Prospect Heights Subdivision A proposed subdivision in Hood River, Oregon

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 Prospect Heights Subdivision A proposed subdivision in Hood River, Oregon Subdivision Application and Variance Narrative Prepared By: Kory Kellum, EIT/Elizabeth Betts, PE February 01, 2018 The City of Hood River Planning Department 211 2nd Street Hood River, OR 97031

6 Klein & Associates, Inc. Engineering, Land Surveying, Planning th STREET, HOOD RIVER, OREGON / (541) / FAX (541) February 1, 2018 Re: Proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision Application Narrative Dear City of Hood River Planning Department: We are pleased to submit this application for the proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision on behalf of Steve Gates and Peter Rysavy (owners). REQUEST: 4 lot subdivision (replat of 5 existing legal lots), variance on lot size APPLICANT: James Klein, PLS, Klein & Associates, Inc. OWNERS: Steve Gates (TL 5200, 5300), Jodie Gates (TL 5201), Peter Rysavy (TL 5300, 5400) PROPERTY LOCATION: 16 and 26 Prospect Avenue and 33 Montello in Hood River, OR (3N-10E-36AB, Tax lots 5201, 5200, 5300, 5400) PARCEL SIZE: The project involves five discrete lots within the four taxlots as shown in the table and vicinity map below and on the attached preliminary plat: Tax Lot # Owner Extg Sub. Lot # Proposed Sub. Lot # Approx. Existing Lot Area (SF) 5200 Steve Gates Jodie Gates Steve G./Peter R Peter Rysavy 4 N/A 5000 N/A 5400 Peter Rysavy Proposed Lot Area (SF) page 1

7 Klein & Associates, Inc. Engineering, Land Surveying, Planning th STREET, HOOD RIVER, OREGON / (541) / FAX (541) ZONING AND LAND USES: Subject Parcel and all parcels to North/South/East/West: zoned Urban Low Density Residential (R-1) NARRATIVE: Due to the number of lots involved, this replat is required to be processed as a subdivision. This narrative is intended to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision complies with the standards and criteria of the Hood River Municipal Code. The intent of the proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision is to adjust lot lines of existing lots to better conform to current zoning regulations. No new lots will be created with this replat. There will be a reduction of one lot from the current number of lots. The owners seek a variance to be granted on the minimum lot sizes, since the legally platted lots will be brought closer to conformance with the current lot size requirements. The intent of the proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision is to replat five existing lots to four lots to better conform to current zoning regulations. History: 1890 the subject properties consisted of eight lots legally platted at 5,000 square feet two and a half of the eight original lots were consolidated by Steve Gates, resulting in six lots, all of which were owned by Steve Gates and Peter Rysavy. For this project, the larger consolidated lot owned by Steve Gates will not be changed, so the replat is of the five lots described in the table above. Since the original platting, the zoning of these lots changed from a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet to a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, making the four smaller lots nonconforming, though still legal lots. It is significant to note that the current 5,000 square foot lots can be built upon or sold as-is. In order to bring the four legal, non-conforming lots closer into conformance with the current R-1 zoning code minimum of 7,000 square feet, the owners wish to replat from five lots to four lots and alter the lot line boundaries within the four lots, resulting in lots sized as follows: Lot 1 = 6,285 square feet Lot 2 = 6,281 square feet Lot 3 = 6,392 square feet Lot 4 = 8,624 square feet The owners seek a variance to be granted on the minimum lot sizes. It is also noted that while there are some large lots in the neighborhood, many of the adjacent homes are built on lots that range from 3,500 square feet (north of Montello) to 5,000 square feet around the subject property. Therefore, the proposed lots are appropriate for the neighborhood. The proposal s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts, as the lots will be more conforming than they currently are. There will not be any negative impacts associated with this replat (no new lots page 2

8

9 APPENDIX A Responses to HRMC HRMC Urban Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone HRMC Fences and Walls HRMC Maximum Lot Coverage HRMC Nonconforming Use HRMC Criteria for Granting a Variance HRMC Procedural requirements for land divisions HRMC Preliminary Plat Submission Requirements and Approval Criteria HRMC Variances HRMC General Applicability HRMC Vehicular Access and Circulation HRMC Landscape Conservation HRMC General Design and Improvement Standards HRMC Urban Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone C. Site Development Requirements. Responses: 1. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot or parcel size shall be 7,000 square feet. 2. The minimum requirements for building sites are as follows: a. Per dwelling, unit a minimum of 7,000 square feet. b. A minimum frontage of fifty (50) feet on a dedicated public street. c. A minimum frontage of thirty (30) feet on a public dedicated cul-de-sac. 3. Lot Coverage: Pursuant to a. Existing lots are 5,000 square feet as platted April 16, This subdivision proposes to bring the lots closer to the minimum 7,000 square foot lot size. See Variance and Nonconforming Use sections of this narrative for additional information. 2b. Lots have a minimum feet of frontage, which exceeds the minimum required 2c. Cul-de-sacs are not proposed with this project 3. Upon replat, all lot coverages comply with Appendix A page 1

