Loading...
Ord 2303 - Sub 01-01 denial COUNCIL BILL NO. 2357 ORDINANCE NO. 2303 AN ORDINANCE AFFIRMING THE WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION 01-01 AND VARIANCE 01-06 TO SUBDIVIDE TWO RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, THE COMBINED SIZE OF WHICH IS 1.91 ACRES, INTO FIVE LOTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST HARDCASTLE AVENUE BETWEEN HWY 99E AND THE EASTERLY CITY LIMIT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant, Wilhelm Engineering, Inc., requested approval of land use applications for a subdivision and variance to subdivide a residential site 1.91 acres in size on the south side of East Hardcastle Avenue between Hwy 99E and the easterly city limit; and WHEREAS, The Woodburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at their regularly scheduled meeting of August 23, 200 I and adopted a final order on September 13, 2001 denying said applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the Woodburn City Council by Kevin E. Mayne, attorney representing the property owner; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has reviewed the record pertaining to said appeal and heard all public testimony presented at the appeal hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the decision of the Woodburn Planning Commission denying Subdivision Case No. 01-01 and Variance Case No. 01-06 is affirmed based upon Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, affixed hereto as Attachment "A". Section 2. That this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately u~~:;age by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Approved as to form~ , ). rrr- ~ II-if - ~ ~ J / City Attorney Date Approved: ~ ..~~ Rich d Jenmngs, Mayor Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2357 ORDINANCE NO. 2303 Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: ,~~ Maiy Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2357 ORDINANCE NO. 2303 November 13, 2001 November 14, 2001 November 14, 2001 Novemher 14, 2001 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant: George Wilhelm Wilhelm Engineering, Inc. P.O. Box 561 1771 Mt. Jefferson Ave Woodburn, OR 97071 Property Owner: Lazar Kalugin Quality Plus Interiors, Inc. 11220 Portland Road NE Salem, OR 97305 ~ II. NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to subdivide two residential properties into five lots for future residential use. The proposed subdivision includes three variance requests: 1) to allow five lots to access a private drive when four is the maximum permitted, 2) to allow the private drive serving the subdivision to extend beyond the 150-foot depth maximum to 250 feet, and 3) to allow four of the lots to be created without public right-of-way frontage, rather they would be accessed by a private drive. III. RELEVANT FACTS: The subject properties are located on the south side of E. Hardcastle Ave between Hwy 99E and the easterly city limit. The properties are addressed at 1810 and 1820 E. Hardcastle Ave, further identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 8DC, Tax Lots 6000 (1820 E. Hardcastle) and 6101 (1810 E. Hardcastle). The combined size of both subject properties is 1.91 acres (83,200 square feet). TL 6000 is 1.05 acres and TL 6101 is 0.86 acres. The proposed lots range in size from 6,020 square feet to 29,500 square feet and will have widths of no less than 70 feet and lengths of no less than 86 feet. Four of the five lots are proposed to be accessed by a 24-foot wide private drive within a 39-foot wide private right-of- way. Most of this private right-of-way is proposed to be within a separate tract of land, but portions would need to extend onto an existing and proposed single- family lots through easements. SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 1 The site is virtually flat with no more than one (1) foot of change in elevation. The property consists of trees and vegetation, some of which are to be removed as part of this project. TL 6101 is currently vacant, and TL 6000 has a shed which is to be removed and a new single-family home which is to remain. This existing home is proposed to be located within Lot 1. The subject site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) and has a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Low Density Residential. Adjacently located to the west is a two-family home (duplex) neighborhood zoned Multi- Family Residential (RM) District. The city limit is along the south of the property, and the adjacent property to the south consists of an orchard which is under Marion County zoning of Single-Family (RS) Residential. This is the only adjacent property that is not within the Woodburn city limit. The adjacent property to the east is zoned RS and has a single-family home. To the north on the opposite side of Hardcastle is also a two-family home (duplex) neighborhood zoned RM. IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: SUB 01-01 A. WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN B. WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 8 General Standards Chapter 9 Residential Standards Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Requirements Chapter 22 RS - Single Family Residential District Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-In-Lieu-of C. WOODBURN SUBDIVISION STANDARDS D. WOODBURN SIGN ORDINANCE E. WOODBURN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN F. WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE VAR 01-06 A. WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 2 B. WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 8 General Standards Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Requirements Chapter 13 Variance Procedures C. WOODBURN SUBDIVISION STANDARDS D. WOODBURN ACCESS MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE v. FINDINGS SUB 01-01 A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan FINDING: Applicable goals and policies have been satisfied through the implementation of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances in affect at the time of approval. The proposed use is residential in nature. A residential use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Low Density Residential on the subject properties. B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 8. General Standards. Section 8.030. Dwellings and All Other Buildings to be Accessible to Public Streets. Every dwelling shall be situated on a lot having direct access by abutting upon a public street or a pre-existing private driveway of a width of not less than 20 feet and a private drive shall not serve more than four dwelling units except when approved under Planned Development. . . . FINDING: Four of the five proposed lots are to be created without public right-of- way frontage. A variance is being requested as part of this proposal from the standard requiring all lots to abut public right-of-way (referred to as "Variance No. 3" in this report). In addition, five lots are proposed to access the private drive that would serve this subdivision. Said access is to be located in a separate tract of land and a portion of an existing access easement along the east side a single-family lot, which is located adjacent to the northwest of the subject site. This lot was partitioned from TL 6101 as Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1995-42, herein referred to as "Parcel 1" (see Exhibit "C"). The existing access easement was established SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 3 as part of this partition to provide access to TL 6101. As part of this subdivision request, this existing easement is proposed to be incorporated into the proposed private drive, continuing to provide access to Parcel 1 in addition to the proposed four interior lots. The five lots accessing the private drive exceed the maximum allowance of four lots. As a result, an additional variance is being requested as part of this subdivision to allow five lots to access the private drive (referred to as "Variance No.1" in this report). Section 8.040. Special Setback Distances (12) East Hardcastle Avenue, U.S. Hwy 99E to East City Limits... ...40 feet FINDING: The subject site abuts a section of E. Hardcastle Ave with a 60-foot wide right-of-way. This puts the center line of Hardcastle 30 feet from the front property line of the site. With a required 40-foot special setback distance from the roadway center line, 10 feet of special setback is required from the site's front property line. By adding this to the minimum 20-foot front yard setback required in the RS District, the minimum setback distance required from the front property line is 30 feet. There is a single-family home on the front portion of the site which is approximately 40 feet from the front property line. The minimum special setback distance is being met in this proposal. Section 8.190. Vision Clearance. A triangular area at the street or highway corner of a corner lot, or the corner at any alley street intersection of a lot, the space being defined by a diagonal line across the corner between the points of the streets rights-of-way lines or street-alley rights-of-way lines measured from the corner. The vision clearance area for corner lots at street intersections shall have a minimum of 30 foot legs along each street and for alley-street intersections in said districts the vision clearance area shall have legs of a minimum of ten feet along both alleys and streets. The vision clearance area shall not contain any plantings, walls, structures, or temporary or permanent obstructions to vision exceeding 30 inches in height above the curb level, or street shoulder where there is no curb, except a supporting pillar or post not greater than 12 inches in diameter or 12 inches on the diagonal of a rectangular pillar or post; and further, excepting those posts or supporting members of street signs, street lights, and traffic control signs installed as directed by the Building Inspector, or any other sign erected for public safety. Vision clearance shall not be required at a height of seven feet or more above the curb level, or seven feet, six inches above the shoulder of a street that does not have a curb. SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 4 FINDING: Vision clearance triangles have been applied to the point where the proposed private drive connects with E. Hardcastle Avenue. There are none of the above-described obstructions within these triangle areas, nor are any proposed as part of this project. 