Troutdale planners find no systemic code problem after 10-year variance review; most variances tied to unique lot conditions

Troutdale planning staff told the Planning Commission on July 9 that a 10-year review of variance requests found 31 approvals and six denials and concluded there is no single code provision producing repeat hardship requests.

The finding came in a presentation by Nick Ramstead, assistant planner, who summarized his memo and told commissioners, “Variances over the past 10 years, we approved 31. We denied 6.” He said most approvals included conditions to make proposals work rather than rejection.

The presentation explained why that pattern does not, in staff’s view, indicate a broken code. “After staff review, it appears the most common occurring variances are unique occurrences specific to the subject properties,” Ramstead said. He noted the most frequently requested variances involve structure height, signs and setbacks but added that those requests usually reflect individual lot constraints — for example, topography, lot size or historic right-of-way dedications — rather than a recurring problem tied to a single zoning rule.

Commissioners pressed staff on how the review counted cases. Commissioner Minkoff questioned whether the report recorded the year of application or the year of hearing; Ramstead confirmed the count is tied to the date a case file is opened. Commissioner Wilcox pointed to a specific 2020 case (file LU00042020) that sought a 30% setback reduction and asked for the staff reports and applicant materials to better understand the rationale for a front-setback as small as 7 feet and side-yard reductions from 5 to 3 feet.

Ramstead said the 30% example reflected a combination of constraints including lot topography and oversized historic right-of-way dedications and offered to provide staff reports and the applicant submittal to any commissioner who requested them. He emphasized that the city treats variance requests on a case-by-case basis: “It is the conclusion of this report that there are no variances occurring due to a poor functioning code item.”

The commission used the memo as a springboard for a broader refresher on setbacks and lot configuration. Ramstead reviewed how the city’s dimensional standards establish different front, rear, side and street-side setbacks depending on zone and development type, and explained that accessory structures under 200 square feet and 10 feet in height are treated differently in the code. He also noted that portable swimming pools under 24 inches deep do not trigger setback rules, while larger pools are treated as accessory structures for setback purposes.

Commissioners discussed practical implications for multi-building developments and nonconforming uses. Commissioner Wilcox described a recent multifamily project on 250 Seventh Avenue where differing adjacent zones produced uneven outdoor space for different building faces; planning staff reminded the commission that a single-family house that sits in a higher-density zone is a legal nonconforming use and would be subject to current standards if redeveloped.

Ramstead closed by encouraging commissioners to reach out when they encounter unclear lot configurations; he said the staff would provide the PowerPoint and supporting documents for commissioners’ reference. Several commissioners thanked him for the memo and asked that staff make the background files available for review.

The commission did not take a formal policy vote on code changes at the meeting; members said the variance inventory will remain a reference for future code-update discussions.