Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 745 - Class C Variance - Laceyg A, ~y p~ p~itf ,,qq ap~;;qq ~gg~~ gg~~~~cc,~ ,,~~,~~ gg~~ ,,~(~'qp~} x 7~ x !~1 ....q : i,`. ~~#.s~,'b.3.'F.i'Cf~.t~~~ ~~B.A";.Y`3l~`~k;"f~~~f~F F"~~e~~'~,+~`#.e~ft~.#~.~~ ., `9"a `` ,hX .~Ts~'_,~'Cp'~~~~ ~0_B'i~f '~g ~~y~.~g~s~~~~c'^~~a~~~P B''7~~1gf@ ~yr'~.(@~.t~~t~.7ri7Y~~,~.. 9`~py1,-{Y~~~t'p@~~~@`~~~.$'. pJ~E~~}`~~ t~ 3E~A3Eja iF~tA.fA~3?7.8..~'.~ .&a~F.B. ~3c.8'.r~:: ~~lE.~a_e ~g~g~'~Y~~s.~}~ &ia'kq~lg~~rF~~y 3i@"'~"~ ~.i~~.f4'k"•s "''~~~~~, t~~~ t'-~~~~1€e~r~t ~t€~?~~~tF~.cl ~~r~ ~~€~~.ic_~~tc~z~. ~~c3~' a ~':~.~~~ ~' ~~~~•i~.ttc:v ~c~ ~~kctit~~~z ~ ~.~~1.~.~~J , ~t~a~~ni.~.Fr~ Ic~i ;;~.~.~ ~Il~v~~~~~ i~~ EI~~.. ~..J.:~ xc3z~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~4~~t;~~ .i~~.~r~~#:€~~;~1 ~~~7. :€~c}c~~~r~ ~.t~~zr~~~.~ ~~~~as~+~r's ~s ~~~~ 3 >'~~-' :?~c~~.~, '~'~~:~ €:.e~t~ Z?t)R ~~.€~:c3. ~€ ?t~ r i 2 I. ~; ~~r~~~ ~'~;E~:~.;~~~.~, the rc~pe~t,~ i~ ~uz~t•€~z~~~~~ z~ ~~~ 1~-I-~, €~~~~~i~i~?~~ti~~( ~ira~I~~ I~a~~~il~~ ~c>~a~~~*~:. cis€~~~:t ~~~.ci ~l~e ~~~~~~;~ ~~~i~~i~c3~~ t~;; ~~~~i~~~tc.c~ is ~:~~sr~tcz~t ~~~~~1~ t~~L ~a~€~vP"!~i ~~~ ~~c:tr~~~ ~~~~, d~~ ~,~~z•.il ~, '~F~(#~, r~i t~ cll~1~' r~~:~.~~:c~ ~~~lic ~~~~~: t~ ~it37 +~~ C`,e~t€•~l ~~e~~~t ~':lat~t3z~~~; ~~c~a~~znis:;:i~~~ ~cx~~si~~~r~ci ~~c ~~~~~~I~~~~~at'~ €~~~.t~st t«~ ~ (~`~t.~~5 (.' ~'~~z~i~~~i~~; ~~~~€~ ~~r~~~~, ~t~z• c~~~y~ enrt~ci~ri~~ ~h~ ~p~~~:~nt'~ rc~~c~t, it i~ t~~~ l'1~~~r~~ ~:'d~~x~.~~.is~ic?~~'~ c~.~i~r~~-~in~a~e~z~ €~~~t ~~ ~~~~~:~~~ti~t~ ~+~~~ c~~i-3-~~~Iy ~~.t~~ k~~ ~~€~1ac<~l~l~~ st~~<~t~~•c~~, ~:~•it~~~~ ~~c~ s€~~>~~~~ t~-~ ~~?~~~~a~~~~c~ ~.~.ith ~c~~cti~c~~~~ ~.~ ~€~t ~rt~Z €~~ tl~ia ~'~~~iz~ €~cp~r€~a~~t ~~~~~~~~~•~ (~~~ibit ",'-1"~ ~~t~d 1~.}~~1 ~, ~~~}~; fir`()', `€~:€;~~_€~€~:~~t.~l~~<:, ~~ ~' ~3~a`~'~~~~, t~~~ ~~: ~l~n~i~ C~~~-~~~~as~ie~x~ ~~~ the ~~i~~~ c~~ ~:~€~t~~~I 1'~~~t, fi~ti~nti ~~r~~~ ~.r~~~.c~~~ir?~~s ~f ~~~r~~F~l as s~~tez~ ia~ ~:;L~i~~ ~~E~'°, t.~~~ ~~4~~~~it~~ I~cp~~r€~~~~~~t ~t~f~ I~~~ac~€€~G dated .~,~ril 1, ~.C~(~~, ~~hi~ i~~I~~c~.~;s ~~~achzn~r~t~, ~~a~k~.~~ ?~er~~~~-~ ~~~. ~•~f~rc~r.~~::~ ~zac~ ~n~c~oxatcd ~c,r~ia~. ~.~~~~:1~ ~~~ t~~ ~'l~n~n~ ~"e+z~~issi~a~ az~d si~w~~~d ~y~~ the i~~ ~a~t~~~.~~ti~~a~ic~~~ c~~ .t~ ~Sr~~s:~~a ~~~~r~n~~ ~~c~€~~~~issi~~~ ~:.~;~c~l~.~tc~~ ~o. :~la~-~t~i:n~ ~;~~~~~~~ca~ h~~r . ;. ~, :` ~'. "F ' .. .a: ~lr~~iar~ ~:~c~~~~~~~is~ia~r ~~?~ri~ ~~~~n~n~ ~'e~z~r~r~s~i.crr~ I:~~crle~tis~~ ~~•_-------- ~- ~--{ \.~_---_-_W:~4I~1t)€~~ .~~ ~~ ~~~ t.;<sa7~rr;€.Et~tg~ tatv~~c>g3r~°~~s~~ ir~~~t~3; s~s~i$Y~3nt £.~Y~'s~~#t~i#-FiSFs'ztt«~- .~.~1 1, ~(~~ ~'c~~:~i~es~t~c~~ ~f~~ ~~S~ile~.t~~~~ re~~e~t€~~ ~ (:'~~~~ (:s'~~~.~~i~~~~ee tts the l~~ ~~~e ~~~~i~~c~~n ~~~ the`«`~~~~ k~es~~~~atl~l ~~~.~ ~~il~ l~tz~€et~ ~_,(}~€~ ~, ~~„ r~..~a~~~ l~l e~ ~t.~;1:'~~(:' ~'7.?(~,~~~~}. 'I°f-~~ ~h,~~e.t ~rc~e~y is dez~taec~ rss~ the ~~e:[~~e~. (::~s~~i~y~:t~~~es~c~~~~ z~~G~~~ ~~ :3~ ~ ~~~~:~:~f'~'fa:~ ;~:rcats ~(~~ ~~~~~ ~~~3`~, ~l~c~ e~~:~'?~~'~ ~rs~ 211 ~~~i~~~ Syr. ~~~l~~s#a :~~~ Il~~~~ ,z.z.~,.~,.,.... ~~~~+~ . ~~~c~st~y ~:~cs~~~a~lt~~ ~~l~n~er ~t z~ the ~.~~lie~~t"~ ~~~ec~t~~~e t~ et~~zsalld~te ~~=c~ e~;l~t~~~ Ie~ fir the p~es~ ~ e~~~~~c.~~~ ~ir~le~~`~~~ii~° ~~~ie~ee ~€~ tie :-1-~ ~~s~i~~ di~~iaet. Tie ~u~s~eet ~Sr~~ettie~ ire re;~~~etl~Tel~ c~~€e ~lu~~s~ ~~~r~~~ tt~~l~~sie~,, Pie ?~ ~~~ lit ree~r~l~cl ~~ ~`~a~~e~~~~~a l ~~. e~ ee~~~eli~~t~cl, the ~~~ ~r~~ertie~ ~~ill t~t~l ~ ~,~4 ~q~ ~. '!"use ta~~xl~~z~.n ~11~~~~SIe lit ~~e ~ 1~,~~3~ ~~~a fit, The ~plie~~~~ ~~ .re~~e~t~:r~,~ ~ ~r~~~ee (es tl~~ ~.~i~r~~ let sloe ~'~.~; lit 1(~~ ~~ ~ ~~~-l~~~e~ lit ~~~ ~~~is~a~dar~l lit ~resntag~: ~;~ 1 fit.), Tie The etsn~h~titss~ o~'su~~t~~~~.~cl r~nt~e tl ~.