10 D. Setback Requirements The minimum setback requirements shall be as follows: Response: 1. No structure shall be placed closer than 10 feet from the nearest public right-of-way line of a dedicated public street. 2. Garages that directly face adjacent streets shall be at least 20 feet from the nearest public right-of-way lines of the dedicated public streets. Garages so constructed to not face an adjacent street may be 10 feet from the nearest right-of-way line of the dedicated public street. Detached garages so constructed to not face an adjacent public dedicated alley may be five (5) feet from the right-of-way line. 3. Side yard/ rear yard a. No structure shall be placed closer than six (6) feet from the side property line b. Structures greater than twenty-eight (28) feet in height shall be eight (8) feet from the side property line c. No structure shall be placed closer than ten (10) feet from the rear property line. d. Projections may not encroach more than three (3) inches for each foot of required yard setback width Upon replat, 1. No structure will be closer than 10 feet from the nearest right-of-way line 2. Garages facing the street will be at least 20 feet from the nearest right-of-way line, and those not facing the street will be at least 10 feet from the nearest right-of-way line 3. a. Side yard setbacks are six (6) feet minimum b. Homes will not have a height greater than 28 feet, so this does not apply c. Rear yard setbacks are 10 feet minimum. To comply with this set back, Rysavy proposes to remove a portion of his deck so that it will be 10 feet from the proposed northern property line d. Projections will not encroach more than three (3) inches for each foot of setback width E. Height Regulations The maximum height restriction shall be as follows: 1. Thirty-five (35) feet for all uses except residential development 2. Twenty-eight (28) feet for all residential development Response: 1. Existing residential homes comply with maximum height of 28 feet. Future homes will be reviewed upon submittal of building permit applications. Appendix A page 2

11 F. Parking Regulations. 1. Individual dwelling units shall be provided with at least two (2) parking spaces on the building site, one (1) of which may be within the required front yard setback area. 2. Parking spaces utilizing access from a public dedicated alley may be located within the setback area. 3. All parking areas and driveways shall be hard surfaced prior to occupancy, under the following circumstances: a. New construction b. Change of use c. New or expanded parking area Responses: 1. Each existing dwelling unit has at least two parking spaces. Future homes will be reviewed upon submittal of building permit applications. 2. No alleys are proposed in this project 3. All parking areas and driveways will be hard-surfaced prior to occupancy G. Signs All signs shall be in conformance with the sign regulations of this title. Response: No signs are proposed with this project. HRMC Access Every lot or parcel shall have access on a street other than an alley, for at least twenty (20) feet of width. Response: All proposed lots have access on a public street for over sixty feet of width; therefore, access requirements are exceeded. HRMC Fences and Walls Response: A. Fences and walls not more than six (6) feet in height are permitted within or on all property lines and on corner lots or parcels when vision clearance requirements are met. B. Height is measured from original ground elevation in accordance with the City Engineering Standards. C. A fence that is six (6) feet or less as measured from original ground elevation in accordance with City Engineering Standards, is not considered a structure for purposes of setbacks established in this title. A. There are no new walls or fences proposed for this subdivision. Existing fences are 6 feet or less. Appendix A page 3

12 HRMC Maximum Lot Coverage A. Definitions: 1. Lot Coverage: The percentage determined by dividing (a) the area of a lot covered by the total (in square feet) of: (1) the footprint of the main building; and (2) the footprints of accessory buildings (counting only buildings with footprints larger than one hundred fifty (150) square feet, or with two stories or more); and (3) parking pads and driveways ; by (b) the gross area of the that lot. 2. Main Building Footprint Coverage: The percentage determined by dividing that area covered by a main building footprint by the gross area of the lot on which the main building is located. The main building footprint includes all parts of a main building that rest, directly or indirectly, on the ground, including, by way of illustration and not by limitation, bay-windows with floor area, chimneys, porches, decks supported by posts and with floor heights that are four (4) feet or higher above grade, cantilevered decks with horizontal projections that are four (4) feet or more, and covered breezeways connected to a main building. B. Coverage: Maximum lot coverage applies to any residential dwelling lot in the R and C-1 zones for all existing structures and new construction, except as provided below. Maximum lot coverage for residential dwellings is as shown in the table below. 1. When a detached garage is provided in the rear yard, the maximum lot coverage may be increased as shown in the table below. 2. When a porch is attached to the front elevation of the residential dwelling and has an area of at least sixty (60) square feet on the front of the building (exclusive of any wrap-around or side porch), the maximum coverage may be increased as shown in the table below. Categories R-1: Maximum Lot Coverage :40% Maximum Lot Coverage with front porch: 43% Maximum Lot Coverage with rear garage: 45% Maximum Lot Coverage with rear garage and front porch: 48% Response: Upon replat, all lot coverages comply. Future homes will be reviewed upon submittal of building permit applications. Appendix A page 4

