HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1219 ICCA FINDINGSBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 19, 1995
IN THE MA'I'FER OF PLANNING ACTION #95-101, )
A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (COUNSELING) )
AT 144 NORTH SECOND STREET. THE OFFICE )
WILL PROVIDE A VARIETY OF SERVICES FOR )
DISADVANTAGED FAMILIES AND )
INDIVIDUALS IN THE ASHLAND AREA. )
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND
DECISION
APPLICANT: INTERFAITH CARE COMMUNITY OF ASHLAND (ICCA)
RECITALS:
A. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the operation of an office
on Tax Lot 9200 of 39-1 E-09BA located at 144 North Second Street. The property is
zoned R-2, Low Density Multi-Family Residential.
B. The planning commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing
on October 10, 1995, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented.
The Planning Commission denied the application as presented.
C. The applicant appealed the decision of the planning commission to the city
council. The city council, following proper public notice, held public hearings on
November 21, 1995 and November 28, 1995 at which time testimony was received and
exhibits were presented. A decision to approve the request was made at the December
5, 1995 city council meeting.
D. The representative for some of the opponents raised an issue that the applicant
failed to state the basis of the applicant's appeal from the decision of the planning
commission. The basis for the objection is that the issues the applicant wishes to raise
are in paragraph 2.3 of the planning commission decision not paragraph 2.4. The
representative for the applicant responded that in the written decision received by him the
paragraph was misnumbered as 2.4 and he cited the number as received by him. The
cfirector of community development confirmed that the document was misnumbered and
was later corrected by staff. We find that the applicant complied with the requirements of
the ordinance for appeals from the planning commission.
CRITERIA:
The approval of a conditional use permit is subject to the criteria for approval in the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) § 18.104.050, which are as follows:
'~. That the use would be in conformance with aft standards within the
zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance
PAGE 1-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION
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 ~vability of the impact area shaft be
considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area
4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
po//utants.
5) Generation of noise, fight, and g/are.
6) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive P/an.
7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of
the proposed use."
TESTIMONY, EVIDENCE, AND FINDINGS:
The council makes the following findings and conclusions regarding the relevant criteria:
1.18. 104.050.A. "That the use would be in conformance with aft 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."
The proposed use will be located at 144 N. Second Street, which is identified as tax lot
39-1E-09BA 9200. This lot is 50' in width and 142' in depth, having a total area of 7100
sq. ft. From the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential District (ALUO 18.24.040 -General Regulations), the minimum lot width for one
unit shall be 50' with a minimum depth of 80'. The minimum lot area shall be 5000 sq. ft.
The lot at this location meets or exceeds these minimums. The council finds that this lot
conforms with all lot dimension standards of the R-2 zoning district.
The proposed use will be located within the existing structure at 144 N. Second Street.
As stated in the Staff Report dated October 10, 1995, this structure is an existing single
family home of 1350 sq. ft. The building is of single story construction and less than 35'
in height. The maximum building height allowed within the R-2 zone is 35'. No changes
PAGE 2-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (p:planning\icca.fdJ
or additions to the structure are proposed by the applicant that would affect the current
setbacks from property lines. The total area covered by impervious surfaces is
approximately 35%, below the R-2 zoning district requirement of 65%. The council finds
that this structure is in conformance with all setback, building height, and lot coverage
standards of the R-2 zoning district.
Off-street parking is provided in accord with the requirements for a general office as found
in ALUO 18.92.020.B.5 and we find that the proposed use meets all the requirements for
off street parking. One space is required for each 450 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The
building is 1350 sq. ft., necessitating three parking spaces. Two parking spaces are
provided at the rear of the property, and one space is provided as an on-street credit, in
accord with ALUO 18.92.025.
Opponents argue that the street is currently unavailable for parking due to impacts from
the downtown and existing uses within the Railroad District. Further, the opponents state
that on-street parking credits should be curtailed in the Railroad District.