~ sa~se ~~t~il~ lr~t ~l~e it Pict is de~~el~~. ~,d~~tlo~aall~, ~ lot. l ~(~~ h ~ ~x~l~zlrs~~zxt~ last ~zdtl~ a~' S~ ~eet..~.~e a-~ree ls~t i~th lz~ the ~~cl~.~~lez~ i~ ~~ees~ ~~' 7~? ~`e~t. Tt~ fu~~~~ ~~-~~~~te e ~~az~l~ ~c-t w~cl~hg here ~~ ~ ~. f~~t e~~e~~esst ~~~~ its ~~e~t~rly~ b~s~ad~ys e~et~uely ~~~ael~ ~ ~~~th ~~' l~ list helc~~~ tl~e st~l~a'd lit ~ultlth ~s~th~;~ late ~r~th~ tae l~e~~~~~ l~r~~ ui~islaz~. ~~e `l et ~ Due to their size and shape there is an existing hardship far development of residential structures an each lot compared to that of other lots within the subdivision. As noted, the applicant proposes to combine the two lots, thus eliminating the hardship. The new lot will be 17,557 sq. ft. The use proposed is a residential lot and is a permitted use in the R-1-$ zone. All future structural development must meet setback, structure height and building code requirements. FINDINGS: Attachment "D" ISSUES: None CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: None EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Tentative Plan Attachment "B" -Applicant Findings Attachment "C" -Jackson County Fire District No. 3 Attachment "D" -Don Miller Comments Attachment "E" -- Bluegrass Downs Architectural Control Attachment "F" -Findings Attachment "G" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consideration of a Class C Variance to the maximum lot size allowed in the R-1-$ zone {File No. 08163). RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution ,approving the Class C Variance {File No. 0$ l b3). Page 2 of 2 ATTACHME`C1iT" ~ '" ~~~ g~~ ~~o ~~~ ~~~ ~. ~~~g r~ U~ ~A~~ '1 ~~ ~g~ ti S g~ ,' ~ i ~i /~~ ! ww l' !~ ti lJ A r~ x .~__.. .~ ~~ .~ ~4 ~ r ~~ - I ~ ~I~, f~,!§~i a ~` ' ~I i .a_ . ~~ ' ~ 4 --' .. ..!.. : f ` _~ 4 ~ ~ ., ~ ~ ~; ~ ~II ..._. - I~- E I .i ~, ~E LP 1. ~~ ~.i ~ i_ II -sus. 1 GI _ ~ ~. ; i ---• -- ' DDNd~ jUDYL.i~'EY GiD1VTAG"T ~' 307,8!.58 2lt?ZjERSMY t~l'V7RI L P{OI1V7; DRSGON EiSGl.17DESIGN~ 659-.3f781 11 fi r! 173' S "lB E Jls 1 VS Q N E A G L S A R C B UI L DING 5 E X YlC E S I1 V G GL'B ~` 17777 ~, 3 Applicant: Don and Judy Lacey P.O. Box 1256, Jacksonville, OR 97530 Phone: 301-8458 Written Narrative ~T~TACHN~~~T u ~ --_____ B. Approval Process. Class C variances shall be processed using a Type lIl procedure, as governed by Section 17.05.400, using the approval criteria in subsection C of this section. Xn addition to the application requirements contained in Section 17.05.400, the applicant shall provide a written narrative or letter describing hislher reasoning for the variance, why it is required, alternatives considered, and compliance with the criteria in subsection C of this section. We are requesting a variance in the lot size maximum in Chapter i 7.20 R-1 Residential single-Family District as it applies to R l-8, 12,000 sq ft maximum lot area (interior} while also seeking approval to combine the lots #88 and #89 of Bluegrass Downs Subdivision into one tax lot. In Phase 2, of Bluegrass Downs, we purchased two lots. These lots were the last to be sold by the developers even at a drastically reduced price. It was because of their odd shape, narrow width, full length lot easement and very small entries from the street. For every builder, or prospective homeowner, these particular lots, when looked at individually, seemed to be to difficult to place a house on that fit within the norm and the size of house in Bluegrass Downs, the cc~tr's, and meet the city codes. Our proposal is to combine the lots #8$ and #89 into one tax lo# and piece a 3200 sq ft home with a two or three car garage on the property. Combining the two lots would provide a frontage of 48.50' and a total lot size of 17,557 sq ft. The reasons for the