13 HRMC Nonconforming Use A use that was legally allowed when established, but which is no longer permitted in the zone, in which it is located, may continue so long as it complies with all of the following requirements: 1. Expansion: A nonconforming use shall not be expanded or moved to occupy a different or greater area of land, building, or structures than the use occupied at the time it became nonconforming. 2. Discontinuance: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for any reason for more than twelve (12) consecutive months, any subsequent use shall conform to all of the regulations of the subject zone. For the purpose of this ordinance, rental payments, lease payments, or the payment of taxes shall not be alone or together sufficient to constitute continuance of the use. 3. Change of use: A nonconforming use change may be approved as an administrative action. A nonconforming use may change to another similar or less nonconforming use when the degree of nonconformity is not increased, no alterations are made to the structures, buildings, or parking areas which would increase the non-conformity, and the Planning Director affirmatively finds the following: a. Traffic: Traffic impacts generated by the use change are not increased. b. Nuisances: Noise, dust, and any other nuisance conditions are not increased. Response: The property owners are seeking a variance for the minimum lot size since the lots were legally platted in 1890, but are no longer in conformity due to a change in city code. This replat complies with the requirements listed above: 1) Expansion the nonconforming use will not be expanded or moved. In fact, the owners are attempting to bring the lots closer to conformance with this replat. The number of nonconforming lots will be reduced from four to three and the size of the lots will be increased to be less nonconforming. 2) Discontinuance not applicable 3) Change of use the owners seek approval of this replat in order to move closer to conformance ( less nonconforming use ) with the current zoning standards. No alterations will be made to the structures, buildings, or parking areas that would increase the non-conformity. In addition, since the number of lots will be reduced, the traffic impacts and nuisances would likewise be reduced. Appendix A page 5

14 HRMC Criteria for Granting a Variance A variance may be granted if it meets all of the following criteria: 1. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site which do not typically apply elsewhere. 2. The proposal s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent lawful uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this title and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 3. The circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Response: 1. The intent of the proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision is to replat five existing lots to four lots to better conform to current zoning regulations. The owners seek a variance to be granted on the minimum lot sizes. History: 1890 the subject properties consisted of eight lots legally platted at 5,000 square feet two and a half of the eight original lots were consolidated by Steve Gates, resulting in six lots, all of which were owned by Steve Gates and Peter Rysavy. For this project, the larger consolidated lot owned by Steve Gates will not be changed, so the replat is of the five lots described in the table above. Since the original platting, the zoning of these lots changed from a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet to a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, making the four smaller lots nonconforming, though still legal lots. It is significant to note that the current 5,000 square foot lots can be built upon or sold as-is. In order to bring the four legal, non-conforming lots closer into conformance with the current R-1 zoning code minimum of 7,000 square feet, the owners wish to replat from five lots to four lots and alter the lot line boundaries within the four lots, resulting in lots sized as follows: Lot 1 = 6,285 square feet Lot 2 = 6,281 square feet Lot 3 = 6,392 square feet Lot 4 = 8,624 square feet It is also noted that while there are some large lots in the neighborhood, many of the adjacent homes are built on lots that range from 3,500 square feet (north of Montello) to 5,000 square feet around the subject property. Therefore, the proposed lots are appropriate for the neighborhood. 2. The proposal s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts, as the lots will be more conforming than they currently are. There will not be any negative impacts associated with this replat (no new lots will be created). The replat will result in one less lot and the corresponding reduction in traffic and other impacts associated with that lot. 3. The circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The existing lots are legal nonconforming lots, created long before the current property owners purchased them. The minimum lot size change to 7,000 square feet was not willfully or purposely selfimposed. Further, this replat proposes to bring the lots closer to conformance with the current allowed minimum lot size. Appendix A page 6

15 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. This replat will bring the lots closer to conformance and also more consistent in both size and shape with the surrounding lots. HRMC Procedural requirements for land divisions A. Subdivision and Partition Approval through Three-Step Process. Applications for subdivision or partition approval shall be processed through a three-step process. 1. Pre-Application Conference: A pre-application conference with City staff is required for all partitions and subdivisions prior to submittal of the preliminary plat application unless waived by the Planning Director. The applicant shall provide information and materials of a sufficient level of detail to clearly explain the proposed land division. 2. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat shall be approved before the final plat can be submitted for approval consideration. b. Subdivisions. Review of a preliminary plat for a subdivision shall be processed by means of a Quasi-Judicial action, as governed by Title 17 Quasi-Judicial Actions in the Review Procedures chapter (Section ). All preliminary plats shall be reviewed using approval criteria for preliminary plats contained in this Title. An application for subdivision may be reviewed concurrently with an application for a Planned Development under Title Review of Final Plat: The final plat shall include all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Review of a final plat for a subdivision or partition shall be processed by means of a Ministerial procedure under Title 17 Ministerial Actions in the Review Procedures chapter (Section ), using the approval criteria for final plats in this title. Filing and recording of the final plat shall be in compliance with the requirements of B. Preliminary Plat Approval Period. Preliminary plat approval shall be effective for a period of two (2) years from the date of approval. Response: The applicant has discussed this project with City Planning Staff, during which it was determined that the replat should be processed as a subdivision and variance application. A neighborhood meeting is scheduled for February 23 at 5:30 pm at the Hood River County Library. A summary of the neighborhood meeting will be provided to City Planning upon completion of the meeting. A copy of the neighborhood meeting address labels is provided as an attachment to this narrative. This proposed subdivision will follow all of the procedural requirements for land divisions as set forth in HRMC 16.08, as stated below. Appendix A page 7

