HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 653 - Marcus Zoning Variance
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~~ 3
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED BUILDING SE'T`BACKS
(Applicant: Richard Marcus)
(37 2W I I BB Tax Lot 1500}
Recitals
1. Applicant(s) has/have submitted application for tentative ten lot land division on a 0.08 acre
parcel located on property identified by Jackson County as Map 372W11BB-1500 in the City of
Central Point, Oregon.
2. On, June 7, 2005, the Central Point Planning Co~n~nission conducted adult'-noticed public
hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heaz-d 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 Code apply to this application:
A. Chapter 17.28, R-3, Residential Multiple Family District
B. Chapter 17.80.010, Variances
C.
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, 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 17.2$, relating to uses, lot size, lot coverage, setback and building height.
B. Chapter 17.80, relating to variance procedures and criteria.
Planning Commission Resolution No. (o$~ {0610712045}
Section ~, Conditional At~~rov~il. '1~hc ,~E~~~lic<iti~ns for tetxtari~.c lan{i ~rt,~ti~it)n l~ci~t°in i
hereby approved, subject to the conditions s~~t ft~rth ~~a~ l;xhibit'"A"~, bcii~~r tl.c c~(~liei~zl s,aCf~3~~h~>rt
attached hereto by rel`erence inco~~porated herein, imposed under auth~t~ ity c~t'C.~MC Cry':l~l~)tGr
16.36.
Passed by the Planning; Commission anal sr<.r7~eci by me in attthcntie.i~it?r1 obits passage
this '7th day of`,Tunc 2005.
__ _
~~~~lllil}X'l~ C(~iXn'' ~,1'~;': (,, Ila1r
ATTEST:
~~._
... ~w,. _m _._
~.
....~~
~_
City cgnt~cnf<:i_i~ r
Approved by me this '7th day of June, 2005.
Plan~x~it~; C~1_~uiilai~s~~;~,ll Chair .
Planning; Commission Resolution No. ~~ ~-~ (06f07/2005}
EXHIBIT "
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant/
Owner:
Pro er
Deseription•
Zoning:
Summary
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: tune 7, 2005
Central Point Planning Commission
Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician
Request far a zoning variance
Richard Marcus
121 South 3`d Street
Central Point, Or. 97502
37 2W 11 BB, Tax Lot 1500
Lot Dimension: 70' x 55' (3,$50 Square Feet}
Maximum aggregate lot coverage in an R-3 zone: 50% (1,925 Square
Feet}
R-3, Residential Multiple Family
!i
The applicant is requesting a variance to accommodate the construction of an attached garage and a
future addition to the existing home. The variance would apply to the following items: Alley
setbacks, rear yard setbacks and number of required covered parking spaces for asingle-family
residence.
Current Property Characteristics and Uses: The applicant/owner currentlyhas a gravel driveway
along the southern property line with access from 3`~ Street. The property has an approximately 490
square foot single family residence located on it with a constructed storage structure and patio on the
north side of the property adjacent to the alley. Due to the lot size, it would be difficult to develop as
a multiple family property under the R-3 zoning requirements. The property on the north side of the
alley is zoned HMR, High Mix Residential and the property to the south is zoned R-3,
Applicable La~y:
CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. - R-3, Residential Multiple Family District
CPMC 17.60.030 et seq. - Accessozy Buildings
GPMC~ 17.64.040 et seq. - Ofd street parking
CPMC 17.80.010 et. seq. -Variances
Discussion:
The applicant is requesting a variance that would allow him to construct a single car garage. The
115ERVER~ILLA1PL12005 LAND USE FILESIQ5048-12I S. 3RD STREET zONE VARIANCE105048 STAFI~
REPORT2.DOC
lot dimension is approximately 3,850 square feet, which is the result of a contract recorded in
1364. The minimum interior iot size in an R-3, Residential Multiple 1Sazz~ily zoz~e is G,000 square
feet, however in 19G0 there were no land use laws at that tune that prohibited the partition of the
lot.
The property is currently being used as asingle-family residence and was purchased by the applicant
in 1999. The existing house is approximately 490 square feet (based on measurements provided by
applicant owner on Attachment " A") The applicant is proposing a 1 G'x2G' garage to provide
covered parking. Mr. Marcus would like to build the garage on the north side of the lot with access
to the garage from the alley. He would like to add additional living space on the south side of his
home in the fiiture. {See Attachment "A"). Note: The proposed future addition to the existing
home indicates a 4'8" side yard set back on the southern property line. Since the recorded plat
actually has a 70' frontage (applicants' measurements were G8'.8") width along 3r`z Street, there
would nat be a variance to the 5' southern side yard setback.