The council finds that the application meets all requirements for granting credit for an on-
street parking space. The lot has 50' of street frontage. Two on-street parking spaces
require 48' of uninterrupted curb (ALUO 18.92.025.B.1 .). This provides for a credit of one
space. The property is located 200' from the C-1-D zone, complying with ALUO
18.92.025. F. Further, the council notes that the ordinance language regarding on-street
parking credits is mandatory. The language is as follows:
"18.92.025 Credit for On-Street Parking
A. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following
credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every
two on-street spaces up to four credits ..." (Emphasis added).
The council finds that ordinance language is clear and unambiguous in the granting of on-
street parking credits, and the property at 144 N. Second Street is eligible to receive a
one space credit.
Opponents argue that there will a greater number of staff at the proposed location than
their current office. Therefore, additional parking is needed. Further, the opponents argue
that more clients of the use will use cars than has been estimated by the applicant,
necessitating an increase in the need for parking spaces.
The council finds that the parking requirements are calculated based only on the gross
floor area of the proposed use, and are independent of the number of employees or
workers at a location. The council finds that the provision of two parking spaces at the
rear of the property and one on-street parking space credit provide the three parking
spaces required by the Ashland land use ordinance.
PAGE 3-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Opponents argue that the level of use of the proposed services will increase,
necessitating additional parking. The opponents refer to the applicant's information stating
that they will provide expanded services from those currently provided.
The council again finds that the parking requirements are based only on the gross floor
area of the proposed use, and are independent of the activity level of the use. Should the
applicant propose to increase the size of the structure, additional parking would then be
required. However, the applicant is proposing to use the existing structure without
expansion or modification.
Opponents argue that the proposed use fails to comply with the purpose statement of the
R-2 Residential District. ALUO 18.24.010 states as follows:
"Purpose. This district is designed to provide an environment suitable for urban
living. The R-2 district is intended for residential uses and appurtenant community
seNices. This district is designed in such a manner that it can be appfied to a wide
range of areas due to the range of residential densities possible. In addition, when
appropriately located and designed, professional offices and smafi home-oriented
commercial activities designed to attract pedestrians in the Railroad District are
allowed."
The council interprets the purpose statement of the R-2 district as not constituting a
separate approval standard for the zone, but rather provides a descriptive reference for
the district to be used in the manner we interpreted in planning action #93-128 involving
an appeal regarding an interpretation of city's solar access ordinance. In that matter we
interpreted the role of the purpose statements of each zone as follows:
"The purpose sections of the various chapters of the Land Use Ordinance are not
standards in and of themselves, rather they are guidelines to interpretation of the
ordinance where the requirements of the ordinance are too general or unclear,
subjective, ambiguous or vague. To the extent that it is not apparent that the
purpose sections in the ordinance are guidelines only, we so make such
interpretation of the ordinance." (This case was appealed and the decision of the
council ultimately upheld by the Court of Appeals.) See Sullivan v. City of Ashland,
27 Or LUBA 411 (1994) reversed 130 Or App 480 (1994).
We make the same interpretation here.
We find that the proposed use is an allowable use under conditional uses for the R-2
zoning district. Whether or not the conditional use requested by the applicant is one that
falls within the allowable conditional uses in this zone is a matter of interpretation of the
ordinance. Arguments have been made by the opponents to this application that the
proposed use is not a professional office as that phrase is used in section 18.24.030.E.
This section provides:
PAGE 4-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (.:planning\icca.fd)
"Professional offices or clinics for an accountant, architect, attorney, dentist,
designer, doctor or other practitioner of the healing arts, engineer, insurance agent
or adjuster, investment or management counselor or surveyor." (Emphasis added.)
This section allows a broad range of professional offices. In addition to the more
traditional concept of professional offices being permitted, such as for a doctors, dentists,
attorneys or accountants, more diverse activities are contemplated. For instance, an
insurance adjuster is permitted as well as a surveyor. These professions frequently involve
more than mere office visits by patients or clients to a doctor or lawyer. Frequently an
insurance adjuster may have to inspect for damages to vehicle driven to the adjuster's
office and a surveyor may load and unload surveying equipment daily. The term
professional office as used in this section is a broader concept than what may be
generally considered as a traditional profession.