16 HRMC Preliminary Plat Submission Requirements and Approval Criteria C. General Approval Criteria. The City may approve, approve with conditions, or deny a preliminary plat based on the following approval criteria: 1. The proposed preliminary plat complies with all of the applicable Municipal Code sections and other applicable ordinances and regulations. At a minimum, the provisions of this Title, including Chapter 16.12, and the applicable sections of the Comprehensive Plan and Title 17 shall apply; a. Corner lots shall have a minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage on public dedicated roads; 2. The proposed plat name is not already recorded for another subdivision, and satisfies the provisions of ORS Chapter 92; 3. The proposed streets, roads, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, pathways, utilities, and surface water management facilities are laid out so as to conform or transition to the plats of subdivisions and maps of major partitions already approved for adjoining property as to width, general direction, and in all other respects. All proposed public improvements and dedications are identified on the preliminary plat; 4. The location, width, and grade of streets and pedestrian walkways have been considered in relation to existing and planned streets, walkways, topographical conditions, public convenience and safety, and the proposed use of the land to be served by the streets and walkways. The street and walkway system proposes an adequate traffic circulation system, which is consistent with the Transportation System Plan and any approved Future Street Plans pursuant to (K); 5. All proposed private common areas and improvements (e.g., home owner association property) are identified on the preliminary plat; 6. Adequate capacity of public facilities for fire protection, streets, and sidewalks can be provided to the subject parcel. Development of on-site and off-site public facilities necessary to serve the proposed use are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and any adopted public facilities plan(s). 7. All lots created shall have adequate public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems and these shall be located and constructed to prevent or minimize flood damage to the extent practicable; 8. All subdivision and partition proposals shall have adequate surface water drainage provided to minimize exposure to flood damage. Water quality or quantity control improvements may be required; 9. Underground utilities are provided; 10. Minimize flood damage. All subdivisions and partitions shall be designed based on the need to minimize the risk of flood damage. No new building lots shall be created entirely within a floodway. All new lots shall be buildable without requiring development within the floodway. Development in a 100- year flood plain shall comply with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements, including filling to elevate structures above the base flood elevation. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining such approvals from the appropriate agency before City approval of the final plat. 11. Determination of Base Flood Elevation. Where a development site is located in or near areas prone to inundation, and the base flood elevation has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be prepared by a qualified professional, as determined by the City Engineer. Response: The proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision complies with the above standards. All public streets are existing. All proposed driveways, setbacks, easements, and homeowner s association tracts are shown on the preliminary plat. The project is not located in an area that is prone to flooding. Appendix A page 8

17 HRMC Variances A. Variances. Adjustments to the standards of this Chapter shall be processed in accordance with the procedures and findings prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance for variances. Applications for variances shall be submitted at the same time an application for land division or lot line adjustment is submitted. Response: The application for variance is submitted at the same time as the application for land division. HRMC General Applicability All subdivisions and partitions must comply with the provisions of this chapter. Subdivisions and partitions that include the construction of a street may require detailed findings demonstrating compliance with each section. For partitions that do not include the construction of a street, fewer code provisions may apply. Response: This subdivision will comply with the provisions of this chapter. The streets and utilities are existing. HRMC Vehicular Access and Circulation A. Intent and Purpose. The intent of this section is to manage vehicle access to development through a connected street system, while preserving the flow of traffic in terms of safety, roadway capacity, and efficiency. Response: There is currently existing access to all proposed lots from public roadways. HRMC Landscape Conservation All subdivision and partition developments containing significant trees and shrubs, as defined below, shall comply with the standards of this section. The purpose of this section is to incorporate significant native vegetation into the landscapes of development. The use of mature, native vegetation within developments is a preferred alternative to removal of vegetation and re-planting. Mature landscaping provides summer shade and wind breaks, and allows for water conservation due to larger plants having established root systems. Response: No grading or tree removal is proposed with this subdivision. Appendix A page 9

18 HRMC General Design and Improvement Standards The purpose of this chapter is to provide planning, engineering and design standards for public and private transportation facilities and utilities. This chapter is also intended to implement the City of Hood River s Transportation System Plan. Response: This project does not propose improvements, as no new use will be created by adjusting the lot lines. Appendix A page 10

19 APPENDIX B Neighborhood Meeting Letter and Address Labels Appendix B page 1

20 Klein & Associates, Inc. Engineering, Land Surveying, Planning th STREET, HOOD RIVER, OREGON / (541) / FAX (541) YOU ARE INVITED TO A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO DISCUSS: PROSPECT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION WHEN: 5:30-6:30 p.m. Friday, February 23, 2018 WHERE: TOPIC: HOOD RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY DOWNSTAIRS MEETING ROOM (502 W. State St.) Discuss a proposed lot line adjustment (processed as a subdivision) Project Narrative The purpose of this project is to adjust lot lines on five existing lots NO NEW LOTS WILL BE CREATED. The Prospect Heights Subdivision is proposed for the properties located at 26 Prospect Avenue in Hood River, OR (3N-10E-36AB, lots 4-7 and 16-17). The proposed lot lines are shown on the attached preliminary plat. By City code, this will be processed through the subdivision process due to the number of lots involved, requiring a neighborhood meeting. This property is zoned R-1, Urban Low Density Residential. Prior to applying to the City for permits, the Applicant is required to hold a neighborhood meeting to describe a development proposal and to answer any questions that you may have about the project. The purpose of the meeting is to inform neighboring property owners about the nature of the project and to seek comments. This meeting will focus on the preliminary development plans which may be altered prior to the submittal of the application to the City. Depending on the type of land use action required, you may receive official notice from the City of Hood River to submit written comments and/or attend a public hearing. If you have any questions, please use the contact information below. We look forward to meeting you. SPONSORED BY: Applicant: Klein & Associates, Inc. OWNERS: CONTACT: Steve Gates and Peter Rysavy James Klein Klein & Associates, Inc CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT: PLEASE CONTACT ONE OF THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Appendix B page 3

