Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-099 Findings - 260 N First St PA 2010-01611 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND June 21, 2011 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL ON THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING ACTION #2010.0161 I, A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING NON-HISTORIC, NON-CONTRIBUTING 614- SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO A 599-SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STORE WITH A 447-SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE REAR FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 260 N. FIRST ST. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE ONLY ONE OFF -STREET PARKING SPACE WHERE THREE ARE REQUIRED, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FIVE-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN PARKING AREAS AND PROPERTY LINES. APPLICANTS: Melissa Syken and Patricia Way ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS, ) & ORDERS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This matter came before the City Council as an appeal on the record pursuant to Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO, or AMC, Ashland Municipal Code) 18.108.110. The Planning Commission approved the application for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to the Off-Street Parking requirements, and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' "Parking Landscaping and Screening Standards" subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site at their regular meeting of March 8, 2011. An appeal request was timely received on April 27, 20 II from Philip C. Lang, a neighboring property owner. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL: ALUO 18. I 08, I 10.A.2 requires that each appeal set forth "a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity." To identifY the grounds for appeal, Dr. Lang referenced a submittal he had previously provided during his testimony before the Planning Commission. These grounds were not restated in the appeal request, and a copy of the originally submitted materials detailing the grounds was not provided with the appeal request. The item referenced was part of the record and specific objections to the proposal were clearly listed therein as follows: I) Failure to meet the permitted uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC 18.24.020); 2) Failure to meet the Conditional Uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC 18.24.030); 3) The proposal cannot provide adequate parking and will further worsen the current parking situation; 4) The proposal will adversely affect livability in the immediate area; 5) Failure to meet the requirement that the site be located on a street having a fully-improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business (as detailed in AMC 18.24.020). The Council finds that this attempt to incorporate appeal issues by reference to other documents, without clearly and distinctly identifying the appeal issues in the appeal request or providing copies of the documents PA #2010-01611 June 21",2011 Page 1 referenced with the appeal request, is not a sufficiently clear and distinct identification of the grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity as required in the code, and as such the appeal request is itself rejected. However, given that the objections, referenced by Dr. Lang within the record were themselves clear and distinct, and reference applicable criteria, the Council believes that if the matter were to come before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on appeal from the appellant, it is entirely possible that LUBA would refer the matter back to the City to address the specific items referenced by Dr. Lang. As such, while the Council finds that the appeal fails to meet the requirements for an appeal on the record as detailed in AMC 18. I 08.1 10.A.2 and is therefore rejected on that basis, the Council also believes that it is appropriate to make specific findings addressing the five issues Dr. Lang references in his appeal request, and Council review of the Planning Commission's decision will be limited to these five issues. A, OVERVIEW OF APPLICA TION, RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA and COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS: I. The subject property is identified as tax lot #1500 of Map 39 IE 09 BA, and is located at 260 First Street, within the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district and is zoned Low Density Multi- Family Residential (R-2). 2. The applicants requested a Conditional Use Permit and Site'Review to convert an eXlstmg historic, non-contributing 614 square foot residence into a 599 square foot retail store, with a 447 square foot residential addition to the rear of the property located at 260 First Street. In addition, the applicants are seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces. Three off-street parking spaces are required however given requirements for a disabled person parking place with the required aisle adjacent to the space the applicants are only able to provide one off-street parking place due to the lot's 25-foot width. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards is also requested to reduce the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and property lines. The proposal, including the design for the renovations and proposed addition, is outlined on the plans on file at the Dtpartment of Community Development. 3. The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met, C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transporlation can and will be provided to and through the subject properly. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Penormance Standards Options. 4) The criteria for and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standanls are described in Chapter 1 8.72.090 as follows: PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 2 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 wiff 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 requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. 5) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18. I 00.020 as foJlows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That the proposal's benefits wiff be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and wiff further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been wifffully or purposely self-imposed. 6) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are, described in Chapter 18.1 04.050 as foJlows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development. electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and wiff be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4, Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 7. The City Council, foJlowing proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 7, 201 I to consider the appeal, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The City Council rejected the appeal request for failing to provide a clear and distinct identification of the grounds for appeal as required in AMC 18,108.11 0.A2 because the request identified grounds for appeal by reference to other items found elsewhere in the record and did not clearly and distinctly identify PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 3 these grounds in the appeal request The Council also reviewed each of the five referenced grounds for appeal and denied the appeal on each of the five points, finding that there was substantial evidence in the whole record to support the Planning Commission's decision. The Council reaffirmed the Planning Commission's approval, and approved the application for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to the Off-Street Parking requirements, and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' "Parking Landscaping and Screening Standards" subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site B. COUNCIL FINDINGS ON APPEAL 1. Failure to meet the permitted uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC 18.24.020) As noted above, there are five specific grounds for appeal in this case. The first appeal ground asserts that the proposal fails to meet the permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district as detailed in AMC 18.24.020. In considering the appeal request as to this ground, the Council noted that the request considered by the Planning Commission was not for a permitted use, and the application itself was not reviewed or approved in terms of it being a permitted use. The Planning Commission's approval was granted based on the proposal meeting the general Conditional Use Permit criteria found in AMC 18. I 04.050 and specific requirements for retail commercial uses located within dwelling units in the Railroad Historic District found in AMC 18.24.030. The Planning Commission approval included conditions of approval imposed by the Commission to ensure that implementation of the proposal would comply with applicable requirements for a Conditional Use. The Planning Commission made the following findings on pages 60-62 of the record: The Planning Commission .finds that the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies, with the exception of the required parking and associated landscape buffers between parking areas and prqperty lines, have been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 district. ~ Variances to address the parking and landscape buffers are addressed in the relevant sections of these find ings. The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. The property is currently served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve the proposed commercial use and residence. Existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a nearby pole. The Electric Department has indicated that changes to the existing service may be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel, and