HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-123 Findings - JohnsonBEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 20, 1992
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #92-093, REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A 2-UNIT TRAVELLERS'
ACCOMMODATION WITH OWNER'S UNIT, TO BE LOCATED AT
366 B STREET. A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE STRUCTURE BE AT LEAST 20 YEARS
OLD.
APPLICANT: STEVE AND DOREEN JOHNSON
FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS
AND ORDERS
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot 6400 of 391E 9BA is located at 366 B Street and is zoned R-
2; Multi-Family Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting approval of a two-unit Travellers'
Accommodation with owner's unit, and a Variance to waive the requirement
that the structure be at least 20 years old. A site plan and
architectural elevations are on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for approval of a Variance are found in Chapter 18.100
and are as follows:
(1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this
site which do not typically apply elsewhere.
(2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation
of property rights.
(3) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative
impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the
purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the
city.
(4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or
purposely self-imposed.
4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a
Public Hearing on August 11, 1992, at which time testimony was received
and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission denied the
application as presented, noting that the applicant had failed to meet
the burden of proof for a Variance.
5) The city Council, following proper public notice, held a Public
Hearing on October 20, 1992, at which time additional testimony was
received and exhibits were presented. The City Council denied the
application as presented, noting that the applicant had failed to meet
the burden of proof for a Variance.
Now, therefore, The Ashland City Council finds, concludes and recommends
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
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 hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The City Council finds that the proposal to construct a two-
unit Travellers' Accommodation with owner's unit, and a Variance to
waive the requirement that the structure be at least 20 years old
does not meet the criteria for approval for a Variance as outlined
in Chapter 18.100.
2.3 The City Council specifically finds that there is insufficient
evidence contained in the record that would suggest:
"that approval of the application is necessary for the preservation
of property rights,"
as required under 18.100.020 b. The City Council believes that a
variance to allow for a conditional use (Travellers' Accommodation)
does not constitute a property right. A conditional use is not a
permitted use, but rather a privilege and subject to compliance
with several specific conditions outlined by the ordinance.
The City Council finds that denial of the application does not deny
the applicant or property owner use of the parcel. The parcel can
be developed as a single family residence as an outright permitted
use, without variances or further planning commission review.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City
Council concludes that the proposal to construct a two-unit Travellers'
Accommodation with owner's unit, and a Variance to waive the requirement
that the structure be at least 20 years old is not supported by evidence
contained in the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action
#92-093.
city R~corder
Date
Date