21 NEVARA, LISA M 713 2ND ST HOOD RIVER, OR GATES, JODIE WOLCOTT 26 PROSPECT AVE HOOD RIVER, OR RAJANI, ANIL 16 MONTELLO AVE HOOD RIVER, OR DENSMORE, GREGG S & LINDA M 11 MONTELLO AVE HOOD RIVER, OR RITTER, JOHN & KATHRYN DOSS 109 MONTELLO HOOD RIVER, OR J & D LLC 7222 WESTMORELAND DR SARASOTA, FL SCEVA, KAREN A PO BOX 305 HOOD RIVER, OR JUBITZ, DAVID GILBERT PO BOX 52 HOOD RIVER, OR CITY OF HOOD RIVER 211 2ND ST HOOD RIVER, OR MONTELLO, LLC 937 EMERALD BAY LAGUNA BEACH, CA PERKINS, STAN & LAUREL 5 E. MONTELLO HOOD RIVER, OR ROGERS SEAN P 4 LOVERS LANE HOOD RIVER, OR CLARKE, KEVIN G & ELLEN M PO BOX 372 HOOD RIVER, OR WORKMAN, JUDI P 2509 NE 240TH ST RIDGEFIELD, WA FLAMM, ERIC & ROBIN U-2 ET AL 3109 SW CHAMPLAIN DR PORTLAND, OR MC CRINDELL, DUNCAN 3468 W 1ST AVE VANCOUVER, BC V6R 1G7 COOPER, TREVOR G & JANE A NW SETHRICH LN PORTLAND, OR MACDONALD, GREG S PO BOX 11 UNDERWOOD, WA Appendix B page 3

22 URBAN, PETER M 5700 NE 82ND AVE #B-9 VANCOUVER, WA SENIOR, JAY TH AVE SEATTLE, WA ARNOLD, FRANCES E TRUSTEE 201 MONTELLO HOOD RIVER, OR MILLER, RICHARD A & DENISE SW ERROL ST TIGARD, OR HAYNES, JAMES M ET AL & MOORE, KATHLEEN 22 MONTELLO HOOD RIVER, OR MICHALEK, DAVID & ELIZABETH L 25 EUGENE AVE HOOD RIVER, OR MACCABEE, DAVID L TRUSTEE 1151 ESTRELLA DR SANTA BARBARA, CA SEMMES, LORE H 204 MONTELLO ST HOOD RIVER, OR BAUMANN, WALTER C 21 PROSPECT AVE HOOD RIVER, OR BAUMANN, FREDERICK R 21 PROSPECT AVE HOOD RIVER, OR KENDALL, MARCIA A & ROBERT C 31 PROSPECT AVENUE HOOD RIVER, OR COOK, ALEX M & LESLIE C, TRUSTEES 205 SW DOGWOOD LN WHITE SALMON, WA SMITH, ERIC ALAN ET UX & ONAR-SMITH, T. 201 PROSPECT STREET HOOD RIVER, OR ROTTENBERG, REBEKAH 204 PROSPECT AVE HOOD RIVER, OR ft. radius drawn from each corner of the Prospect Heights Subdivision Appendix B page 3

23

24

25 STAFF REPORT GATES/PROSPECT HEIGHTS REPLAT OF HOOD RIVER PROPER ADDITION AND VARIANCE May 28, 2018 Subdivision application submitted: Feb. 06, 2018 Application deemed complete: March 06, 2018 PC Hearing Date June 4 th, day deadline: July 4th, 2018 To: Hood River Planning Commission From: Dustin Nilsen, AICP, Director of Planning Re: File No Gates/Prospect Heights, Hood River Proper Addition Subdivision Replat and Variance I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A. REQUEST: The replat of 5 lots into 4 within Hood River Proper Addition Subdivision with the approval of a variance to minimum lot size. (See attached Preliminary Partition Plat, Attachment A.1.) B. APPLICANT: Klein and Associates, Inc. c/o James Klein C. OWNER: Steve Gates (TL 5200, 5300), Jodie Gates (TL 5201), Peter Rysavy (TL 5300, 5400) D. PROPERTY LOCATION: 16 and 26 Prospect Avenue and 33 Montello in Hood River, OR (3N-10E-36AB, Tax lots 5201, 5200, 5300, 5400) (See Location Map, Attachment B.) E. PARCEL SIZE: The project involves five discrete lots within the four taxlots as shown in the table below and on the attached preliminary plat: F. SITE ZONING AND LAND USE: The subject property is zoned Urban Low Density Residential (R-1). There are two existing single-family dwellings and accessory structures on the site that are to remain. G. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-1, single-family dwellings South: R-1, single-family dwellings East: R-1, single-family dwellings West: R-1, single-family dwellings - 1 -