variance request are numerous. The width of the lots, #88(41' net 48.50'-7.50' easement} and lot#89 (21.03'} do not currently meet code of 1ilftilmum SO' interior. The shape of lot #89 and the set back requirements are such that a house designed for the lot would need to be stair stepped in shape and would require a second level structure to meet the cc&r's minimum building requirement. Lot #$8 requires building on the northeast side of the lot. There is a 7.50' easement on the south west property line. The lot width size now gets compressed in width for building purposes to 32' having side setbacks of 8' based on a need for a two story house to meet the ec&r's of a minimum sq ft house. Previous comments regarding the size of the house #hat can be placed on the lot were put at a minimum of 2,000 sq ft. That is to comply with the cur's. However, over ninety. ~~~ Page ~ of Written Narrative Percent of the existing homes in the Bluegrass Downs subdivision are nearly 3,0(10 sq ft or more. We have considered alternatives. We have looked at marrow house plans, placing a house at different configurations, and limiting the size of the house tv coincide with the size and shape of the lots. We believe it would not only devalue the property because of the odd shaped house but also devalue the neighborhood; a fear that many existing homeowners are expressing. The three houses directly across the street are all over 3,000 sq ft. in size. Lot #89 has a 21' frontage. It not only does not meet city code of a 50' minimum but is a di~eult situation to contend with. On the west side of the entrance property line is a city street light and on the east side ofthe property line is all of the utility hookups for cable, power, and telephone; just more items in the front of this already small entrance. Lot #88 has 48' frontage. If we could combine the two cots, the total frontage would be b9.5'; most lots in the subdivision of 96 lots have a frontage averaging between b5' and 75'. We believe, by allowing this variance which would combine lot#88 and lot #89 into one tax lot and allowing the variance for us to exceed the maximum allowable 12,000 sq ft to this new lot with a size of 17,557, will alleviate the hardships associated with the lots' shapes, configurations. Deficiencies, code deviations, and unrnarketability. i \... - Applicant: Don and Judy Lacey P.O. Box 1256, Jacksonville, QR 97530 Phone: 301-858 Variance Request 17.131500 Class Cvariance--Type In procedure. Class C variances shall be reviewed using a Type III procedure, in accordance with chapter 17.05; 1. The class C variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded lots only 2. The class C variance procedure may be used to modify a standard for throe or fewer lots, including lots yet to be created through a partition process. C. Approval Criteria. The city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on all of the following criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, aid to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity. Many current home owners have been concerned about the values of their homes. Since it is a new subdivision, most of the houses were purchased when the market was at its peak. Some houses that remained unsold have recently gone to foreclosure and have caused a drop in the values. Most recently the remaining lots of about eighteen were sold at over fifty percent reduction of what they sold for in 2005 and 200b(from about an average of $153,000 down to $b9,900). R~ith the lot prices falling, existing hameawners are concerned about the houses to be built on these cheaper lots. These two lots, #88 and #84, were the last to be sold because they were the least desirable. They were unusually shaped, had limited envy, were narrow in width, and would require as abnormally shaped house to fit on the lots. Combining the two lots would enhance the property, allow for a house configured as others in the neighborhood, and as one neighbor put it; "serve as a flagship far property values". 2. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size ar shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity; 4f the 961ots in the subdivision of Bluegrass .Downs, phase I and phase II, these two lots, #88 and #89, by far create the most hardship far development. Their size and shape not only make it near impossible to follow the cur's of minimum house size and setbacks of the subdivision but do not fit current building code requirements of lot size minimum width which is 50'. Lot # 88 is 48' wide less 7.5' easement and lot #89 is 21' wide at its Page 2 Variance Request entrance. All other lots in the subdivisian are fairly rectangular in shape with a normal 6S' to 75' interior width. This is a new subdivision established in 20(}5. New Cade changes effective January of 2006 would not have allowed lots #88 and #89 to be approved within the subdivision because of lot size configuration and width. 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The proposed use wi11 be as originally planned for the development. A house, 3200 sq ft will be built on the new configured lot (joining of lot #88 and lot #89) with a two or three car connected garage. Space will be adequate to provide a driveway to the garage along the west side of the property such as to not conflict with the required easement of lot #88. 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks, will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject code standard; Since these are lots within an established subdivision, the combination of the two lots will help to configure them in such a manner as to make them look more congruent with the other lots in the subdivision. Phase I and II of Bluegrass Downs contains 961ots; all but five lots are fairly rectangular in shape and have access to the house from the street with approximately 67'-75'frontage. The two lots we are requesting to combine would have a total frontage of 69'. 5. The hardship is not self-imposed; Two and one-half years ago, when the subdivision was approved by the city and recorded by the county surveyor, there was not a maximum lot size. Consequently, a lot is in the subdivision over the ~2,040sq ft maximum for R-1-8 and it is 13,207sgft. Since the city has changed its maximum lot size to the current 12,000 sq ft (changed in 2006), a variance to the code is required and should not be considered a self imposed hardship. The city has also changed the requirement of interior width of the R-1-8 lots to 50'. Lot #88 has 48' interior and #89 has firontage interior of 21', thereby not meeting code requirements. The odd shapes of the lots, coupled with setback requirements of the cc &r's, city codes, and lot configuration, pose hardships that are not self imposed 6. The variance requested is the minlrnum variance that would alleviate the hardship. Any way you look at the property, using each lot separa#ely poses a problem. The difficulty is; how to put a house on a lot that will meet the cc&r's, will be the quality Variance Request Page 3 which is the norm in the subdivision, will meet the lot dimensions Cade restrictions of the city, and will be an asset with value for the owner and the neighlwrhaod. Alt lots in the subdivision had been sold at the final selling price of $69,940 except for tots, #88, and #89; they were the last on the market. The reasons were obvious; unordinary shape, dii~cult to piece a normal. house