1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Adjustment Committee Land Use Review LU 15-273756 AD Adjustment.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Persistent Title (as needed) Proposed Zoning Regulations Revisions.
Advertisements

BCC APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA #VA , OCTOBER 2, 2014 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: JOSE HOLGUIN Orange County Zoning Division DATE: December 2, 2014.
BCC PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA #VA , OCTOBER 3, 2013 APPLICANT: YURI FERRO APPELLANT: WILLIAM A DAVIS, SR. and REBECCA M. DAVIS Orange County Zoning.
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission ZOS Location Map Feet.
Planning & Community Development Department 245 South Los Robles Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council December 8, 2014.
1837 Pine Street Project Overview Pine Street - Site Plan 2.
January 29, 2008 BCC Called Public Hearing on BZA # SE , 12/6/07 APPLICANT: Ganesh Bansrupan.
HRB Meeting June 9, 2015 City Council Remand of AP 14-02/ZC
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT City Council June 3, 2014.
Village of Ossining Vision Presentation Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc. May 11 th, 2005.
City of New Brighton Planning Commission Meeting October 18, 2005 Agenda Item: 6A (Public Hearing) Special Use Permit for Detached Garage Exceeding 624.
JUNE 19, 2012 BCC APPEAL HEARING ON BZA #SE , April 5, 2012 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: TONY RAHBANY.
Legal Regulations for High School Road II BAINBRIDGE ISLAND MUNICIPAL CODES & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONDITIONAL USES.
Planning & Community Development Department 277 North El Molino Avenue Predevelopment Plan Review City Council Meeting May 5, 2014.
Planning Department Zoning Code Amendment: Change Hearing Body from Hearing Officer to Planning Commission for Major Projects over 75,000 square feet City.
Preliminary Development Plan – Continuation of August 28, 2012 BoCC Hearing Board of County Commissioners September 18, 2012.
New Brighton Planning Commission Meeting April 18, 2006 Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Section Regarding Commercial/Industrial Park.
Community Development Department Special Exceptions for: Automotive parts (e.g. accessories and tires) and Automotive, Recreational Vehicle, and Boat Dealers.
Subcommittee on Heights, Massing, and Alternate Standards    Third Report – January 20, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission.
April 17, 2007 BCC Called Public Hearing on BZA #VA February 1, 2007 Applicant: Towanda Hannah.
Community Development Department GRAND HAVEN DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT Planning & Land Development Regulation Board May 21, 2014.
An Overview of Garrett Park Building Regulations Harry Gordon, FAIA Chairman GP Setback Advisory Committee May 2009.
Community Development Department Variance Length of Dock Roof 2 Cardinal Court.
Public Hearings October 6, Case: CDR Project: Vista Centre PD / LUP Applicant: Raymond Stangle, Jordan & Associates, LLC District: 1 Acreage:77.90.
City of Talent VAR Suncrest Homes Planning Commission October 22, 2015.
The Three Levels of Development Planning 1 Small Area Plan Zone / CDD DSP / DSUP.
Planning and Zoning Division Jefferson County RZTo amend the existing Planned Development (PD) zone district to allow for mini-warehouse storage.
“ Grand Landings North” Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning City Council Public Hearing March 3, 2015.
California Coastal Commission Appeal A-1-MEN (Wernette) De Novo Hearing.
Historic Review Board Public Hearing: DR – th St. September 15, 2015.
Allen Variance Application No. VR-SBK Application Request  Variance for an oversized detached garage in the Single-Family Residential (SFR-3)
Community Development Department City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA) & Zoning Map Amendments Planning & Land Development Regulation Board.
Community Development Department Variance to 20 ft. Street Side Setback 1 Windsor Place APP. NO Variance to 20 ft. Street Side Setback 1 Windsor.
1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Historic Landmarks Commission Type II Appeal of Denial LU HDZ – 2327.
Single Family Districts Working with staff, we ultimately settled on two districts.
Item W16a February 8, 2012 CCC Hearing A-6-OCN (Altman) 1823 South Pacific Street City of Oceanside.
NORTH 40 SPECIFIC PLAN Advisory Committee Meeting #6 November 3, 2011.
Public Hearing Seattle Ridge Preliminary Plat/ Planned Area Development PP December 18, 2013.
1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Historic Landmarks Commission Type II Appeal of Approval LU HDZ –
Airdrie Land Use Bylaw Presentation to City Council May 2, 2016.
To provide for alcohol-free commercial uses that serve as a transition between commercial districts and one- and two-family residential areas. PURPOSE.
4650 Alhambra Circle Building Site Separation. Request: The applicant is requesting consideration of a building site separation in accordance with Section.
Planning & Community Development Department Olivewood Village Project (530, 535 E. Union St., 95, 99, 119 N. Madison Ave. and 585 E. Colorado Blvd.) Predevelopment.
Single Family Districts Working with staff, we ultimately settled on two districts.
Residential Infill Project Scale of Houses (a primer) Stakeholder Advisory Committee October 6, 2015.
1 City of Portland City Council Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Land Use Hearings Officer’s Decision Presentation by BDS Staff: Mark Walhood, City Planner.
Christopher Brown, Planner II December 4th, 2014 Case No. 14ZONE1036 La Grange Road Office Louisville Metro Planning Commission Public Hearing.
City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Portland Design Commission Design Recommendation LU MS Conway’s NW.
1 Gables Gateway. 2 1.Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment 2.Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 3.Zoning Code Text Amendment 4.Change in Zoning 5.MXD3 Mixed.
Applicant: Robert Ganem Addresses: 7304 & 7312 Black Oak Lane Planning Commission Meeting – August 21, 2015.
Longhorn Steakhouse Variance Request Applicant has requested a variance to the Land Development Code watershed regulation that restricts impervious cover.
CPA Congregate Living Facilities as Accessory Use to Religious Facilities Text Amendment Department of Growth Management Mehdi Benkhatar, Planner.
June 5, 2007 BCC CALLED PUBLIC HEARING ON BZA # VA , 4/5/07 APPLICANT: Mark P. Nasrallah.
JUNE 18, 2013 BCC APPEAL HEARING ON BZA #SE , MAY 2, 2013 APPLICANT/APPELLANT: JAIGOPAUL BISNAUTH.
1 Villa Laguna MXD3 Site Plan Review. 2 Request: The applicant is requesting site plan review of a proposed mixed-use project pursuant to the recently.
City of East Palo Alto Planning Commission
Animal Care Facilities
City Council Meeting July 17, 2017
8/23/2016 Luis N. Serna, AICP David, Healey, FAICP
“Palm Coast 145, LLC” Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning Planning and Land Development Regulation Board December 21, 2016.
Washoe County Board of Adjustment
Marina Del Palma Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map Amendment
File No A request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 1,425 square-foot covered balcony, a 14.5 square-foot balcony and a 5,157 square-foot.
Appeal: Time Extension for Variance # East Walnut Street
City Council Meeting February 26, 2018
Early Experience with HAA & SB 35 Objective Standards Requirements
Planning Commission January 20, 2016
City Council Meeting April 29, 2019
Washoe County Board of Adjustment
12 D. Variance Request – 211 Jennifer Lane
Presentation transcript:

1 City of Portland Bureau of Development Services Staff Presentation to the Adjustment Committee Land Use Review LU AD Adjustment

2 Project Description Construct a 30-foot by 60-foot detached garage/storage structure at the corner of SE 25 th Avenue and SE Cora Street.

3 Proposed Adjustments 1.Increase the maximum allowed building coverage for accessory structures from 15 percent to 18.7 percent; and 2.Allow the building coverage for the garage/storage structure (1,823 sq. ft.) to exceed the building coverage for the house (641 sq. ft.).

4 Background A risk claim has been filed with the City Auditor’s Office. This hearing is about the proposed Adjustments, not whether incorrect information was given in the permit center.

5 Zoning Map

6 Site Plan

7 Elevation Drawings

8

9 Site

10 Site

11 Site

12 Vicinity

13 Vicinity

14 Vicinity

15 Relevant Adjustment Approval Criteria Zoning Code Section A. Granting the Adjustment will equally or better meet the purposes of the regulations to be modified. Accessory Structures This section regulates structures that are incidental to primary buildings to prevent them from becoming the predominant element of the site. The standards provide for necessary access around structures, help maintain privacy to abutting lots, and maintain open front setbacks.

16 Relevant Adjustment Approval Criteria Zoning Code Section B.If in a residential zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area.

17 Relevant Adjustment Approval Criteria Zoning Code Section C. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone. Purpose of the R5 zone Single-dwelling zones are intended to preserve land for housing and to provide housing opportunities for individual households.

18 Relevant Adjustment Approval Criteria Zoning Code Section E. Any impacts resulting from the Adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical.

19 Findings A. Granting the Adjustment will equally or better meet the purposes of the regulations to be modified. Accessory Structures: Incidental – the proposed garage/storage structure is three times the size of the house; Predominant – the proposed garage/storage structure would become the predominant structure on the site; and Zone – the proposed garage/storage structure is not appropriate for a Single-Dwelling zone.

20 Findings B.In a residential zone, the proposal will not significantly detract from the livability or appearance of the residential area. The area is developed with modest sized homes; The proposed garage/storage building has an industrial appearance and would be more appropriate in an Industrial zone

21 Findings C. If more than one adjustment is being requested, the cumulative effect of the adjustments results in a project which is still consistent with the overall purpose of the zone. The proposal does not preserve land for housing; The proposal would cause the site to appear as non-residential; and Adjusting the standards would result in a project that is inconsistent with the zone.

22 Findings E. Any impacts resulting from the Adjustment are mitigated to the extent practical. Impacts are not mitigated; The garage/storage building is too large; and The building would have the appearance of a nonconforming industrial or auto-repair use.

23 Denial 1.Do not approve garage/storage building that exceeds building coverage for accessory structures; and 2.Do not approve garage/storage building that has a greater building coverage than the house.

24 Appeal Summary Criterion A The proposed garage/storage building exceeds the allowed building coverage for accessory structures by only 2.9%; The existing house is undersized; and The combined building coverage for the house and proposed garage/storage structure is less than the allowed building coverage for the site and will leave the majority of the site undeveloped.

25 Appeal Summary Criterion B The garage/storage building is surrounded by existing garages, trees, shrubs and vegetation. Criterion C The two requested Adjustments are similar so this criterion is not applicable. Criterion E There are no impacts because the garage is surrounded by existing garages, trees, shrubs and vegetation.