26 H. APPLICABLE HOOD RIVER MUNICIPAL CODE (HRMC) STANDARDS & CRITERIA: 1. HRMC Urban Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone 2. HRMC Supplementary Provisions 3. HRMC Non-Conforming Uses and Structures 4. HRMC Quasi-Judicial Actions 5. HRMC Variances 6. HRMC Procedural Requirements for Land Divisions (Subdivision) 7. HRMC General Design and Improvement Standards I. AGENCY COMMENTS: Agencies including the City Engineering, Building and Fire Departments were notified of this request. Comments from the Departments are incorporated into the Staff Report. J. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER COMMENTS: Property owners within 250 feet of the subject parcels were notified of this application and request. The following comments were submitted prior to completion of this decision. 1. Karen Sceva: Comments attached (Attachment C ) K. HISTORY: 1. Application subdivision application submitted February 06th, Neighborhood Meeting February 23 rd, Application deemed complete March 06 th, Notice of public hearing mailed to adjacent property owners May 08 th, 2018 L. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A.1 Preliminary Partition Plat Attachment A.3 Written Narrative Attachment A.4 Neighborhood Meeting Summary Attachment B Location Map Attachment C Neighborhood Comments II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. HRMC LAND USE ZONES Urban Low Density Residential Zone (R-1) A. Permitted Uses: 1. Detached single-family dwellings for residential use and accessory structures 2. Manufactured homes for residential use 3. Mobile home parks 4. Residential care facilities 5. Transportation facilities pursuant to (A) 6. Public parks, playgrounds, and related facilities in an approved subdivision, subject to site plan review 7. Accessory uses permitted when accessory to residential use: a. Accessory dwelling units subject to HRMC b. Family day care subject to HRMC c. Home Occupations subject to HRMC d. Hosted homeshares and vacation rentals subject to HRMC

27 FINDINGS: As depicted on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Attachment A.1 ) and described in the written narrative (Attachment A.3 ) the applicant proposes to replat 5 of the existing legal lots with no new development proposed. The two existing homes and accessory buildings which are on the site are use permitted by the R-1 zoning. B. Conditional Uses. 1. Planned unit developments 2. Schools and child care centers 3. Public parks, playgrounds, and related facilities 4. Utility or pumping substations 5. Religious institutions FINDINGS: A conditional use is not proposed. C. Site Development Standards. 1. Minimum Lot Size: The minimum lot or parcel size shall be 7,000 square feet. 2. The minimum requirements for building sites are as follows: a. Per dwelling, unit a minimum of 7,000 square feet. b. A minimum frontage of fifty (50) feet on a dedicated public street. c. A minimum frontage of thirty (30) feet on a public dedicated cul-de-sac. 3. Lot Coverage: Pursuant to FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to replat 5, legally established, non-conforming lots which do not meet the current lot area requirement of 7,000 square feet. As part of the replat the applicant has requested approval of a variance pursuant to HRMC and consideration for a modification under HRMC Nonconforming Uses. The lots are legally created, buildable, and, if granted, the modification or variance would increase the size of each lot bringing each closer to conformance with the 7,000 square foot requirement. Upon replat all the lots would meet or exceed the 50-foot frontage requirement with the narrowest frontage proposed at feet in width. The variance and modification to the nonconforming use requests are discussed in and below. D. Setback Requirements. The minimum setback requirements shall be as follows: 1. No structure shall be placed closer than ten (10) feet from the nearest public right-of-way line of a dedicated public street. 2. Garages that directly face adjacent streets shall be at least twenty (20) feet from the nearest public right-of-way lines of the dedicated public streets. Garages so constructed to not face an adjacent street may be ten (10) feet from the nearest right-of-way line of the dedicated public street. Detached garages so constructed to not face an adjacent public dedicated alley may be five (5) feet from the right-of-way line. 3. Side yard/ rear yard. a. No structure shall be placed closer than six (6) feet from the side property line. b. Structures greater than twenty-eight (28) feet in height shall be eight (8) feet from the side property line. c. No structure shall be placed closer than ten (10) feet from the rear property line. d. Projections may not encroach more than three (3) inches for each foot of required yard setback width. FINDINGS: As depicted in the Preliminary Subdivision Plat (Attachment A.1 ), no structure shall be located closer than 10 feet from the nearest right of way, garages that face the street shall - 3 -