inclusive of the cc&r's, limited street miry, code requirements that couldn't be met, to name a few. We purchased the lots a#lrer consulting the city planning department and are requesting the variance to combine lots #88 and #89 into one tax lot and be approved for a building lot exceeding the maximum 12,000 sq ft. Together, they will provide a great usable space for building. ATTACHMENT "~..,._" ]ackson County Fire DNStr~ct No. 3 8333 Agate Road _w ~ ~~~ White City 4R 97503-1075 {541) 82fi-710 {rroice) (541} 826-4566 {fax) :; :. InternationallyAccred1ted - 20Q5-201 U March 18, 2008 Don Lacey 213?& 2141 Rabun Way Central Point David Jacob Planner City of Central Point David, U ~~~ ~`~~ ~~ ~~ ~ - ~1~r~ ~ ~ 2008 I've reviewed the variance for the Lacey property. Our only concern is That we have access to all structures on the property. Do Hick an~-- Deputy Fire Marshal JCFD3 ATTACHMENT "~" Dave Jacob From: don miller [w#Ilowmaxwreli~hotmail.oomj Ssnt: Tuesday, March 18, 20{38 9:51 AM To; Dave .facob Cc: wil#owmaxwell(d~hotmaii.com Subject: Comments: City File Number 08163 R5: consideration of variance applicatbn to combine two lots {Rle 06163) We own the lot on the north side, Tax Lot 1100, in the Paloma ll;states Subdivision. We nave received and reviewed the Notice of Pubk Hearing to combine two tax lots, Tax Lots 1207 and 1208, to crate a single 17,557' sq. ft, tax lot. We presume the use of the combined lots will r~ema#n a single family residence, We believe the combining of the two lots will not adversely affect us; therefore, we agree bo combining the two ~, Don and Margaret Miller 9711 T4 Road Hoyt, Kansas 66440 785-985-6703 Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live, het it Howl _1f. ATTACHMENT " ~_'~ Bluegrass Downs Architectural Control Committee P. D. Box 5656 Central Paint, Oregon 97'502 541w665 5263 February 6, 2008 Don Lacey P.O. Box 1256 Jacksonville, Oregon 97530 RE: Lot Line Adjustment Dear Don: ._ ._w..,......~,,, ..~,~w.w p ~~c~~~i~~~~~ ._ F~~ 1 ~ 2AIf8 We recently reviewed your proposed lot line adjustment for lots 88 and 89 in Bluegrass Downs Phase II. The CCBcR's far Phase II place no limitations on the maximum size of the lots. We fully support your request to adjust the boundaries of the subject lots for your future residence. Our position rs that this adjustment would greatly improve the development Attachment "F" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File N©: 08163 INTRODUCTION In the Matter of a Class C Variance to Section 17.20.050 of the Cl'MC: R-1, Residential Single-Family District -Maximum lot area of 12,000 sq. ft. in the R-1-8 zone. The variance request is in support of increasing the maximum lot area in the R-1-8 zone district. Two lots will be combined to create a 0.40 acre lot {17,424 sq. ft.}. The property is identif ed in the 3ackson County Assessor's Map as 36 2W 35DD, Tax Lots 1207 and 1208, known respectively as 2141 and 2137 Rabun Way. Applicant: Don Lacey Section 17.13.100 Yariances Purpose. This chapter provides standards and procedures far variances, which are modif cations to land use or development standards that are not otherwise permitted elsewhere in this title as exceptions to code standards. This chapter cannot provide standards to fit every potential development situation. The city's varied geography, and complexities of land development require flexibility. This chapter provides that flexibility, while maintaining the purposes and intent of the code. The variance procedures provide relief from specific code provisions when they have the unintended effect of preventing reasonable development in conformance with all other codes. The variance procedures are intended to provide