The applicant has characterized the use to be made of the property as a professional
office with counseling as the primary service. Many of the uses specifically listed in this
section have as an integral part of their profession some form of counseling. We find that
the uses described by the applicant fit within the term used in this section as management
counseling. The proposed use includes interviewing people who are seeking assistance
of one form or another, evaluating those requests, proposing solutions or alternatives and
providing remedies.
This use is very similar to what the more traditional professional services, such as
lawyers, doctors and accountants, offer. Because we interpret this section to permit more
than the traditional view of a professional office and because the proposed use is similar
to many of the services offered by the more traditional professions, we interpret the
phrase "management counselor" as used in this section to include the uses of the
property to be made by the applicant to fall within this phrase. We interpret the phrase
"management counselor" to include, at a minimum, the management and counseling of
people and their problems including those services to be provided by the applicant as
described in this proceeding.
Even if we did not interpret the proposed use as falling within a listed use in section
18.24.030.E, we interpret section 18.12.050 to permit the proposed use as a conditional
use in this zone. This section provides:
"Similar Uses. Where a particular use is not listed as permitted or conditional use
in a given zone, the Planning Commission may, after appropriate analysis,
determine that the use is similar to those listed in type, kind and function, and
therefore properly allocated to that zone."
Based on the analysis set forth above, we determine that the use is similar in type, kind
and function to those listed in the section 18.24.030.E.
The opponents have not identified any comprehensive plan policies not implemented by
any city, State, or Federal law or program. The opponents have included several
comprehensive plan policies in their arguments, but have not addressed how the
PAGE 5-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (p:planning\icca.fd)
application fails to comply with these policies. These policies are all implemented by the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
The opponents have cited Policy VI-2a of the Comprehensive Plan but have provided no
evidence as to how this application does not comply with this policy. This policy states:
"Do not allow deterioration of residential areas by incompatible uses and
developments. Where such uses are planned for, clear findings of intent shaft be
made in advance of the area designation. Such findings shaft give a clear
rationale, explaining the relationship of the area to housing needs, transportation,
open space, and any other pertinent Plan topics. Mixed uses often create a more
interesting and exciting urban environment and should be considered as a
development option wherever they will not disrupt an existing residential area."
The implementation of this policy is provided for in Chapter XIII of the Comprehensive
Plan -- "Comprehensive Plan Policies and Their Implementation." The implementation of
Policy VI-2a is by "conditional uses allowed in the R-2 zones (18.24)." This ensures that
any uses which may be considered incompatible must be found to comply with the
requirement of a conditional use permit to ensure the compatibility of the use. The council
finds that the proposed use an allowable conditional use within the R-2 zone, and that the
application for a conditional use permit for this use constitutes compliance with this policy.
The opponents have also cited Policy VI-2c of the Comprehensive Plan, which states:
"Develop programs and efforts for rehabilitation and preservation of existing
neighborhoods, and prevent development which is incompatible and destructive."
No evidence has been provided by the opponents as to how this application does not
comply with this policy.
From Chapter XIII of the Comprehensive Plan -- "Comprehensive Plan Policies and Their
Implementation", the implementation of Policy VI-2a is by "council Policy, Zoning Code."
The council finds that the application complies with the zoning code, through the
conditional use permit process, and therefore complies with the plan policy. The council
finds no evidence to indicate that the application as presented is not in compliance with
this plan policy.
The opponents cite Policy X-10a of the Comprehensive Plan, which states:
"Discourage non-residential vehicle parking in residential neighborhoods."
No evidence has been provided by the opponents as to how this application does not
comply with this policy.
PAGE 6-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (p:planning\icca.fd)
From Chapter XIII of the Comprehensive Plan --"Comprehensive Plan Policies and Their
Implementation", the implementation of Policy X-10a is by "council Policy, Chapter
11.24~ ." Chapter 11.24 of the Ashland Municipal Code regulates parking within the city.
