Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 678 - Hutsell Variance!^ :.I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (~°7~ A RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FROM Tl-iE TWO CAR OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE {Applicant {s) : Hutsell) {37 2W l OAC Tax Lot 7800) Recitals 1. Applicant has submitted applications far 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 aduly-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 Applicable. to De_ci_sion. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.64, Off-Street Parking and Loading B. Chapter 17.80.010, Variances Section 2. Finding„and Conelusipns. The Planning Cormission 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. ~ ``/ ~ (111112005) Passed by the Planning Commission and siXCd by nor: i11 au:llenti~tlii~~n {r>1 its passa~;c this ~ ~ day of November, 2005.. Pl<'lllllllll? ~(11111111~~1C1:i l,~,Yi;,il' ,/ A~~T; '"-^«. 1~ ~" ._,~ ~i City l~cpl~~s~~~nia~it~ Approved by me this ~ ~ day ofNc~vember, 2005, 1'lannrn}; ~..Omi2! . i~}U.l,l ~._.i~4 i Planning. Commission resolution No. _ s ~~ (11l1f2005) Planning Department STAFF REPC)RT Tom Humphrey,AlCP, Community Development Direttod Assistant City Administrator sTArr R~ro~T November 1, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a request for a variance from the two car cover off-street parking, or ire lieu thereof classification as a Class "A" Nonconforming structure located in the Residential {R-1}Zoning District on Property Identified as Tax Lot 37 ZW l OAC, 7800, 413 South Central Valley Drive; Jay and Stephanie Hutsell, Applicants. STAFF SOURCE: Ken Gersehler, 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.$0.010{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 content 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 the provisions ar requirements of this chapter with which the use or structure does not conform; 4. The property is not predominantly surrounded by conforming uses ar structures and, considering current growth and development treads, 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 far 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 17.80.410{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 f ve 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:: i . The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City, such as beautification or safety. Finding: The applicant's findings address economic advantages, not beautif cation, 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 of the homes in the general neighborhood 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 t~se as a single family detached residence consistent with the purpose of the underlying R-~ zoning district. The addition of a master bedroom will not adversely impact the surrounding residential character of the neighborhood, nor otherwise c_ adversely affect the public laealth, safety or welfare or the intent of tl~e 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 ofproperties within the 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 served by strict application of the provisions or requirements of this chapter with which the use ar 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. ~k. 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 cone-car garage. It is unlikely that within the next f ve 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-xrraintained, 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 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. 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 ~ +.~ ISSUES: In considering an approval of this variance application or a reclassification of a Type "B" nonconforming structure to a Type "A" nonconforming structure, the Planning Department identifies four basic issues as follows: 1. Is the single car garage truly apre-existing situation or is it the result of a conversion to ono#her use? According to the records of Jackson County and the Central Point Building .Department, the house was originally constructed in 19'0. Many of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood were constructed during the same period with a single car garage and there is no indication that there has been a conversion. 2. Can the site accommodate the construction of additional covered or uncovered off street parking facilities? There is only a six foot side yard distance between the house and the adjoining property lines and based upon these distances, there is not adequate area to construct additional covered parking. While there is the possibility that the present garage could be extended toward the rear lot line to create tandem parking, this may not necessarily be the best solution as the applicants have indicated that they are financially constrained with the needs ofsix children. There is room to provide additional uncovered parking by widening the existing driveway and the applicants are willing to proceed with this option. 