2. Chapter 9. Residential Standards. FINDING: At such time that building permit applications are made on each lot, residential setback requirements would be reviewed for compliance. There is currently one single-family home and an accessory structure on the subject site. The accessory structure is to be removed, and the single-family home is to be located on proposed Lot 1 of this subdivision. As discussed in the portion of this report addressing WZO Chapter 22 "Single Family Residential (RS) District", the proposed layout of Lot 1 in relation to the location of the existing home complies with residential setback and maximum lot coverage standards. 3. Chapter 10. Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards. Section 10.050. Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements. (a) Single-family dwellings: (1) One and one-half spaces per dwelling. FINDING: The applicant has indicated that the proposed lots will be constructed with single-family homes. The existing home on proposed Lot 1 has been provided with the necessary off-street parking spaces. At the time of building permit submittal for said residential dwellings, each lot would need to provide the required one and one-half off-street parking spaces. Section 10.080. Driveway Standards. I) Standards for driveways serving more than one dwelling unit: (3) Minimum width of the driveway pavement shall be 24 feet. (4) A turnaround shall be provided on all private, dead-end streets; minimum of 40 foot radius for cul-de-sac turnarounds, minimum of two forty foot long legs by 20 feet for a "T", "Y" or "branch" turnaround. FINDING: The private drive providing access to the proposed four interior lots is to be 24 feet in width. The dead-end of the drive is proposed as a "T" turnaround with 30-foot long legs 25 feet in width. The legs are 10 feet short of the minimum SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 5 length. (5) Maximum depth of a private street shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line to the point where the street no longer serves more than one unit. (6) Private streets are designated as fire lanes so no blockage could be allowed. "No Parking" signs shall be erected and maintained by the property owner. (7) Driveways serving private single family detached homes shall: (a) Serve no more than four units; (b) Not be allowed unless no practical development of a public street is possible and the land cannot be otherwise utilized for urban-type units. FINDING: With regard to the maximum depth for private drives of 150 feet and the requirement that private driveways serve no more than four single-family homes, the applicant is requesting variances from these standards, which are further addressed in this report under WZO Chapter 13 "Variance Procedures". In reference to subsection 8(b), a public street extension onto the subject property would require a right-of-way width of at least 50 feet and a cul-de-sac radius of no less than 55 feet. As a result, a public street would not be practical to serve allowable development on this site due to the long and narrow shape of the subject properties and the site's limited frontage width along existing right-of- way. 4. Chapter 22. Single Family Residential District. Section 22.010. Use. Within the RS Single Family Residential District no building, structure, or premises shall be used, arranged or designed to be used except for one or more of the following uses: (a) Single Family Dwelling FINDING: The applicant has indicated that the proposed lots will be constructed with single-family homes. The subject site is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) District, and single-family homes are permitted outright. Section 22.040. Height. In an RS District, no building or structure shall exceed 35 feet or two and one-half stories in height... FINDING: The existing home which would be encompassed by Lot 1 is 17 feet in height at its tallest point. At this time, there are no other residential structures SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 6 on the site. Future structures would be reviewed for compliance with height limits at the time of building permit submittal. Section 22.050. Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard on every lot in an RS District which shall have a minimum depth of 24 feet for a one-story building, 30 feet for a two-story building and 36 feet for a two and one-half story building. In the case of a corner lot, the minimum depth shall be 14 feet for a one-story building, 20 feet for a two-story building and 26 feet for a two and one-half story building. FINDING: None of the proposed lots would be corner lots. The existing home on the site is one story. Proposed Lot 1, which would encompass the existing home, provides for a rear yard setback of 25 feet. This setback distance meets the minimum required for this lot. Any future homes on the site would be reviewed for setback compliance at the time of building permit submittal. All proposed lots consist of sizes and configurations that allow for required setbacks to be met while providing for reasonable building areas. Section 22.060. Side Yards. There shall be a side yard on each side of the main building on every lot in an RS District in width not less than five feet for a one-story building, nor less than six feet for a two or two and one-half story building.... FINDING: The existing home would have side yard setbacks of approximately 10 and 12 feet to the proposed property lines of Lot 1, meeting the minimum requirement. All future structures within the subdivision would be reviewed for setback compliance at the time of building permit submittal. Section 22.070. Front