HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-071 Findings - Schiller
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND
May 17,2005
In the Matter of Planning Action #2005-00045, )
Request for Site Review approval to add three )
Off-street parking spaces on the east side of the )
Building adjacent to Rogue Place, to relocate the )
Refuse/recycle area, and to expand the outdoor )
Patio area of the residence on the north side of )
The building for the property located at 394 )
Hersey Street. An Administrative Variance to the )
Site Design and Use Standards is requested to )
Locate the off-street parking between the building )
And the street. )
Final Decision
APPLICANT: Rick Schiller
The appeal. This matter came before the council on appeal from a decision by the
planning commission hearings board. The planning commission hearings board
approved the application with specific conditions as outlined in their decision of
February 8,2005.
Scope of review. We review the appeal de novo. Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO)
9 18.108.11 0.A.4. The record of the decision of the planning commission hearings
board consisted of 61 pages and this record as well as other emails and documents
submitted by interested citizens, parties and city staff were distributed to the council on
April 25, 2005, for its consideration at the hearing on May 3, 2005. Due to tirne
constraints, the hearing was held on May '17, 2005, in front of the City Council.
All of the above-described documents were received by the council and were
considered for this proceeding.
Relevant Substantive Approval Criteria. The relevant substantive approval criteria as
set out before the planning commission and city council and the notices for this
proceeding adequately describe the approval criteria that must be met by the
applicants. The applicants must establish that the application meets each criterion for
approval of an administrative variance from the Site Design and Use Standards to allow
parking between the building and the street:
ALua ~ 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards.
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted
with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under
section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence
submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of
the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed
use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance vvill not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Chapter; and
D. The variance is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
Findings.
1. We find that the project fails to comply with Criterion A of 18.72.090: "There is a
demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site."
The applicant has failed to show that there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the
required parking requirements of 18.88.060. Evidence was presented that the applicant
has not applied for an On-Street parking credit, which would allow the site to comply
with the parking requirements of 18.88.060. Testimony was presented that one On-
Street parking credit would allow the project to have the required number of parking
spaces, without removing any landscaping.
Therefore, the applicant has not met the burden to show that there is a demonstrable
difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a
unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site.
2. We find that the project fails to comply with Criterion B of 18.72.090: "Approval of the
variance will not substantially impact adjacent properties."
The original approval for the construction of the structure at 394 Hersey Street in 1988
did not include access onto Rogue Place. Rogue Place was subsequently constructed
as a short dead-end street, 20' in width with parking bays, to accommodate the local
residential traffic from five homes developed directly on that street.
We find that the addition of new commercial parking spaces that are required to be
located between the building and the street, and accessed from Rogue Place, results in
a negative impact on adjacent properties. Substantial testimony was received from
adjacent property owners regarding the negative impact associated with additional
commercial access to these parking spaces off of Rogue Place. Specifically" negative
impacts associated with increased deliveries, increased on-street parking, and backing
onto the street from the new parking spaces were found to be substantial in relation to
the adjacent properties.
The applicant, in rebuttal to these concerns, stated that the concerns of the neighbors
could be addressed through vigorous code enforcement regarding parking.
We find that despite vigorous code enforcement, substantial negative impacts will occur
due to this parking design because of the narrowness of the street, coupled 'Nith the fact
that Rouge Place is a dead-end street requiring vehicle traffic to back-up into
neighboring residential driveways, creating a substantial risk of harm to the neighboring
residents' physical safety and property. Testimony was heard that drivers are already
confused and wrongly believe, despite signage to the contrary, that Rogue Place is a
through street, and so must back up into the residential driveways to return to adjacent
streets. Testimony was heard that such confusion has resulted in property damage to
residents' front yards. Adding commercial parking adjacent to Rogue Place on the
subject property will create a greater risk to safety and property damage than already
exists. Therefore, the applicant has not met the burden to show that approval of the
variance will not substantially impact adjacent properties.
Ultimate Conclusions and Decision. We find that the applicant's project fails to meet
the standards for an administrative variance to allow parking to be located between the
building and the street. Specifically, the application fails to meet the followin~;] two
criteria: 18.72.080.A, "There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific
requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the
proposed use of the site," and 18.72.080.8, "Approval of the variance will not
substantially impact adjacent properties." Furthermore, conditions of approval could not
reasonably cure the deficiencies in the application. Therefore, the application is denied.
Dated June 7, 2005.
~oL~~~\~
John W. Morrison
Mayor
City of Ashland