HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-181 Findings - Shrewsbury 97-073BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 16, 1997
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #97-073, REQUEST FOR A )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND AN EXISTING TRAVELERS )
ACCOMMODATION FROM FOUR UNITS TO FIVE. )
)
)
APPLICANT: LAURA SHREWSBURY )
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 4300 of 391E 9BD is located at 570 Siskiyou Boulevard and is
zoned R-2; Low Density Multi-Family.
2) The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to
expand an existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five
units. Site improvements are shown on the site plan on file at the
Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use are as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the
zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not
implemented by any city, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of city facilities for water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and
through the subject property.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material
effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the
development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When
evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered
in relation to the target use of the zone:
a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.
Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area
d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
e) Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
g) Other factors found to be relevant bythe Hearing Authority for
review of the proposed use.
Further, there are specific criteria for the approval of a travelers
accommodation. These are found in 18.24.030 (K) and are as follows:
Traveler's accommodations, provided that the facility be subject to
the following:
1) That the property used for the Travelers Accommodation be
business-owner occupied. The business-owner shall be required to
reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy
shall be determined as the travellers accommodation location being
the primary residence of the owner during operation of the
accommodation.
Business-owner shall be defined as a person or persons who own the
property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a
lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the
operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to
specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the
day to day operation or financial management of the accommodation,
and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all
operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual
ownership of the business.
2) That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking
space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All spaces
shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street
Parking section of this Title.
3) That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of non-plastic
material, non-interior illuminated of 6 sq. ft. maximum size be
allowed. Any exterior illumination of signage shall be installed
such that it does not directly illuminate any residential
structures adjacent or nearby the traveler's accommodation in
violation of 18.72.110.
4) That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be
determinedby the following criteria:
a) That the total number of units, including the owner's
unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage
of the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same
ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the number
of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this
ordinance. The maximum number of accommodation units shall
not exceed 9 per approved travellers accommodation with
primary lot frontage on arterial streets. The maximum number
of units shall be 7per approved travellers accommodation with
primary lot frontage on designated collector streets, or for
traveller's accommodation not having primary frontage on an
arterial and within 200 feet of an arterial or collector.
Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public
street or alley access to the site from the collector or
arterial.
b) Excluding the business-owner's unit, and the area of the
structure it will occupy, there just be at least 400 sq. ft.
of gross interior floor space remaining per unit.
5) That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years
old. The primary residence may be altered and adapted for
traveler's accommodation use, including expansion of floor area.
Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate additional
units, but must be in conformance with all setbacks and lot
coverage of the underlying zone.
6) Transfer of business-ownership of a travelers accommodation
shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and subject
to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the
criteria of this section.
All traveler's accommodations receiving their initial approvals
prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered
as approved, conforming uses, with all previous approvals,
conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of
business-ownership. Any further modifications beyond the existing
approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this
section.
7) An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department
shall be required by the laws of the Jackson County or the State of
Oregon.
8) That the property on which the travelers accommodation is
operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or arterial
street as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances
shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site
from the collector or arterial.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on October 14, 1997, at which time testimony was received
and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission denied the
application, noting that the application failed to meet the required
burden of proof.
5) The applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to
the Ashland City Council, as per 18.108.110. The Ashland City Council,
following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 2,
1997 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented.
The Ashland City Council denied the application.
Now, therefore, The Ashland City Council finds and concludes as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index
of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an
"M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Ashland City Council finds that it has received all
information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff
Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Ashland City Council finds that the proposal to expand an
existing Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units does
not meet all applicable criteria for approval, as required in
18.24.030.K. of the land use ordinance. Specifically, the Ashland
City Council finds that the applicant has failed to meet the
standard requiring that the accommodation be business-owner
occupied - 18.24.030.K.1. and that the accommodation be the primary
residence of the owner. Specifically, the section states:
18.24.030.K.1. That the property used for the travelers
accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-owner shall
be required to reside on the property occupied by the
accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the travelers
accommodation location being the primary residence of the owner
during operation of the accommodation.
Business-owner shall be defined as aperson orpersons who own the
property and accommodation outright; or who have entered into a
lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the
operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement to
specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the
day to day operation or financial management of the accommodation,
and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all
operations associated with the accommodation, and has actual
ownership of the business.
In information contained in the record provided by the applicant,
she indicated that she and her husband recently purchased another
home in Ashland so that their young children could be closer to
school. She indicated that as of August 30, 1997, her husband and
children had moved to the new home. She indicated that she still
resided at the travellers accommodation during its operation, and
maintained it as her mailing address.
during the public hearing, provided
regarding the definition of a residence.
The applicant's agent,
additional information
Many of the issues involved in this matter concern whether or not
the applicant's primary residence is the site of the traveler's
accommodation. We recognize that there are numerous and different
requirements in regard to what constitutes one's residence and
those requirements may fluctuate depending upon the context of the
law or regulation being interpreted. In the context of this
ordinance, however, we interpret the phrase "primary residence" as
used in § 18.24.030.K.1 as a residence where the business owner
resides. If the business owner has more than one residence, and if
the owner has a spouse and minor chidden, as in this case, the
primary residence is the residence where the owner's spouse and
children reside. We base this interpretation in part on the history
of this section as related by the Community Development Director at
the hearing. Traveler's accommodations are uses located in
residential neighborhoods and they are to remain a part of such
neighborhoods. The potential for conflict between residential uses
and business uses in residential neighborhoods is reduced when the
owner and the owner's family reside where the business is located.
A primary residence should not be one which causes the operator
"considerable personal inconvenience" (as stated in a finding
submitted by the applicant, p. 16 of the record.) The Council
finds that the applicant has not provided evidence assuring the
Council that during the operation of the travelers accommodation
that it would be her primary residence.
2.3 Based upon information provided in the record, the Ashland
City Council finds that the travelers accommodation located at 570
Siskiyou Boulevard is not the primary residence of the
applicant/business-owner, and therefore fails to meet the
requirements of 18.24.030.K.1 of the Ashland land use ordinance.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the
Ashland City Council concludes that the proposal to expand an existing
Travelers Accommodation from four units to five units can not be
supported by evidence in the record. Specifically, the application fails
to meet 18.24.030.K.1 regarding business-owner occupancy of the site as
her primary residence during operation of the travelers accommodation.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action
~97-073.
Mayor
Date