Chapter 11.24 reads as follows:
11.24.010 Method of parking.
A. No person shall stand or park a vehicle in a street other than parallel with the edge of
the roadway, headed in the direction of lawful traffic movement, and with the curbside wheels of the
vehicle within twelve (12) inches of the edge of the curb, except where the street is marked or signed for
angle parking.
B. Where parking space markings are placed on a street, no person shall stand or park a
vehicle other than at the indicated direction and within a single marked space, unless the size or shape
of the vehicle makes compliance impossible.
C. If the owner or driver of a vehicle discovers that the vehicle is parked immediately in
front of or close to a building to which the fire department has been summoned, he shall immediately
remove the vehicle from the area unless otherwise directed by police or fire officers.
11.24.015 Vehicle--Defined. As used in the Ashland Municipal Code, the term vehicle shall include the
terms trailer and camper. (Ord. 2411, 1987)
11.24.020 Prohibited parkinq. In addition to the provisions of the motor vehicle laws of Oregon
prohibiting parking, no person shall park:
A. A vehicle upon a bridge, viaduct, or other elevated structure used as a street or within a
street tunnel in this City, unless marked or indicated otherwise;
B. A vehicle in an alley except to load and unload persons or materials not to exceed
twenty (20) consecutive minutes in any two (2) hour period;
C. A vehicle upon a street for the principal purpose of:
1. Displaying the vehicle for sale;
2. Washing, greasing, or repairing the vehicle except repairs necessitated by an
emergency;
3. Selling merchandise from the vehicle except in an established marked place or when
so authorized or licensed under the ordinance of this City;
4. Storage, or as junkage or dead storage for more than seventy-two (72) hours.
D. A vehicle upon any parkway except where specifically authorized;
E. A vehicle upon private property without the consent of the owner or person in
charge of the private property;
F. A vehicle within any area marked off by yellow paint upon the street or upon the
curb, except where specifically authorized by a traffic sign. (Ord. 1557 S13, 1968)
G- A vehicle or any part thereof upon a sidewalk or bicycle path.
11.24.030 Use of loading zone. No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle for any purpose or length
of time other than for the expeditious unloading and delivery or pickup and loading of materials, freight,
or passengers in a place designated as a loading zone during the hours when the provisions applicable
to loading zones are in effect. In no case shall the stop for loading and unloading of passengers and
personal baggage exceed five (5) minutes, nor the loading or unloading of materials exceed fifteen (15)
minutes. (Ord. 1557 S14, 1968)
11.24.040 Use of passencler loading zone. No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle for any
purpose or length of time other than for the expeditious loading or unloading of passengers in a place
designated as a passenger loading zone during the hours when the provisions applicable to passenger
loading zones are in effect. (Ord. 1557 S15, 1968)
PAGE 7-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The council finds that this use would comply with the requirements of Chapter 11.24 and
therefor would not conflict with this policy as implemented.
The council therefore finds 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.
2. 18. 104.050. 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."
The existing single family residence is served by city water and sewer, and the applicant
has not proposed any increase in need of these services beyond those currently
provided. The council finds that there is adequate capacity of city water and sewer to this
site from the current services. This issue was not disputed by the opponents.
Paved access is provided to the property by Second Street, a fully improved city street.
The council finds that there is adequate paved access to and through the development
as provided by Second Street. This issue was not disputed by the opponents.
The existing single family home is served by City of Ashland Electric, and the applicant
has not proposed any increase in need of these services beyond those available to the
site. The council finds that there is adequate electric service to this property. This issue
was not disputed by the opponents.
11.24.050 Buses--Taxicabs--Generally. The driver of a bus or taxicab shall not stand or park the vehicle
upon a street in a business district at a place other than at a bus stand or taxicab stand, respectively,
except that this provision shall not prevent the driver of a taxicab from temporarily stopping for the
purpose of and while actually engaged in the loading or unloading of passengers.
