Loading...
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