Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-056 Findings - ThormahlenBEFORE THE ASHLAND CiTY COUNCIL July 2, 1991 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #91-049, REQUEST FOR A A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 TO C-1-D FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 80 HARGADINE STREET AND 130 HARGADINE STREET, AND 96 WEST FORK STREET. APPLICATION ALSO INVOLVES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A MOTEL AT 80 HARGADINE STREET, 130 HARGADINE STREET AND 96 WEST FORK STREET. APPLICANT: PHILIP AND SHARON THORMAHLEN AGENT: THE RICHARD STEVENS COMPANY ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND DECISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SECTION 1. RECITALS 1.1 Tax lots 4900 and 5000 of 391E09BC are located at and near the intersection of Hargadine, Fo~k, and Pioneer Streets and are zoned R-2, Multi-Family Residential. 1.2 The applicants are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map change from R-2 to C-1-D (Downtown Commercial), and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for use of the properties for motel purposes. 1.3 The criteria for approval of a Type III amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map or Zoning Map are found in 18.108.060 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, and the criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in 18.104.020. 1.4 The Ashland Plann/ng Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on May 14, 1991, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. 1.5 The Ashland City Council, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on July 2, 1991, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council denied the request for a Comprehensive Plan Map change, Zoning Map change, and Conditional Use Permit for the subject properties. SECTION 2. CRITERIA 2.1 The criteria for approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map Change are found in 18.104.020 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Map changes, such as those proposed, are Type III Amendments, and are subject to the following criteria: Type III amendments may be approved when one of the following conditions exist: a) b) c) d) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plar~ The need to correct mistakes. The need to adjust to new conditions. Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an actior~ 2.2 The criteria fo~ approval of a Conditional Use Permit are found in 18.104.020 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, 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 protectiora 5) Architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding area. SECTION 3. RECORD AND EXHIBITS 3.1 For purposes of these Findings, the attached index at the end of this do~mem refers to exhibits, data, and testimony incorporated m the record and considered by the Council in its decision. SECTION 4. TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE 4.1 Richard Stevens, agent for the applicants, presented oral testimony in support of the application, and submitted his written comments. Mr. Stevens spoke to the four criteria for approval of a Type HI amendment, and stated that the application met all four. He stated that the written findings document submitted by his office contained the factual evidence necessary for the City to find that the application met the applicable criteria. Stevens said that criterion a) was met in that there was a public need for additional land 2 since the City's vacant land inventory/ndicated that very little C-1-D was currently vacant and that there was a need to rezone other properties to increase the amount of land zoned C-1-D. Stevens stated that criterion b) was met in that the property was improperly zoned. He stated that it is more appropriate to have zoning lines along the rear property lines between parcels rather than along public streets, and that this change would help minimize the impacts between the commercial zones and the residential areas. Stevens said that criterion c) was met in that many changes regarding street lighting, on- street parking, street closures, and development of the Shakespeare Festival had occurred over time and had dramatically changed the neighborhood. He also stated that a recent change in the Traveller's Accommodation ordinance also required them to have a commercial zoning designation for the property in order to operate it as requested by the Thormahlens. Stevens said that criterion d) was met in that the property owners had been impacted by many land use issues in the City. Stevens further stated that the City had approved a similar zone change request at the intersection of Helman and Hersey Streets, and that the precedent set by that zone change supported this ~equest also. 4.2 John McLaughlin, Senior Planner for the City of Ashland, explained the vacant lands inventory and concurred that there was very little vacant land in the C-i-D zoning designation. He further went on to read Policy XII-1 of the Comprehensive Plan which re~rs to "need" for additional lands, which is as follows: "XII-I: The City shall strive to maintain at least a 5-year supply of land for any particular need in the City limits. The 5-year supply shall be determined by the rate of consumption necessitated in the projections made in the Comprehensive Plar~ " McLaughlin said that the policy refers to a "supply for a particular need" and not a supply of land in any particular zone. McLaughlin further stated that the uses, or needs, of the C-1-D zone are the same commercial uses allowed in the C-1 zone, and ma.ny of the uses are allowed in the E-1 and M-I zones also. The only use, or need, which is particular to the C-1-D zone is adult book stores or adult movie houses, but that all other needs could be accommodated on vacant lands in the C-I, E-l, or M-1 zones. McLaughlin further said that individual zone change applications are decided by the applicable criteria for each request, and that individual planning actions do not establish a precedent. 