28 be 20 feet from the nearest right of way, all side yard setbacks will be a minimum of 6 feet, and rear yards shall be a minimum of ten feet. In order to comply with the rear setback, the applicant has stated in its narrative the Rysavy (Lot 17), shall remove a portion of the deck to comply with the rear setback requirements. A condition of approval is recommended that prior to final plat recording, Rysavy remove a portion of the northern facing deck in order to comply with the 10-foot rear setback standard of the R-1 Zone. As conditioned, the application is consistent with these standards. E. Maximum building height: Thirty-five (35) feet for all uses except residential development; twenty-eight (28) feet for all residential development. FINDINGS: The maximum height for residential development is 28 feet. The definition of Building Height in HRMC explains how height is measured. Building elevations were not submitted with the subject application and no new development is proposed. Conformance with maximum building height standards will be verified prior to issuance of building permits. F. Parking Regulations. 1. Each dwelling unit shall be provided with at least two (2) parking spaces on the building site, one (1) of which may be in the required front yard setback area. 2. Parking spaces utilizing access from a public dedicated alley may be located within the setback area. 3. All parking areas and driveways shall be hard surfaced prior to occupancy, under the following circumstances: a. New construction b. Change of use c. New or expanded parking area 4. Bicycle parking as required by FINDINGS: As explained in the applicant s written narrative (Attachment A.3 ), each dwelling has two parking spaces and upon permit, future homes shall be reviewed for parking compliance. Conformance with parking regulations will be verified prior to issuance of building permits for each dwelling. G. Signs: All signs shall be in conformance with the sign regulations in this title. FINDINGS: No signs are proposed. A sign permit is required prior to installation of signs consistent with HRMC Title 18, Signs and Related Regulations. B. HRMC SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS Maintenance of Minimum Ordinance Requirements. No lot area, yard, or other open space existing on or after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title shall be reduced below the minimum required for it by this title. No lot area, yard, or other open space that is required by this title for one (1) use, shall be used as the required lot area, yard, or other open space for another use. FINDINGS: As depicted on the Preliminary Plat (Attachment A.1 ) and explained in the written narrative (Attachment A.3 ) the applicant proposes to increase the lot sizes of previously platted yet non-conforming lots through the use of the variance request. Nothing in the application requests or - 4 -

29 permits the reduction of lot area or open space and therefore the application is consistent with the criteria Access. Every lot or parcel shall have access on a street other than an alley, for at least twenty (20) feet of width. FINDINGS: As depicted on the Preliminary Plat (Attachment A.1 ) and explained in the written narrative (Attachment A.3 ), all proposed lots shall have access on a public street for over sixty feet of width; therefore, access requirements are exceeded Fences and Walls. A. Fences and walls not more than six (6) feet in height are permitted within or on all property lines and on corner lots or parcels when vision clearance requirements are met. B. Height is measured from original ground elevation in accordance with the City Engineering Standards. C. A fence that is six (6) feet or less as measured from original ground elevation in accordance with City Engineering Standards, is not considered a structure for purposes of setbacks established in this title. D. All retaining walls are considered structures from purposes of setbacks, and may not be located within the front, side or rear setback for a building except as provided in this title. FINDINGS: As explained in the written narrative (Attachment A.3 ) no new fences or walls are proposed and all existing fences are 6 feet or less. Therefore, the application is consistent with the code standards. HRMC Maximum Lot Coverage A. Definitions: 1. Lot Coverage: The percentage determined by dividing (a) the area of a lot covered by the total (in square feet) of: (1) the footprint of the main building; and (2) the footprints of accessory buildings (counting only buildings with footprints larger than one hundred fifty (150) square feet, or with two stories or more); and (3) parking pads and driveways ; by (b) the gross area of the that lot. 2. Main Building Footprint Coverage: The percentage determined by dividing that area covered by a main building footprint by the gross area of the lot on which the main building is located. The main building footprint includes all parts of a main building that rest, directly or indirectly, on the ground, including, by way of illustration and not by limitation, baywindows with floor area, chimneys, porches, decks supported by posts and with floor heights that are four (4) feet or higher above grade, cantilevered decks with horizontal projections that are four (4) feet or more, and covered breezeways connected to a main building. B. Coverage: Maximum lot coverage applies to any residential dwelling lot in the R and C-1 zones for all existing structures and new construction, except as provided below. Maximum lot coverage for residential dwellings is as shown in the table below

30 1. When a detached garage is provided in the rear yard, the maximum lot coverage may be increased as shown in the table below. 2. When a porch is attached to the front elevation of the residential dwelling and has an area of at least sixty (60) square feet on the front of the building (exclusive of any wrap-around or side porch), the maximum coverage may be increased as shown in the table below. Categories R-1: Maximum Lot Coverage :40% Maximum Lot Coverage with front porch: 43% Maximum Lot Coverage with rear garage: 45% Maximum Lot Coverage with rear garage and front porch: 48% FINDINGS: As explained in the written narrative (Attachment A.3 ) no new development is proposed as part of the replat. Upon replat, all lot coverages will remain compliant with the coverage requirements. Future homes and development will be reviewed for compliance upon submittal of building permit applications. C. HRMC Nonconforming Uses A use that was legally allowed when established, but which is no longer permitted in the zone, in which it is located, may continue so long as it complies with all of the following requirements: 1. Expansion: A nonconforming use shall not be expanded or moved to occupy a different or greater area of land, building, or structures than the use occupied at the time it became nonconforming. FINDINGS: The lots were created lawfully as part of the Hood River Proper Addition Subdivision in 1890 prior to the 7,000 square foot zoning restriction on R-1 Lots found in HRMC To comply with the prohibition on non-conforming expansions, the applicant is requesting that the lots be replatted and a reduction of the non-conformity be achieved. The reduction of non-conformity is consistent with the provisions of the code. 2. Discontinuance: If a nonconforming use is discontinued for any reason for more than twelve (12) consecutive months, any subsequent use shall conform to all of the regulations of the subject zone. For the purpose of this ordinance, rental payments, lease payments, or the payment of taxes shall not be alone or together sufficient to constitute continuance of the use. FINDINGS: The lots have existed within a developed subdivision and have not been vacated. Therefore, as discrete lots, the use has not been discontinued. 3. Change of use: A nonconforming use change may be approved as an administrative action. A nonconforming use may change to another similar or less nonconforming use when the degree of nonconformity is not increased, no alterations are made to the structures, buildings, or parking areas which would increase the non-conformity, and the Planning Director affirmatively finds the following: a. Traffic: Traffic impacts generated by the use change are not increased. b. Nuisances: Noise, dust, and any other nuisance conditions are not increased. FINDINGS: The replat will result in the decrease of the non-conformity as the minimum lot size shall be increased to closer conform with the 7,000 square foot lot requirement from 5,000 square feet to a minimum of 6,280 square feet. No alterations will be made to the structures, buildings, or - 6 -