11.24.060 Buses--Taxicabs--Restricted stand use. No person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle other
than a bus in a bus stand or other than a taxicab in a taxicab stand, except that the driver of a
passenger vehicle may temporarily stop for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or
unloading passengers when the stopping does not interfere with a bus or taxicab waiting to enter or
about to enter the zone. (Ord. 1557 S17, 1968)
11.24.070 Moving vehicle. The moving of a vehicle within a block shall not be deemed to extend the
permissible time for parking it there. (Ord. 1557 S18, 1968)
11.24.080 Liclhts on parked vehicle. No lights need be displayed upon a vehicle parked in accordance
with this chapter or parked upon a street where there is sufficient light to reveal a person or object upon
the street within a distance of five hundred (500) feet. (Ord. 1557 S19, 1968)
11.24.090 Exemption. The provisions of this chapter regulating the parking or standing of vehicles shall
not apply to a vehicle of a City department or public utility necessarily in use for construction or repair
work, or to a vehicle owned by the United States while in use for the collection, transportation, or
delivery of the United States mail. (Ord. 1557 S20, 1968)
PAGE 8-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (p:planning\icca.fdl
The applicants are not proposing any changes in the property that would affect the
existing urban storm drainage such that it would not be able to adequately accommodate
storm water flows. Therefore, the council finds that the existing urban storm drainage is
adequate to accommodate the use. This issue was not disputed by the opponents.
The location at 144 N. Second Street is served by a fully improved city street, adequately
providing service for automobile transportation. Second Street has fully improved
sidewalks connecting to the nearest arterial street (Lithia Way) providing adequate
pedestrian access to the property. A transit stop is located approximately one block from
the site, providing adequate access to transit services. The council finds that there is
adequate transportation for the proposed use.
3.18. 104.050. C. "That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on
the/ivability 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:"
The "impact area" for determination of effects of the proposed use is define in
18.104.020.A., which states:
"That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted
by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the
impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority
finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the
impact area."
The council finds that the area within the notice area for this proposal constitutes the
impact area. That area is 200' from the borders of the site at 144 N. Second Street. No
additional lots beyond the notice area were included in the impact area.
The "target use of the zone" is determined in accord with the definition for "target use" as
found in 18.104.020 B.3., which states:
"R-2 and R-3 Zones: Residential Use complying with all ordinance requirements
developed at the density permitted by the zone."
The density permitted in the R-2 zone is determined in accord with 18.24.040.A. Permitted
Density. The dimensions of the lot proposed for this application are 50' in width, 142' in
depth, with an area of 7100 sq. ft. Section 18.24.040.A. 1. states:
"Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50' and
a minimum depth of 80'."
The council finds that the proposed lot of 7100 sq. ft. would accommodate two residential
units (duplex). Throughout this process, starting with the staff report, the planning
commission hearing and decision up to the arguments before this council, the assumption
PAGE 9-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (.:planning\icca.fd)
has been that the target use is a duplex. For the purposes of this decision, we find that
the target use is such, meaning the target use is two residential units (duplex). We note,
however, that there are other residential uses in the R-2 zone which could be a target
use. Those other residential uses are boarding or rooming houses, fraternity or sorority
houses and dormitories. See 18.104.020.B.3 and 18.24.020.C.
3.1.18. 104.050. C. 1: "Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage."
The property at 144 N. Second Street contains a single-story home of 1350 sq. ft.
The home was constructed in approximately 1900, and is representative of other
homes in the area. The applicant has not proposed any exterior changes to the
structure other that the provision of a ramp to allow for disabled access. The
surrounding homes and structures on Second Street are of a similar scale and
size, with the majority of homes constructed in the same time period as the
applicant's property. The council finds that the existing home, with the proposed
ramp construction, is similar in scale, bulk, and coverage to that of a duplex
residential structure. This issue was not disputed by the opponents.
3.2. 18.104.050. C.2: "Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets.
Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities."
The applicant, in its findings presented with the application and reiterated in the
Staff Report dated October 10, 1995, has indicated that the proposed use would
generate an average of approximately 3.6 vehicle trips per day. Others visiting the
proposed use would arrive by other travel modes, primarily transit and walking.
