HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-0301 STILES FINDINGSBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #88-002, REQUEST FOR A )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 95 UNIT CONGREGATE)
CARE FACILITY FOR PERSONS OVER 65, TOGETHER WITH COMMON )
USE FACILITIES, INCLUDING DINING ROOM, ACTIVITY ROOMS, )
ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED SERVICES, WITH 3000 TO 11000 )
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, LOCATED IN THE BLOCK )
BETWEEN CENTRAL AND NORTH MAIN, AND HELMAN AND WATER )
STREETS. A REQUEST FOR A PARKING VARIANCE FROM 1.5 AND )
1.75 SPACES PER I & 2 BEDROOM UNIT TO i SPACE PER UNIT. )
APPLICANT: DOUG STILES - BATY STILES CAPITAL MANAGEMENT)
)
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
RECrTALS:
1) Taxlot 100 and 400 of 39 1E 09BB is located in the block
between Central and North Main and Water and Helman Streets, and is
zoned C-1, Commercial.
2) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
95 unit Congregate Living Facility for persons over 65. A Variance is
requested to reduce the parking requirements from 1.5 and 1.75 spaces
per 1 and 2 bedroom units to I parking space per unit. Also, a
Conditional Use Permit is requested in order to have a structure in
excess of 35 ft. in height, not to exceed 50 ft.
3) Criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit is found in
Chapter 18.104 of Ashland's Municipal Code. These criteria require that
the Applicant justify the request by substantiating the proposal's com-
pliance with Ashland's Comprehensive Plan and by proving that the proposal
ha!. no negative impact on the development of the adjacent uses.
CriLeria for approval of a Variance are found in Chapter 18.100 of
Ash!and's Municipal Code. These criteria establish: 1) that a hardship
must be demonstrated by the applicant showing that there are unique cir-
cumstances which apply to this property which are not ordinarily found
elsewhere in the zone, 2) that the granting of the application is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant's property
rights, 3) that the granting of the application will not under the
ci~'cumstances create a negative impact on the development of the
adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan of the City, and 4) that the circumstances
have not been self-imposed.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held
a Public Hearing on January 13, 1988 , at which time testimony
was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission
approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the
appropriate development of the site.
The Planning Commission's decision, however, was appealed to the City
Co!~n~Ti~ by Ashland resident A1 Willstatter. The City Council, following
proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 16, 1988, at
which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City
Council upheld the appeal and denied the application.
Now, therefore,
The City Council of the City of Ashland, finds, concludes and
recommends as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
1.1 The City Council hereby incorporates by reference
the Planning Commission's report and findings noted as "Exhibits A
and B" , the findings submitted by the applicant noted as
"Exhibit r,, the presentation made by the applicant noted as
b ,
"Exhibit D" the Site Plan submitted by the applicant noted as
"Exhibit E" and the minutes from the public hearing on this
Droposal held on February 16, 1988 noted as "Exhibit F".
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information
necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public
nearing testimony and the exhibits received.
~.? The City Council finds that the proposed request to construct
!=onstruct a 95 unit Congregate Living Facility for persons over 65
is not in compliance with the Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and
the Variance Chapter 18.100.
The Comprehensive Plan designation for the proposal site is
Sommercial. The applicant did not provide credible data which
proved that a residential use at this site would not have a
negative impact on the availability of commercial land in the
~uture. The applicant proposes only 3200 square ft. of commercial
space, consequently, the vast majority of the proposal will be
dedicated to residential use. The Comprehensive Plan serves to
~nsure that a sufficient inventory of commercial and residential
land is available to meet future needs of the City, and
specifically in this case the downtown area. The Council believes
that the applicant must show that this land is unsuited for
~ommercial use, or that the downtown would be able to expand its
commercial use on other land in the downtown area sufficient to
meet the needs of a growing city. The Council believes that the
applicant did not provide conclusive information, which would
ensure conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the
request for a conditional use permit is denied.
The applicant also requests a parking Variance to reduce the
required number of parking spaces from 1.5 and 1.75 spaces per 1
and 2 bedroom units to I space per unit. The Council believes the
applicant has not adequately met the required burden of proof. Data
submitted by the applicant is inconclusive in determining that
"there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the
site which do not typically apply elsewhere," and does not warrant a
variance from the City's current off-street parking requirements.
Ashland currently has a parking shortage and is unable to meet peak
season parking demands. The City Council believes that approval of
this application will exacerbate the parking problem in downtown
Ashland, creating a negative impact on the development of adjacent
Jses and acting contrary to the intent of Ashland's Land Use
Ordinance.
2.3 The City Council finds that the physical characteristics of
the property were not suitable for the proposed use.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this
natter, the Ashland City Council concludes that the proposal
to construct a 95 unit Congregate Living Facility on this site is
did not meet the burden of proof for a Conditional Use.
3.2 Planning Action PA88-002 does not meet the requirements of the
Variance Chapter 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions,
002 is denied.
Planning Action ~88-
Mayor Date
Attest