92-01 Variance Approval
ORDINANCE 52-1
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING VARIANCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY J. D. GRIFFITH.
On March 25, 1992, the Sodaville City Council held a public hearing on a variance application related to set-back standards within the West View Subdivision. The variance is intended to permit the set-back of certain lots, within the West View Sub- division, without meeting the standard 16 foot set-back, yet maintaining 32 feet between all structures. The variance request was submitted by J. D. Griffith on February 10, 1992.
The City of Sodaville hereby approves the variance request in that it does not violate set-back standards Ordinance 43, and is contingent upon the restrictions shown in Exhibit "A" and based upon the findings of fact as shown in Exhibit "B".
Findings of Fact
Variance Application
Submitted by John D. Griffith
Yard Requirements in West View Development
Public Hearing March 24, 1992
A. BASIC FACTS
1. APPLICANT:
John D. Griffith, P.O. Box 125, Lebanon, OR.
2. LOCATION OF REQUEST:
West View Development Planned Unit Development. SW 1/4 Section 31 T12S R1W; and SE 1/4 Section 36 T12S R2W. Lots 3, 4, & 5 Block 5, and lots 2, 3, & 5 Block 2.
3. ZONING:
Residential (R) Zone.
4. NATURE OF REQUEST:
Variance from special setback requirements. Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for West View Planned Development has the following special Building Site Requirement: "Because of limited fire flows no building shall be located nearer than 16 feet from any street or interior lot line without a City variance". This, in effect, requires 32 feet between buildings on separate lots. The yard requirements in the zoning ordinance are 5 feet for side yards, 10 feet for corner lot street side yards, and 10 feet for rear yards.
5. SPECIFIC VARIANCE REQUEST
a. Lots 4 & 5, Block 5 - 5 feet from south property line of Lot 5 and 27 feet from north property line of Lot 4.
b. Lots 3 & 4, Block 5 - 5 feet from east property line of Lot 4 and 27 feet from west property line of Lot 3.
c. Lots 2 & 3, Block 2 - A variable line along the east end of the south property line of Lot 2 and the north property line of Lot 3. The non-building area would have 32 feet of width and measure at an angle so that it is about 5 feet from the south boundary of Lot 2 at its west end and 5 feet from the north boundary of Lot 3 at its east end.
d. Lots 5 & 3, Block 2 - 5 feet from the east end of Lot 5 and 27 feet from the west end of Lot 3.
e. The entire West View Planned Development is steep view-oriented hillside property.
f. The affected lots have moderate to steep slope. The lots on Block 2 are generally much steeper and irregular than on Block 5 which is near the top of the hill.
g. All affected lots are now vacant except Lot 4 of Block 5 which has a recently established manufactured dwelling.
h. Lots will be served by city water and by individual septic tanks on each lot.
B. CRITERIA:
The applicable criteria are in Section 5.510 of the Sodaville Zoning Ordinance. They are listed below:
SECTION 5.510 Circumstances for granting a variance.
A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances (e.g. fire) apply to the property which do not generally apply to other properties in the some vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property have had no control.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as owners of other property in the same vicinity.
3. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this ordinance, or to property in the same vicinity in which the property is located, or otherwise conflict with the objectives or policies of the Sodaville Comprehensive Plan.
4. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Criteria 1 - Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.
a. The variances all apply within the West View Planned Development, a steep hillside subdivision.
b. The steep topography in the subdivision creates unique lot development problems which do not apply to much of the remainder of the city.
c. The yard set backs generally comply with the city zoning standards, but do not comply with the special setback requirements imposed as a restriction in city approval of the development.
d. The special setbacks of 16 feet mean that there will have to be 32 feet between buildings for fire safety purposes. The proposal and a condition of approval is that the 32 foot separation requirement will still be in effect.
e. The effected lots within the subdivision are all large in comparison with the prevailing lot size in Sodaville. The effected lot sizes are as follows:
Block 5, Lot S Block 5, Lot 4 0.880 Acres
Block 5, Lot 3 0.680 Acres
Block 2, Lot 2 0.714 Acres
Block 2, Lot 3 1.180 Acres 0.910 Acres
Block 2, Lot 5 1. 780 Acres
f. Conclusion: The excessive slope and unbuildable portions of the subdivision create unique and extraordinary circumstances.
2. Criteria 2 - Preservation of property right
a. The primary property right involved is the placement of dwellings on the various lots.
b. The land was subdivided initially to create lots for residential development.
c. The setback variances provide a degree of greater flexibility in dwelling placement.
d. Conclusion: With the variances it is possible for each of the affected lots to be developed on their more buildable portions, thereby creating more economical development opportunities without building on steep slope or creating greater fire danger.
3. Criteria 3 - Not be detrimental to the zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan, or to properties in the vicinity.
a. The zoning ordinance requirements are largely for 5 feet setbacks. The proposal is consistent with the ordinance.
b. The restrictions for West View Planned Development calls for 16 foot yards which assures a distance of 32 feet between buildings because of limited fire flows. The proposal and the city decision assures that the separations will be in effect.
c. Particularly on Block 2 the portions of the affected lots in the proposed setback area are rough, steep, and not buildable.
d. Conclusion: The variance is consistent with objectives of the comprehensive plan, the standards of the zoning ordinance and the best interests of the surrounding area.
4. Criteria 4 - Minimum variance to alleviate the hardship.
a. The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for West View Planned Developments in effect requires that buildings be separated by 32 feet because of limited fire flows.
b. The proposed variance maintains the 32 foot requirement in all instances. It does not seek to reduce the requirements.
c. Conclusion: The proposal is the minimum variance.