This determination was made by the review of visits made to the existing office
operated by the applicant. By comparison, the target use for the zone, a duplex,
would generate approximately 14 vehicle trips per day, as determined by the
manual "Trip Generation", 5th Edition, 1991, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Opponents have argued that the applicant has failed to adequately address the
vehicle impacts associated with the proposed use, and have indicated that the
number of vehicle trips to the site will be greater than that stated by the applicant,
in their opinion. They have also stated that the trips generate by staff will be
greater than indicated by the applicant. Further, the opponents speculate that the
level of service provided by the applicant will increase from their current location,
and will result in increase vehicle trips to the site.
The opponents have also argued that the use of ITE vehicle trip estimates is
inappropriate, in that national averages do not apply to a small town neighborhood
such as the Railroad District. Opponents have questioned the statistical data
submitted by the applicant and have referred to statements made on a television
program and in other places outside of these proceedings as evidence that the
applicant's traffic flow and impact data are incorrect. We find that the statements
made by representatives from the Interfaith Care Community of Ashland outside
PAGE 10-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION
of this record are not inconsistent with the traffic flow data submitted to the
Planning Department. The applicant keeps very specific information concerning
its clients, including the manner in which people arrive at the site. We find that the
traffic flow and impact data submitted by the applicant are correct.
The applicant has provided a study indicating actual visits to their office, and the
mode of travel used. The council finds that this evidence is clearly supportive of
the request and the opponents have failed to provide substantial evidence that
would indicate that the applicanrs information is false or misleading. The council
further finds that the comparison to ITE vehicle trip estimates for a duplex is an
appropriate measure. The ITE manual provides a consistent estimate of vehicle
trips based on many studies conducted nationwide, and no substantial evidence
was provided by the opponents indicating that a duplex in the Ashland Railroad
District would be significantly different from those nationwide.
Further, the council finds that the difference in vehicle trips between the proposal,
at 3.6 per day, and the target use, 14 per day, provides a buffer to allow for
increases in the number of visits to the site, and still maintain a vehicle trip impact
less than the target use of the zone.
3.3. 18. 104.050. C. 3: '~rchitectural compatibility with the impact area."
The existing single family home is 1350 sq. ft. bungalow-style structure constructed
in 1900. No changes are proposed to the exterior of the building with the exception
of the construction of a ramp to allow for disabled access. Surrounding uses in the
block include residential structures of similar size, scale and architectural design.
The council finds that this existing structure is architecturally compatible with the
impact area. This issue was not disputed by the opponents.
3.4. 18. 104,050. C. 4: '~ir quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
The applicant has indicated to no additional impacts to air quality will be generated
by the proposed use, and have indicated that the since the proposed use will
result in fewer automobile trips, and therefore fewer environmental pollutants. The
council finds that the proposed use will not have any greater adverse effect on the
impact area in terms of air quality than the target use for the zone. This issue was
not disputed by the opponents.
3.5. 18. 104.050. C. 5: "Generation of noise, light, and glare."
The applicant has indicated that there will be no greater generation of noise, light,
and glare by the proposed use than by the target use of the zone. All office
operations will be conducted indoors, and no additional lighting will be provided
beyond that normally used in residential situations, such as motion-detectors
connected to yard lighting.
PAGE l 1-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The opponents have argued that the motion-detector outdoor lights will be used
to keep loiterers away, and will result in increased light and glare in the
neighborhood.
The council finds that the proposed use will not generate noise, light and glare
beyond that of the target use for the zone. The use of motion-detector yard lights
is a common residential practice, and will not be of a greater adverse material
effect on the livability of the impact area than if such lights were used on a duplex
structure at this location.
3.6. 18. 104.050. C. 6: "The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.'
The adjacent properties are zoned R-2, the same zoning as the subject parcel.
Opponents have argued that the approval of this use will encourage other
residential properties, either adjacent or nearby to convert to non-residential uses.