Yard. Every building erected, constructed, or altered in an RS District shall conform to the front yard setback set forth in Section 9.040. FINDING: Chapter 9 requires a front yard setback distance no less than 20 feet, and as mentioned, there is a required special setback distance from the front property line of an additional 10 feet. The special setback only affects the existing home on proposed Lot 1, which in addition to the minimum front yard setback of 20 feet, requires a total front yard setback of 30 feet. The existing home is approximately 40 feet from the front property line, meeting the minimum setback. The remaining lots would be reviewed for setback compliance at the time of building permit submittal for future structures. Section 22.080. Lot Area and Width. In an RS District the minimum requirements for lot area shall be 6,000 square feet for each dwelling and SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 7 every lot shall have a minimum width of sixty feet at the front building line. No dwelling or main building other than a dwelling shall occupy more than 30 percent of the lot area, except where an accessory building is attached to or made a part of the dwelling, or main building, in which case 35 percent of the lot area may be occupied by such dwelling or main building... . FINDING: The existing home on proposed Lot 1 has an attached garage, allowing the home and garage to cover up to 35 percent of the lot. The existing home occupies approximately 25 percent of the proposed Lot 1, complying with the maximum coverage allowed. Future residential structures on the other proposed lots in this subdivision would be reviewed for compliance with maximum coverage standards at the time of building permit submittal. 5. Chapter 39. Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu FINDING: The System Development Charge for park purposes is $1,267.00 per lot, resulting in a total charge of $5,068.00 for the four lots without residential structures. There would be no charge for Lot 1 since this fee was paid when the existing house was constructed. C. Woodburn Subdivision Standards Chapter III. Section 6. (3) No final plat of a proposed subdivision or partition or replat shall be approved unless: (b) Streets and roads held for private use and indicated on the tentative plan for such subdivision, partition or replat have been approved by the City. FINDING: The only access extension proposed as part of this subdivision is a private access drive extending in a north-south direction from E. Hardcastle Avenue. The access has been marked on the tentative plan through a separate tract of land and an existing access easement along the east side of the adjacent Parcel 1. (6) The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut on a public street. FINDING: There are no public street extensions proposed as part of this application. Four of the five proposed lots do not abut a public street, and a SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 8 variance request is being made from the above-mentioned standard as part of this application. Chapter III. Section 7. A. Tentative plans information: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I. J. k. for subdivisions shall include the following Name of proposed subdivision Vicinity map Subdivision plan Names and addresses in notification area Diagram of water system Diagram of sewage & storm drain system Diagram of streets and sidewalk system Legal description of subject property Name of proposed streets Lot numbers Identification of easements, parkland dedication, and private utilities. FINDING: Sufficient information has been submitted by the applicant. Attached with this report is a preliminary plat that indicates the proposed lots and the applicable above-listed information. Section 13 (B). Lots: All lots shall have a minimum size of the zoning district in which they are located. In cul-de-sacs the minimum lot line fronting the turnaround shall be 40 feet, and in the case of a curved lot line where the radius of curvature is 100 feet or less, the minimum lot line fronting that curvature shall be 40 feet, and in no cases shall the lot width be less than 60 feet at the buildina line. If topography, drainage, or other conditions justify, the Commission may require a greater area on any or all lots within a subdivision. The minimum size for various types of lots shall be as given in the following table: Type of Lot Minimum Width Interior lot (fronting one street) 60 feet FINDING: All lots, although not all fronting public right-of-way, are treated as interior lots in this subdivision. Each lot has been configured on the preliminary SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 9 plat to provide at least 60 feet of width at building lines. The above standard for lot configuration has been satisfied. D. Woodburn Sian Ordinance FINDING: Other than premises identification required by the Woodburn Fire District, there are no signs proposed as part of this application at this time. Any future signs would require approval and/or permit from the Community Development Department. E. Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan FINDING: The subdivision furthers the intent of the transportation plan by limiting the number of public right-of-way accesses serving the subdivision. In addition, the single-family home on Parcel 1 to the northwest of this subdivision would have access from the proposed private drive instead of direct access onto E. Hardcastle, providing for better traffic flow. F. Woodburn Access Manaaement Ordinance FINDING: E. Hardcastle Avenue is classified as a minor arterial in this Ordinance. Minor arterials are required to have no less than 245 feet between driveways. This spacing distance is not met due to the existing driveway on Lot 1 and the proposed private drive serving the remainder of the subdivision. This Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to waive the spacing requirement if it is not feasible to meet the requirement. The existing driveway is approximately 13 feet from the proposed private drive. Since the driveway on proposed Lot 1 is existing, and since the proposed location of the private drive cannot be located elsewhere and must serve as a shared access, the Community Development Director has waived the 245-foot driveway spacing distance along E. Hardcastle to allow the 13-foot distance proposed. VAR 01-06 A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan FINDING: Applicable goals and policies have been satisfied through the implementation of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances in affect at the time of approval. The proposed use is residential in nature. A residential use is compatible with the designated Comprehensive Plan Map of Low Density Residential on the subject properties. B. Woodburn Zonina Ordinance SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 10 1. Chapter 8. General Standards. Section 8.030. Dwellings and All Other Buildings to be Accessible to Public Streets. Every dwelling shall be situated on a lot having direct access by abutting upon a public street or a pre-existing private driveway of a width of not less than 20 feet and a private drive shall not serve more than four dwelling units except when approved under Planned Development... . FINDING: Four of the five lots are to be created without public right-of-way frontage. A variance is being requested as part of this proposal from the standard requiring all lots to abut public right-of-way (referred to as "Variance No. 3" in this report). In addition, five lots are proposed to access the private drive that would serve this subdivision. Said access is to be encompassed by a separate tract of land and a portion of an existing access easement along the east side of a single- family lot, which is located adjacently to the northeast of the subject site. This lot was partitioned from TL 6101 as Parcel 1 of Partition Plat 1995-42, herein referred to as "Parcel 1" (see Exhibit "e"). The existing access easement was established as part of this partition to provide access to TL 6101. As part of this subdivision request, this existing easement is proposed to be incorporated into the proposed private drive, continuing to provide access to Parcel 1 in addition to the proposed four interior lots. The five lots accessing the private drive exceed the maximum allowance of four lots. As a result, an additional variance is being requested as part of this subdivision to allow five lots to access the private drive (referred to as "Variance NO.1" in this report). 2. Chapter 1 O. Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards. Section 10.080. Driveway Standards. I) Standards for driveways serving more than one dwelling unit: (5) Maximum depth of a private street shall be 150 feet, measured from the right-of-way line to the point where the street no longer serves more than one unit. (6) Driveways serving private single family detached homes shall: (c) Serve no more than four units; (d) Not be allowed unless no practical development of a public street is possible and the land cannot be otherwise utilized for urban-type units. SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 11 FINDINGS: The applicant is requesting three variances for this proposal, two of which are from the standards listed in the above subsections. The private street is proposed to exceed the maximum 150-foot depth with a proposed depth of 250 feet. In addition, the preliminary subdivision plan shows that five lots would access the private drive through the request of a variance. These variance requests are further addressed in this report under Chapter 13 "Variance Procedures" . 3. Chapter 13. Variance Procedures. FINDING: Each of the proposed variances are addressed under the following criteria and are referenced as follows: Variance No.1: Request to allow five single-family lots to access off a single private street where only four are permitted; Variance No.2: Request to allow the private street to extend 250 feet in depth from the E. Hardcastle Avenue right-of-way when only a maximum of 150 feet is permitted; Variance No.3 Request to allow single-family residential lots to be created without right-of-way frontage and to abut private street frontage when required to abut public right-of-way. Section 13.020. Conditions for Granting a Variance. (a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the literal requirements of the ordinance; FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that even though this variance would allow for infill residential development on this site, such development would be limited to the north portion of the property. The south portion of the property would be left as two large parcels which could not be developed to their allowed densities. A public