The Yamhill Planning Commission voted to deny a request to legalize a covered patio added to a nonconforming storage building at 360 South Olive.

City planning staff told the commission the property is zoned R-3 and contains a storage building that lacks an on-site dwelling, which makes it a nonconforming structure under local code. Staff said the approximately 1,000-square-foot covered patio was constructed without a building permit and that the application failed to demonstrate the hardships or extraordinary circumstances required for a variance. "For this reason, the only recommendation I can provide is that the application be denied," staff member Walt told the commission.

The applicant acknowledged building the cover initially for a daughter’s graduation party and said he now uses it to store equipment such as scissor lifts. "I did construct that originally for my daughter's graduation party," the applicant said, noting cost and convenience as reasons for the installation. He also told the commission he spoke with several city staff and code-enforcement officials and received mixed guidance while construction continued.

A neighbor, Darryl Breidewald, spoke in support, saying, "I see no wrong in it all," and that the patio improved the appearance of the property from his perspective.

Commissioners focused on the six variance criteria in the development code and several members concluded multiple criteria were not met. One commissioner summarized their view that while the structure is attractive, it does not comply with the code and four of the required findings were lacking. After deliberation, a commissioner moved to deny the application adopting the findings in the staff report; the motion was seconded and carried.

Staff advised the applicant of the appeal process: a written decision will be issued and the applicant may appeal to the city council. Walt told the applicant, "You do not have to do anything with the awning or cover, until such time there is a final decision by the city council," meaning the awning can remain in place while an appeal is pending.

The denial formalizes the commission's application of the nonconforming-use and variance provisions in Title 10 and leaves the applicant the option to pursue a council appeal or to pursue other remedies such as submitting a site plan to demonstrate how a dwelling could be located on the lot or how the lot might be combined with adjacent property to conform to the code.

The commission briefly discussed enforcement consistency and the applicant's claim that prior interactions with code enforcement had been unclear; staff said those concerns could be pursued separately but were not determinative of the variance criteria under review. The commission closed deliberations and moved on to the next agenda item.