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.64, relating to parking requirements when structures are enlarged, required number of off street parking spaces. B. Chapter 17.80, relating to the criteria for which a variance may be granted. Planning Commission Resolution No. (11/1 /2005} 1t/ -~ Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ~ day of November, 2005. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of November, 2005. Planning Commission Chair Flanning Commission Resolution No. {i 1~I~2o05) _~c_