street connection through the subject site would allow the property to be divided into more than five lots. The Council finds that this variance request does not comply with this criterion. Variance No.2: There is the possibility of Centennial Drive or a future street from Lincoln Street extending to the south portion of the site in the future which would allow public street access onto the site. If either street is extended, the proposed private drive would no longer be the only means available to the applicant for access to new lots. The City Council finds that the applicant has not complied with this variance criterion. SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 12 Variance No.3: Although the applicant is unable to create more than four lots with public right-of-way frontage at this time, future extension of Centennial Drive or a future street from Lincoln Street would relieve the applicant of this difficulty since a second means of public right-of-way frontage would be available to the south portion of the site. The City Council finds that the applicant has not complied with this variance criterion. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, or uses in the same district; however, non- conforming land uses or structures in the vicinity shall not in themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions; FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that there are no extraordinary circumstances applying to this site that would warrant approval for four of the proposed lots to be created without right-of-way frontage. As a result, the finding is that this variance does not comply with the above criterion. Variance No.2: Without public right-of-way, the property cannot be efficiently developed as an in-fill site without obtaining additional variances in the future, and as mentioned, there is the likelihood that a public street will be extended to the site in the future to allow for more efficient development. The City Council finds that this variance criterion has not been met. Variance No.3: The Council finds that the variances requested in this proposal should not be granted since there is the possibility for the extension of a public street in the future. (c) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the premises; FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that granting this variance could be detrimental to the public welfare since there would be limited enforcement ability of the city to keep the private drive unobstructed for emergency access. As a result, the Council finds that this variance criterion has not been met. Variance No.2: The City Council finds that allowing the private drive to extend beyond the depth maximum would be injurious to the public welfare since the city has limited authority to enforce "no" parking on private drives. As a result, SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 13 access could be blocked by parked cars which the city would have limited ability to remove, and the city would therefore be limited in ensuring that emergency access is maintained. The Council finds that this variance criterion has not been met. Variance No.3: Enforcement of no parking on the private drive would be done through a homeowner's association for the subdivision. In the event that the association does not enforce it, the city's ability to take over enforcement would be limited since it is a private drive. The City Council finds that allowing four of the lots to be accessed solely by a private drive would be injurious to the public welfare since the city would have limited assurance that the emergency access to these four lots would be maintained. As a result, the finding is that this criterion has not been met by this variance request. (d) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner; FINDING: These variances are not necessary for the preservation of the substantial property rights of the petitioner in that the property can be fully developed by the extension of public right-of-way. The City Council finds that the three variance requests do not meet this criterion. (e) That granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant. FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that allowing more than four lots to access a private drive would compromise public health and safety since access needs for five lots would be converged onto a single access that could be blocked by parked vehicles. The Council's finding is that this variance request does not satisfy the above criterion. Variance No.2: The City Council finds that the protection of health and safety of individuals residing in the immediate neighborhood could be adversely impacted by allowing the private drive to exceed its maximum depth due to lack of parking enforcement and access clearance on the private drive. The Council finds that the applicant has not met the above criterion for this variance request. Variance No.3: The City Council finds that enforcement of a "no parking" provision could become a problem in the future since the city's enforcement ability would be limited. The finding is that this variance request does not satisfy the above criterion. SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 14 (f) That the granting of the application will be in general harmony with the intent and purpose of this ordinance and will not adversely affect any officially adopted