31 parking areas that would increase the non-conformity. In addition, since the number of lots will be reduced, the traffic and nuisance impacts from the use should not be increased. C. HRMC VARIANCES Purpose. Where physical difficulties, unnecessary hardship, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this Title may result from the strict applications of certain provisions thereof, a variance may be granted as provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the zone in which the land is located. In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole Procedure. The procedure for taking action in a variance application shall be as follows: 1. The property owner may initiate a request for a variance by filing an application with the Planning Director. The applicant shall submit a complete application as specified in the Application and Plan Requirements (Section ). 2. The application shall include a statement and evidence showing that all of the criteria in Section are met. 3. Before the Planning Commission may act on a variance application, it shall hold a public hearing following procedures established in Review Procedures: Quasi-Judicial Actions (Section ). FINDINGS: The applicant met with staff for a pre-application meeting on January 19th, On February 06 th, 2018 the applicant submitted application for the replat along with supporting materials for the variance. The matter shall be considered under the following criteria at the Planning Commission meeting on June 4 th, Criteria for Granting a Variance. A variance may be granted if it meets all of the following criteria: 1. There are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site which do not typically apply elsewhere. 2. The proposal s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent lawful uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this title and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 3. The circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. FINDINGS: From material submitted by the applicant: The intent of the proposed Prospect Heights Subdivision is to replat five existing lots to four lots to better conform to current zoning regulations. The owners seek a variance to be granted on the minimum lot sizes. The History of the Subdivision: 1890 the subject properties consisted of eight lots legally platted at 5,000 square feet two and a half of the eight original lots were consolidated by Steve Gates, resulting in six lots, all of which were owned by Steve Gates and Peter Rysavy. For this project, the larger consolidated lot owned by Steve Gates will not be changed, so the replat is of the five lots described in the table above. Since the original platting, the zoning of these lots changed from a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet to a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, making the four smaller lots nonconforming, - 7 -

32 though still legal lots. It is significant to note that the current 5,000 square foot lots can be built upon or sold as-is. In order to bring the four legal, non-conforming lots closer into conformance with the current R-1 zoning code minimum of 7,000 square feet, the owners wish to replat from five lots to four lots and alter the lot line boundaries within the four lots, resulting in lots sized as follows: Lot 1 = 6,285 square feet Lot 2 = 6,281 square feet Lot 3 = 6,392 square feet Lot 4 = 8,624 square feet It is also noted that while there are some large lots in the neighborhood, many of the adjacent homes are built on lots that range from 3,500 square feet (north of Montello) to 5,000 square feet around the subject property. Therefore, the proposed lots are appropriate for the neighborhood. The proposal s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts, as the lots will be more conforming than they currently are. There will not be any negative impacts associated with this replat (no new lots will be created). The replat will result in one less lot and the corresponding reduction in traffic and other impacts associated with that lot. The circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The existing lots are legal nonconforming lots, created long before the current property owners purchased them. The minimum lot size change to 7,000 square feet was not willfully or purposely self-imposed. Further, this replat proposes to bring the lots closer to conformance with the current allowed minimum lot size Time Limits. A variance is valid for a period of two (2) years from the written Notice of Decision, or the decision on an appeal, whichever is later. A single one (1) year extension may be granted by the Director prior to the expiration date if the applicant can demonstrate that circumstance or conditions, not known or foreseeable at the time of original application, warrant an extension of the permit. The extension request must be received by the department no later than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the permit. FINDINGS: Like the preliminary plat approval, the variance has a two-year limited life that must be acted upon or extended by application in order to avoid the approval sunsetting. To ensure the Time Limit requirement is met, a condition is included in the recommendation for approval that, the final plat shall be submitted within two years of the date of approval of the preliminary plat, in accordance with the requirements of HRMC including provision of a preliminary title report and payment of a final plat review fee. D. HRMC GENERAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LAND DIVISIONS, REPLATS, PLAT VACATIONS AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS Approval Process for Subdivisions and Partitions A. Subdivision and Partition Approval through Three-Step Process. Applications for subdivision or partition approval shall be processed through a three-step process. 1. Pre-Application Conference: A pre-application conference with City staff is required for all partitions and subdivisions prior to submittal of the preliminary plat application - 8 -