The council finds that the proposed use, with no change in the exterior of the
building or the size of the building, and operated in the manner proposed, will not
adversely materially affect the development of adjacent properties for either
permitted or conditional uses allowed within the zone. The opponents maintain that
there should be a "dominant residential component" on the property to preserve
the residential neighborhood and that without the residential component the
neighborhood land uses would be "tipped" toward non-residential nature. We
disagree. Assuming that the term "residential component" means an apartment or
other structure or configuration which might be rented, leased, or otherwise
available for full-time residential occupancy, the Ashland City Code does not have
any such requirement as a part of approving a conditional use permit. The council
finds that approval of this use will not change the residential nature of the
neighborhood.
The comprehensive plan designates adjacent properties as Multi-Family
Residential. Chapter II of the comprehensive plan describes the Multi-Family
Residential land use classification as follows:
"This (designation) is intended to be a higher density area, up to 20 units
per acre, for multiple-family units, single-family homes, small professional
offices, and small, home-oriented, light retail commercial uses in the historic
Railroad District. Implementing codes should not encourage the removal
of structurally sound housing for new units. They could allow, however, for
older homes to be converted to multiple-family use."
The Council finds that the approval of this use will not adversely affect the ability
of adjacent properties to develop in accord with the uses referenced in the above
description of the Multi-Family Residential land use classification.
3.7. 18. 104.050. C. 7: "Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority
for review of the proposed use.
PAGE 12-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION {p:planning~icca.fd)
The opponents, and to some extent the planning commission, have identified
several livability factors they feel relevant. The factor identified as a residential
component is addressed immediately above. Opponents argue that the Draft Infill
Strategy for the Ashland Railroad District prepared by Demuth Glick Consultants,
Ltd., of Portland presents evidence of the desire and need to protect the Railroad
District and that allowing the conditional use permit in this instance is inappropriate.
We disagree. The Draft Infill Strategy referred to is an unadopted report of a
consultant, prepared after meetings concerning the Railroad District. It contains
unadopted recommendations which may or may not become law in the future.
Certainly, those recommendations are not law at this time. Insofar as any of those
recommendations vary from the Ashland City Code and the Comprehensive Plan,
we are bound to follow the code and the Comprehensive Plan, rather than the
recommendations. If the recommendations are adopted in the future, they may
only be adopted in part and, in their present form, present no basis for denying the
conditional use permit. Other factors considered by the planning commission or
raised by the opponents which affect properties beyond the impact area or which
have not been addressed elsewhere in these findings are found not to be relevant.
The opponents have also raised the factor of loitering in the impact area. The
record is replete with problems of loitering which now exists in the impact area and
the Railroad District. This loitering is not connected with the proposed use since
there is no similar use in the impact area or the Railroad District and the present
location of the applicant's operations is several miles from the impact area. The
evidence is uncontradicted that the neighbors of the present location of the use
caused no such problems and that they did not even know the use was occurring
next to them. There is no evidence to show that the existing problems of loitering
in the Railroad District will increase if this use is located there. We find that this
factor is not relevant.
DECISION
All requirements have been met by the applicant for approval of the conditional use
permit. The permit is approved with the following conditions:
1 That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
here.
2. That a building permit be obtained prior to the installation of a wheelchair ramp. The
final ramp design to be reviewed by the Historic Commission Review Board and approved
by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That all debris adjacent to the rear two parking spaces be removed prior to operation
of the center.
4, This conditional use permit will be reviewed one year after activity under the permit is
initiated on the property. The review will be conducted by a committee appointed by the
mayor and confirmed by the council and shall consist of two persons from the Railroad
PAGE 13-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (p:planning\icca.fd)
District who are on record in this proceeding as opposing the application; two persons
from the Railroad District who are on record in this proceeding as favoring the application;
a council member and a community development department staff member. The
committee will review the activities conducted on the property, compliance with the
conditional use permit, and the effects on the neighborhood. The committee shall meet,
gather such information as it shall deem relevant and necessary, and report to the
planning commission and council its findings and recommendations.
Mayor
,./?
Attest -- City Recorder
PAGE 15-FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND DECISION (.:planning\icca,fd)