3. if the variance is not approved, could the applicant construct the addition to the home? If the variance is not approved, the applicants would not be able to construct the addition. 4. This structure, with its single car garage, could be classified as a Type "B" nonconforming structure since it is apre-existing condition. The code recognizes that there maybe situations where nonconforming structures and uses may be perrnitted to expand without any detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and when so determined by the Planning Con:rmission maybe defined as Class "A" Nonconforming Uses/Structures. The Planning Commission, per Section 17.56.040(B), may initiate a change from Class "B" to Class ".rl "Nonconforming and take action on such an initiation as a non public hearing item. Staff has provided the necessary findings if the Planning Commission elects to consider designation of the property as a Class "fi "Nonconforming Structure. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A" -Applicants' Findings Exhibit "B" -Applicants' Project Description Exhibit "C" -Applicants' Photographs Exhibit "D" -Applicants' Site Plan Exhibit "E" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: The Commission may proceed with either of the following options; ~~ 1. Consideration of Resolution No. ,denying the variance from the two car off-street parkin requiremetrt; 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 Class "A" Nonconforming Structure. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of findings designating the property as a Class "A" nonconforming structure for the Planning Commission's consideration per Resolution No. Umpqua Dairy Tenative Land Partition Variance Page 5 of 5 ,rt S. CENTRAL VALLEY RD. (I=} pRIVEWAY ) C©NC WALK "~ ~r-51DEWALK,~(El ~L P~tE..E 75.x' t I ~~" 1 ~ ~ D ~( ~~3 ~ , { ~Sr~ si ~~ ~~ ~ L .._ ~ ~ ~0 ~~ LAWN ~ I ~~~`~ i~ ~ t I~ ~ i+ f #~ ~~ PROposE~ s2~ sQ.~r. ~ MASTER ATM ~, ~ ADpITI~N I ~ ~ OWNER : -- - PROPOSiwp : MR. & MRS JAY HUt'SEL.E_ ~ ~ ~ BEDROOMS ADDfT1ON 493 S. Genital VaAey Gents{ Paint, bR 97502 r~,r ~(~ Gi n~A~ k'ir~ Q SATE ALAN 37 2W 1 QAC ~0~~ TAX LOT ?800 FINDINGS ~x1-,;b~~ z~ i. The variance will provide added advantages to the neigh~orhoad or the city, such as beautification or safety; ~.. 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 taxes, The project as a whole will increase the beauty of our property and therefore the neighborhoad, 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; ~. The variance will not have any IZnawn 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 property 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, T`he intent and purpose of the property will not change at ali, 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; 4. ~3ecause the home vas already built with a single car garage, and there is no room on either side to widen it, circumstances prevent us from remedying this problem. 5, The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-unposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, 5. 'I`he conditions for which the variance is requested were not self imposed by my actions, nor the actions of my agents, employees or family u~enxbers. The garage was built at a ti~.e when it was all that was required, This was zievcr a situation where a portion of the garage vas "converted" to a living space, ~. „~~ ~-T7-f~.c~t~i~~(~ ~ ~.~ " PROJECT DESCRIPTION 'V'Ve would like to add on three bedrooms and a bath so each of my kids can have there own room, and to prepare for sig people getting ready for work or school every morning. Uur house was built in 19G9 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. Qur addition will not increase our need for garage space and, in fact, as part of our project 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 I3utsells .._ S, CENTRAL VALLEY RD. (E) DRIVEWAY CONC WALK IDEWALK~~ EL POLE 75.3' ~ - t ~ u~wra ~ u~ ' ~ v- f~ E~ 4 ~ fl3 ~ , ~ ~ EXISTG SFR ~ i ~ ___ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g r~ ~ ~ ~ `-- PROPOSED 825 SQ.FT. `~ BEbROOMS & ~ MASTER BATH ADDITION i ~. SITE PLAN 37 2V1110AC t1o~'N TAX LOT 78pp ` ~ ~ ` ow~ER _ ~ pRdpOS~D : MR. 8~ MRS JAY HU'i'SEt,I. ~ ~ o BEIaRaUMS ADDlT'i~N 4'I3 S. Centraf VaAey "` Central Point, flf2 975D2 w/?~ 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 14AC Tax Lot 7800) Recitals 1. Applicant has submitted applications for variance from the two ear 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 lT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria A lieable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.64, Off-Street Parking and Loading B. Chapter 17.80.010, Variances Section 2. Finding; 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 ofoff-street parking spaces. B. Chapter 17.80, relating to the criteria for which a variance maybe granted. Planning Commission Resolution No. (11/1/2405} .~ 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 Planning Commission Resolution No. (1 IIU2005)