Fn_d_nas__of Fact & Conclusions of Law:
CPMC I7.28.OI0 et seq. - R--3, Residential Multiple Family District
Front Yard Set back -- 20' : Meets requirements
Standard Side Yard Set back - 5' per story : North side of property abuts an alley.
Structures adjacent to an alley have a set back of 10'.
Side Yard Set back serving a structure such as a garage or carport - 20': Variance
required.
Rear Yard Set back- 10': Variance required.
CPMC X 7. d0, 030 etseq. --Accessary Buildings
Garages and carports intended to satisfy the mrcnicipal code requirement for tsva off-street
covered parking spaces shall be a minirnu~n interior dimension of twenty feet in width by twenty
feet in length. The applicantlowner is proposing to construct a 1 G' wide by 2G' long garage. A
variance is required. The applicant would not be able to meet that garage dimension, and setback
requirements if the proposed garage was oriented anywhere else on the Iot.
CPMC I7 d4.0~40 et serf. -Off-street parking
One and two family dwellings require a private garage or carport accontrrtodating not less than
tfvo parking spaces for each dwelling unit The applicant/owner is proposing a garage that would
not be wide enough to accommodate two vehicles side by side. The garage proposed is 26' in length,
which could potentially accommodate two smaller vehicles End to end and is 6' longer than required
CPMC I7.8Q 0.10 et. serf. - Yaf•iances
1) The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as
11SERVERZILLAII'L12005 LAND USE FILES105048-121 5. 3RD STREET ZONE VARIANCE105048 STAFF
REI'ORT2.I~OC
beautification or safety;
~ The proposed garage and future addition could only further enhance the appearance of the
property, provide additional safety to the property owner with covered parking and increase
the assessed property value.
2) The variance will not have any significant adverse effects upon the neighborhood;
Notice of this public hearing was mailed to property owners within a 240' radius. The City
has not received any oral or written testimony with concerns of significant adverse effects.
Staff does not foresee any adverse effects to the neighborhood. However, if approved the
applicant would not be able to parkin front of the proposed garage without obstructing the
alleyway, in which case Code Enforcement would respond.
3} The variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose of the zoning district;
• Single-family residential uses are permitted in an R-3 zoning district. Single Family
residences require two covered off street parking spaces. The property does not have any
covered parking at this tune. The improvements proposed by the applicant will make his
property more compliant but will not earrzpletely satisfy the City's parking requirements
without this variance.
4) Circumstances affect the property that generally does not apply to property in the same
zoning district;
Due to the square footage of the lot it would be difficult to meet all the requirements of an
R-3 zoning district if developed any other way than a single family use. However, if the
proposed garage with proposed dimensions were attached to the southern portion of the
existing house, the setbacks for an R-3 zoning district could be met. A modified future
addition to the house could be added along the rear of the existing house and proposed
garage, with the potential for a minimal rear yard setback variance. However modifying the
addition may not allow as nice of a floor plan as currently proposed.
5) The conditions for which the variance is requested were ~aat self imposed through the
applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family
members.
This property was partitioned and recorded as a 3,850 square foot lot in 1960 and was not
created by the applicant/ owner's own actions. The minimum interior lot size requirement
for this zone is 6,000 square feet, unless it is a pad lot development. Due to the lot size of
3,850 square feet, it would be difficult to develop any other way and still meet all setback
and parking requirements of an R-3 zoning district. This particular request for a variance
from set back requirements appears to be self imposed to meet the applicant/praperty
owner's desire to construct a garage on the north side of the property with a future addition
on the south side.
I15ERVERZiLLA,1F'L120fl5 LAND USE FILES105048-121 S. 3RD STREET ZONE VARIANCE105048 STAFF
REPORT2.DOC
Recorr~mendation:
Section 17.80.010 (D) establishes five criteria that must either be satisfied or fozand not applicable
before a variance is approved. The proposed site plan meets criteria items 1 through 4, and partially
meets critezia 5.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the alternative actions:
l . Adopt Resolution No._, approving the variance subject to the recommended conditions of
approval; or
2. Deny tha application far a variance as proposed
3. Continue the review of the variance application at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments:
A. ,Site Plan
B. Public Works Department comments.
C. Building Department comments.
D. Applicant's Letter of Project Description and Findings of tract
E. Notice of Public Hearing
F. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of approval
115ERVERZILLAII~L12Q05 LAND USE FILE5105048-I21 5. 31~T7 STREET ZONE VAItIANCE105048 STAFF
ItII'ORT2.DOC