comprehensive plan. FINDING: Variance No.1: The City Council finds that this variance request would not be in general harmony with intent and purpose of this ordinance since the number of lots allowed to access a single private drive would be exceeded in this proposal. Variance No.2. The City Council finds that this variance request does not allow this in-fill site to be efficiently developed nearly to its potential without a public street on the property and compromises public safety. Considering the possibility of extending a public street to the south portion of the site in the future, the Council further finds that efficient development and public safety could be better ensured on the site at such time with a public street connection. The Council finds that this variance request does not satisfy the above criterion. Variance No.3: The intent and purpose of this Ordinance is to promote public safety. The City Council finds that this variance request would not be in general harmony with the Ordinance since four of the lots are proposed without right-of- way frontage. The Council further finds that access to these lots could be hindered because the city would have limited authority in keeping the private drive unobstructed. The Council finds that the applicant has not met the above criterion for this variance request. c. Woodburn Subdivision Standards Chapter III Section 6 (6) The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut on a public street. FINDING: There are no public street extensions proposed as part of this application. Four of the five proposed lots do not abut a public street. Thus, the City Council denies the subdivision proposal since the Council finds that the requested variances, which would allow these four lots to be created without public street frontage, do not meet the variance criteria. Chapter V. Section 20. Variances to the Reaulations: SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 15 A. The Commission may consider a variance of any requirements set forth in these standards, upon application by the subdivider. The basic considerations for granting a variance will be proof that: (1) Special physical conditions or circumstances peculiar to the property under consideration make a variance necessary. (2) That the variance is necessary for the proper development of the subdivision and the preservation of property rights and values. (3) That the variance will not be present or hereafter be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or persons adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision. Consideration for a variance from these regulations shall be based upon a written statement by the subdivider in which is given complete details of consideration and reasons why a specific variance should be granted. A request for a variance from these regulations shall be filed with the Planning Commission prior to presentation of the final plat for approval. No variance will be considered after a plat has been recorded. FINDING: The above criteria for variance consideration have been addressed previously in the report under Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. It is specifically stated that the proposed subdivision would not be possible without the approval of the three said variance requests. The applicant has provided a written statement which addresses the variance criteria and describes the reasons for requesting the variances. As stated in the section of this report addressing Chapter 13 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds (as affirmation to the findings of the Planning Commission) that the criteria for granting variances have not been met on any of the three variances requested as part of this proposal. The City Council finds that a private street through the property would not allow for the proper development of the site. A future public street connection could be made to the south via a connection with Centennial Drive or a future street from Lincoln Street, which would allow for additional lots to be created. These lots would therefore have public right-of-way access. The applicant's variance requests would not be necessary with the public street connection. D. Woodburn Access Manaaement Ordinance FINDING: E. Hardcastle Avenue is classified as a minor arterial in this Ordinance. Minor arterials are required to have no less than 245 feet between driveways. This spacing distance is not met due to the existing driveway on Lot 1 SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 16 and the proposed private drive serving the remainder of the subdivision. This Ordinance allows the Community Development Director to waive the spacing requirement if it is not feasible to meet the spacing requirement. The existing driveway on proposed Lot 1 is approximately 13 feet from the proposed private drive. Since the driveway on Lot 1 is existing, and since the proposed location of the private drive cannot be located elsewhere and must serve as a shared access, the Community Development Director has waived the 245-foot driveway spacing distance along E. Hardcastle to allow the 13-foot distance proposed. VI. CONCLUSION: Based on the information contained herein and the applicable review criteria, the City Council finds that this proposal does not satisfy all approval criteria relating to the subdivision and variance applications. SUB 01-01, VAR 01-06 ORDINANCE Page 17