4.3 Philip Thormahlen, Applicant, spoke of the impacts that surrounding uses had on their property, and that this request was only to allow them to operate a traveller's accommodation without living on the site. 3 4.4 Craig Stone, Planning Consultam represeming the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF), stated that the zone change request did not meet any of the criteria for approval. He then referred to the facts submitted in his letter dated May 9, 1991 and submitted as part of the record. Stone stated that the OSF had been in operation at this location for 50 years and that the number of performances in the outdoor theatre had remained essentially unchanged since 1977 and that there has not been a substantial change in the operation of the festival over the time period that the neighboring property has been occupied by the Thormahlens. Stone stated that many of the noise related complaints of the applicants concerning the operation of the outdoor theatre would be substantially mitigated by the construction of the recently approved pavilion, which will result in a 10-20 decibel reduction in noise generated by the plays. Stone stated that the designation of the zoning boundary along a public street is a standard zoning practice, and is not an error in defining zones. He said that the area of the right- of-way can serve as the buffer between zoning uses when a street is the boundary. Stone referred to the Vacant Land inventory and his written comments and stated that the amount of vacant land in the C-I, E-i, and C-1-D zones exceeded the required amounts in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses as stated in Policy XII-1, and that there was no public need for this land to be zoned C-1-D. Stone said that the findings for the Conditional Use Permit application were incomplete, and that all factors that constitute "livability" as outlined in McCoy vs. Limn County, had not been addressed by the applicant. Therefore, the application did not meet the burden of proof for approval of a conditional use permit. SECTION 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the entire record herein, including the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 5.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for a Comprehensive Plan Map change and Zone change from R-2 to C-1-D does not meet any one of the criteria for approval of a Type III amendment. 5.3 The City Council finds that the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for use of the existing structures as motel units is only allowed as a conditional use in a commercial zone and is therefore inextricably linked to the comprehensive plan map/zone change request. Therefore, the Council denies the conditional use permit request based upon denial of the concurrent comprehensive plan map/zone change request and also upon finding that the motel use is not an allowed use, either permitted or conditional, in the existing R-2 zone. 5.4 The City Council makes the following findings addressing the criteria for approval of 4 a Type III amendment: a) A public need, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Policy governing need for additional lands is Policy XII-1 of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and is as follows: "The City shall strive to maintain at least a 5-year supply of land for any particular need in the City limits. The 5-year supply shall be determined by the rate of consumption necessitated in the projections made in the Comprehensive Plan. 7 The plan policy refers to a supply of land for a particular need in the City and not a supply of land in a particuiar zoning designation. The needs allowed under the C- 1-D zoning designation can be accommodated by lands zoned C-l, E-i, and M-l, with the exception of adult book stores and adult movie houses. The vacant lands currently in the C-1-D inventory would allow for adult uses, as would vacant structures and redevelopment of structures elsewhere in the C-1-D zone. The Council also finds that the need is not great for adult uses, noting that no applications for adult book stores or movie houses have been received in the last 10 years and that there is a 5-year supply of C-1-D lands available for such adult uses. Therefore, the vacant lands inventory, included as part of the letter and materials submitted by Craig Stone on May 9, 1991, clearly shows that adequate lands in these zoning designations are vacant for the prescribed uses allowed. Therefore the City Council finds that adequate commercial lands exist within the City to accommodate particular commercial needs and that the applicant has failed to meet the burden of proof for showing approval under this criterion, thereby not proving that there is a public need for additional lands