flexibility while ensuring that the purpose of each development standard is met. CPMC 17.13.500 CIass C variances. A. Applicability. Class C variance requests are thane that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 17.13.300 and 17.13.400 (Class A and Class B), and that meet the criteria in subsections (A)(1) through (4) of this section. Class C variances shall be reviewed using a Type III procedure, in accordance with Chapter 17.05: lots only. 1. The Class C variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded Finding: The subject properties are lots 88 and 89 of the Bluegrass Downs Subdivision, Phase 2 final plat recorded on November 16, 2005. Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.500(A)(1). 2. The Class C variance procedure may be used to modem a standard for three or fewer lots, Including lots yet to be created through a partition process. Finding: The variance will allow for combining two lots to create one lot in excess of the maximum lot size standard. Page I of 4 Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.500(A)(2}. 3. An applicant who proposes to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process may not utilize the Class C variance procedure. Approval of a planned unit development shall be required to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process where a specific code section does not otherwise permit exceptions. Finding: The variance application is proposed for two existing lots within the Bluegrass Downs Subdivision (Phase 2). This is not a subdivision process. Conclusion: Section 17.13.500(A)(3) is not applicable. 4. A variance shall not be approved that would vary the 'permitted uses" or 'prohibited uses" of a zoning district. Finding: The variance is for the purpose of combining two existing lots into a single lot. Once combined into a single lot, a residential structure will be constructed on the site which is an allowed use in the R-I-8 zone. Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.500(A)(4). C. Approval Criteria. The city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on all of the following criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; Finding: The intended purpose of the maximum allowable density is to assure that the housing density objectives of the City, as stated in the Comprehensive Plan, are met. Approval of the variance will not materially affect the City's density objectives, nor will the granting of the variance adversely affect properties within the R-1-8 zoning district, or properties within the general neighborhood. Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.504{C)(1}. The proposed variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this code. 2. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same zoning district); Finding: Tax lot 2700 has substandard lot frontage (21 ft.) and width {CPMC 17.24.450), which in conjunction with its triangular shape makes it difficult to access Page 2 of 4 and site a residential building. Additionally, tax lot 2800 has a 7.5 foot easement along its westerly boundary, which reduces the effective buildable area of the lot. The average lot width in the subdivision is in excess of 70 feet. Due to their size and shape there is a hardship for development of residential structures on each lot, relative to that of other lots within the subdivision. The applicant proposes to combine the two lots, thus eliminating the hardship. Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.500(C)(2}. A hardship to development has been demonstrated. 