Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-001 Findings - ShawBEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ASHLAND, OREGON January 15, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #90-186~ REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AT 673 AND 673 1/2 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD. STRUCTURAL WORK INVOLVES FOUNDATION REPAIRS ON SMALL COTTAGES OFF THE ALLEY. REQUEST ALSO INVOLVES A SITE REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVERSION OF ONE OF THE STRUCTURES TO A DWELLING UNIT, WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING REQ'MNT. APPLICANT: DAVID SHAW FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 13200 of 391E 9AC is located at 673 and 673 1/2 Siskiyou Boulevard and is zoned R-2; Multi-Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting approval for the structural alteration of non-conforming structures and variance to allow less than the required number of parking spaces. Site improvements are outlined on the site plan on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in Chapter 18.104 and are as follows: A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. C. In determining the above, consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utilities. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. 4) Public safety and protection. 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. Further, the criteria for approval of a Variance are outlined 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 approval of the application will not 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. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 4) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on November 14, 1990, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. 5) The City Council on appeal from the applicant, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 15, 1991, at which time testimony was received and exhibits presented. The City Council denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Planning Commission. Now, therefore, The city Council of the city of Ashland finds, concludes and orders as follows: SECTION 10 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 which involves structural alterations to two structures meets all relevant criteria outlined in the Conditional Use Chapter 18.104. 2.3 The City Council makes the following findings addressing the criteria for Conditional Use approval= A. The proposal is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council finds the proposal to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council finds no evidence which suggests that the proposal is in conflict with any Plan goal, policy or implementing ordinance. B. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development are such that the development will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability and appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. The City Council finds that the proposed structural will have minimal impact on the livability and development of abutting properties and the neighborhood. alterations appropriate surrounding It has generally been the policy of the Historic Commission to retain these non-conforming structures when possible, due to their cumulative affect to the appearance and design of the Historic District. Since new structures are no longer allowed to be constructed at these setbacks, these type of buildings are representative of the historical development of the area. The City Council believes that the buildings should be retained at their original location. The city Council believes that if the buildings were forced to fall into a state of disrepair and required to be reconstructed according to current setback standards, the impacts on the neighborhood would be far greater. C. In determining the above, consideration shall be given to the following: 1) Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density. Scale, bulk, coverage and density will not be effected by this proposal. 2) The availability and capacity of public facilities and utillties. Ail City services are currently available to the site, including storm and sanitary sewer, water and electricity. 3) The generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets. Approval of the application will not generate additional traffic. Consequently, the existing capacity of surrounding streets will not be affected. 4) Public safety and protection. The proposal has been reviewed by Ashland Building, Departments. The application complies with all these departments. Fire and Police requirements of 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. The installation of new architectural and aesthetic the surrounding area. foundations will not impact the compatibility of the structures with 2.4 The City Council finds that the request for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces fails to meet the required burden of proof outlined in Chapter 18.100 The City Council makes the following findings for denial of the Variance request: (1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The applicant's findings state that the unusual circumstance is the existence of 3 distinct structures on the site. The City Council, however, finds that this variance request is precipitated by the request and conversion of one of the units for dwelling purposes, necessitating additional parking and conditional use permit approval. (2) That approval of the application is necessary for the preservation of property rights. The applicant has indicated that the lot is in excess of 9000 sq. ft., allowing for 3 units to be located on the site, and that therefore constitutes a property right. The City Council believes that a residential use of the property constitutes a property right, and that the number allowed on the site is not only limited by lot size, but also by the ability to conform to parking requirements, and site design guidelines. Based on the lack of required parking, the City Council finds that two units on the property currently constitute a property right, and that not having three units is not a denial of property rights. (3) That the approval of the application will not 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. The applicant has indicated that adequate parking has been provided off of Morton Street in the past, and there are no problems with this current situation. A neighbor, in the letter requesting a hearing, has indicated that the adding of an unit during the past year has created overcrowding in the neighborhood. Based on testimony in the record, the City Council believes approval of this variance would negatively impact current levels of on-street parking in the neighborhood. We do not believe that the burden of proof has been met for this criterion. (4) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The City Council believes that the circumstances relating to the request of a parking variance are related to the request to convert a structure to a dwelling on a site that has insufficient parking, according to the ordinance. We do not fully believe that there is an unusual circumstance, nor that it was no self-imposed. 2.5 The City Council finds that the request for Site Review approval has not met the burden of proof as outlined in Chapter 18.72. The City Council makes the following findings for denial of the Site Review: A. Ail applicable city ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. This criterion is not met due to the parking shortage. B. All requirements of the Site Review chapter have been met. The applicant has submitted materials in accord with the requirements of this chapter. C. The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the city Council for implementation of this chapter. The need for additional parking, associated with the additional unit, has resulted in a design which requires the removal of the landscaped private yard area between the two cottages. Given the configuration of structures on the parcel, there is little private area for the two cottages. The removal of the yard area would be detrimental to these units, and severely limit the private exterior spaces associated with these units. The City Council does not believe that this is in accord with the guidelines for private outdoor space as outlined on pages 9 and 10 of the Site Design and Use Guidelines. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the proposal to structurally alter (replace foundations) two cottages is supported by evidence contained in the record. However, based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the request to convert one of the cottages into a separate dwelling unit and for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces is not supported by evidence contained in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve the Conditional Use Permit for the structural alteration of two cottages as per Planning Action #90-186. However, the associated requests to allow for the conversion of a cottage into a dwelling unit and Variance for a reduction in the number of parking spaces is denied as per Planning Action #90-186. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #90-186 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all kitchen/cooking facilities be removed from the existing cottage, and that it not be used a separate dwelling. Also, that the property owner have a deed restriction recorded stating that this structure will not used as a separate dwelling. 2) That three parking spaces as indicated on the site plan be provided on the property, and that it be fully improved with an approved surface, such as asphalt, grass pavers, etc... 3) That the alley be improved from Morton Street along the entire frontage of the property, with all work done under permit and approval of the City Public Works Department. 4) That all buildings modified without Building Division review be fully inspected and approved by the Building Official, and that all electrical work be inspected and approved by the city of Ashland. 5) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. Dated this z~) F/c day of January , 1991. Catherine M. Golden Mayor Attest: r ~ .'~-~- Nan E. Prahklin city Recorder