zoned C-1-D. b) The need to correct mistakes. The City finds that this land has been zoned in this manner even prior to the adoption of the current comprehensive plan in November, 1982.. Further, the property at 80 Hargadine Street was upzoned from R-lol0 to R-2 in November, 1983, as stated in the Staff Report of May 14, 1991, and its approval by the City Council at that time did not constitute a mistake. The Council further finds that zoning boundaries along City streets is a common and normal zoning practice and does not constitute a mistake in zoning of this area. Therefore, the City finds that the application does not meet the burden of proof for a Type Ill amendment under this criterion. c) The need to adjust to new conditions. The applicant provided statements that conditions of the neighborhood including 5 parking, noise, performances at the OSF, and street closures had changed over time. The City Council finds that the applicant has not provided facts to support that these specific conditions had changed. The applicant has stated that "traffic impacts are substantial" (Supplemental Findings document). The City does not dispute that there may be traffic impacts. However, the applicant has failed to provide facts that this traffic situation is a new condition. Therefore, the City Council finds that no evidence has been presented to indicate that the traffic is a new condition in this area. The applicant has stated that "Parking impacts on abutting property owners from the Festival use is massive." Again, the City does not dispute that there may be parking impacts. However, the applicant has failed to provide facts that these parking impacts constitute a new condition for the area. Therefore, the City Council finds that no evidence has been presented to indicate that the parking impacts are a new condition in this area. The applicant has stated that "Noise impacts on the residential use of this property by the Festival and the accompanying auto traffic is beyond the scope of what is considered normal in a residential neighborhood." The applicant has failed to provide facts that the impacts constitute a new condition to the area. Further, the OSF has received approval for a pavilion at the site of the outdoor theatre which acousti~ experts have stated will reduce decibel levels from the stage by 10-20 decibels. Therefore, the City Council finds that no evidence has been presented that the noise impacts have changed in the area, and that the upcoming pavilion construction at the outdoor theatre of the OSF will result in lower noise levels in the immediate vicinity. The Council, in finding that no factual basis has been presented by the applicant to support the approval under this criterion, adopts the facts presented in the Staff Report of May 14, 1991, and the letter of May 9, 1991 of Craig Stone. The Council finds that the number of outdoor performances at the OSF has not significantly changed from 1977 to the time of this application. Therefore, the City Council finds that the application as submitted f~ails to supply adequate facts to support the statements that new conditions have occurred at this location. d) Where compelling circumstances relating to the general public welfare require such an action. The applicant has stated in their supplemental findings document that the conflicts between the applicant and OSF canbe mitigated by the approval of the zone change, and that it is in the interest of the City to reduce such conflicts. The Council finds that zone change requests are not the proper forum for mitigation of conflicts of the nature described here, and find that this conflict is not a 6 compelling circumstance relating to the general public welfare. The applicant has further stated in their supplemental findings document that the general public welfare of Ashland is dependent to a certain degree upon tourism and that this zone change would be in support of that tourism component of the economy. The Council finds that there is adequate vacant lands in other commercial zones to accommodate tourist housing for future uses, and that it is not a compelling circumstance relating to the general public welfare to provide additional tourist housing at this location. The City Council therefore finds that the application as submitted falls to meet any of the four criteria for approval of a Type IH amendment. SECTION 6. DECISION 6.1 Based on the entire record and the testimony received on this matter, the City Council hereby den/es the request for a Comprehensive Plan Map and Zone Change, finding that the applicant has fa/led to meet the burden of proof for approval of such change. 6.2 Based on the entire record and the testimony received on this matter, the City Council finds that the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for use of the existing structures as motel units is only allowed as a conditional use in a commerdal zone and is therefore inextricably linked to the comprehensive plan map/zone change request. Therefore, the Council denies the conditional use permit request based upon denial of the concurrent comprehensive plan map/zone change request and also upon finding that the motel use is not an allowed use, either permitted or conditional, in the existing R-2 zone. 6.3 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action #91-1M9 in its entirety. ~tr-icia J. /tcklin Council Chaff Attest - Cify R~corder Date 7