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; Finding: The use proposed is a residential lot and is a permitted use in the R-1-8 zone. All future structural development must meet setback, structure height and building code requirements. Code compliance of future development can be monitored during the building permit review process. Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.500(C}(3). The intended use of the land is for residential use as permitted in the zone. 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks, will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject code standard; Finding: The requested increase in the maximum lot size will not adversely affect existing physical or natural systems. Conclusion: Complies with Section 17.13.500(C)(4). S. The hardship is not self-imposed; Finding: Based on the above findings it is determined that the requested variance complies with all applicable criteria as set forth in Section 17.13.500, and is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the hardship. Conclusion: Complies with all applicable criteria as set forth in Section 17.13.500. Finding: The result of the variance request would be consolidation of Tax Lots 2700 and 2800. This is would alleviate the hardship by providing the space needed to build a residential structure of approximately 3,DD0 sq. ft., which is typical of the neighborhood. C©nclusion: Complies with all applicable criteria as set forth in Section 17.13.500. Page 3 of ~ Summary COQC~US10[l: The Class C Variance approval criteria, Section 17'.13.500{C), states the city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based an all of the six elements of criteria (17.13.500 {C) 1-6). A variance application must meet each of the criteria. This application requested a variance to standards of the CPMC and therefore each requested variance must meet each of the elements of the approval criteria. The Application meets all criteria to qualify as a hardship. Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT" ~ " PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CLASS C VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE ALLOWED IN AN R-1-$ ZONE FILE N0.08163 Applicant: Don Lacey 36S 2W 35DD, Tax Lots 1208 and 1207; 2137 and 2141 Rabun Way WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application fox a Class C Variance to Section 17.20AS0 ,maximum lot size allowed in the R-1-8 zone on properties identified an Jackson County Assessor's as map 36S 2W 3Sdd, Tax Lots 1208 and 1207; 2137 and 2141 Rabun Way in the City of Central Paint, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the property is currently in an R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district and the variance application as requested is consistent with the criteria of Section 17.13.500; and WHEREAS, vn April 1, 2008, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning Commission considered the Applicant's request for a Class C Variance; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicant's request, it is the Planning Commission's determination that the Application does comply with the applicable standards, criteria and subject to compliance with conditions as set Earth in the Planning Department Staff Report (Exhibit "A"} dated April 1, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the City of Central Point, Oregon, by this Resolution No. hereby approves the Application based on the findings and conditions of approval as stated in Exhibit "A", the Planning Department Staff Report dated April 1, 2008, which includes attachments, attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of April, 2008. Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (41112008) ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of May, 2007 Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (4/l/2008)