a condition has accordingly been included to require that the applicant develop a final electrical service plan to be approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of building permits, and that PA #2010-01611 June 21",2011 Page 4 any necessary electrical service upgrades be provided at the applicants' expense. The Planning Commission further finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street and is currently improved with paving, curbs, and gutters in place. The west, side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op 's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. On the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, sidewalk installation is now under contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled for completion in the immediate future. Sidewalks will be in place prior to commencement of the proposed retail use. The Commission finds that the proposed Conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development oj the subject lot with the target use of the zone. As previously noted, the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in a multi-family (R-2) zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one residential unit. The Commission finds that the standards which allow for small scale retail uses, within dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district have been crafted to ensure that small scale retail uses within dwelling units will not overpower or overshadow the residential character of the existing residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant oj the dwelling unit and the equivalent of one half-time employee who works up to twenty-jive hours per week. These small scale retail uses with Railroad District dwellings are also to be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The Commission finds that to fully comply with AMC 18.24.030.L retail commercial uses in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be integrated with the residential unit, and to ensure compliance with this requirement a condition has been added to require that a door providing a clear connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on the plans submitted for building permit. With this condition in place, the Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements Jor a small scale retail use within a dwelling unit with the Railroad District. The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ash/and Railroad Addition historic district. Properties to the west and north of the subject property are zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including the Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and DJ's Video. To the south and east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District. The Commission further finds that the small scale' retail use to be located within a dwelling unit as proposed in the current application seems well-suited to the transitional nature of this block of First Street. PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 5 The Commission finds that over time, the existing structure has seen modifications to its siding and windows to the degree that it no longer retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period of development. The home as it exists seems to present a relatively weak side elevation to the street, which when combined with the existing fencing between the building and the street, give it little or no presence in the streetscape. The exterior physical improvements proposed for the structure are similar to the existing siding and trim of historic homes in the area, and consistent with other recent renovations in the neighborhood. The proposed conversion to retail involves raising the roof peak and adding a new door and windows, and the Commission finds that these improvements will substantially enhance the building's sense of entry and presence within the streetscape, rendering it more in keeping with the Site Design and Use Standards and specifically the Historic District Design Standards, and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare. The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as a secondary destination due to its close proximity to the Ashland Food Co-Op and other commercial uses within the district, and will generate primarily pedestrian traffic from people already shopping elsewhere in the vicinity. With regard to the first ground for appeal, the Council finds that the application was not requested as a pcrmitted use, and that the Planning Commission neither considered nor approved the application as a permitted use. The proposal was for a Conditional Use Permit and the Planning Commission considered and approved the application on that basis. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the identified Planning Commission findings from pages 60-62 in the Planning Commission record for the current application, as referenced above, with regard to the first ground for appeal. The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. 2. Failure to meet the Conditional Uses in the R-2 District (as detailed in AMC 18,24,030); The second ground for appeal asserted by the appellant was that the proposal failed to meet the Conditional Uses in the R-2 zoning district as detailed in AMC 18.24.030. In considering this ground for appeal, the Council noted that the request involves a small retail commercial use located within a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District. Ashland's Land Use PA #20]0-0]611 June 2]",20] 1 Page 6 Ordinance explicitly provides for such uses through a Conditional Use Permit process in AMC ] 8.24.030.1. The requirements for such uses are described as follows: Retail commercial uses located in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic_District approved by the City Council. Such business shall be no greater than six hundred (600) sq. ji. in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit uses, and the equivalent of one (1) half (ih) time employee (up to twenty-jive (25) hours per week). Such use shall be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and shall be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The street shall be a fully improved street of residential City standards or greater. The Planning Commission considered the request as a Conditional Use Permit based on these requirements and the applicable criteria in AMC 18.104.050, and made the following findings on pages 60-62 of the record: The Planning Commission finds that the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies, with the exception of the required parking and associated landscape buffers between parking areas and property lines, have been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 district. Variances to address the parking and landscape buffers are addressed in the relevant sections of these findings. The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. The property is currently served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve the proposed commercial use and residence. Existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a nearby pole. The Electric Department has indicated that changes to the existing service may be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel, and a condition has accordingly been included to require that the applicant develop a final electrical service plan to be approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of building permits, and that any necessary electrical service upgrades be provided at the applicants' expense. The Planning Commission further finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street and is currently improved with paving, curbs, and gutters in place. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op 's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. On the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, sidewalk installation is now under contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled for completion in the immediate future. Sidewalks will be in place prior to commencement of the proposed retail use. PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 7 The Commission finds that the proposed Conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. As previously noted, the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in a multi-family (R-2) zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one residential unit. The Commission finds that the standards which allow for small scale retail uses within dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district have been crafted to ensure that small scale retail uses within dwelling units will not overpower or overshadow the residential character of the existing residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit and the equivalent of one half-time employee who works up to twenty-flve hours per week. These small scale retail uses with Railroad District dwellings are also to be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The Commission finds that to fully comply with AMC 18.24.030.1, retail commercial uses in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be integrated with the residential unit, and to ensure compliance with this requirement a condition has been added to require that a door providing a clear connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on the plans submitted for building permit. With this condition in place, the Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements for a small scale retail use within a dwelling unit with the Railroad District. The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district. Properties to the west and north of the subject property are zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including the Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and DJ's Video. To the south and east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District. The Commission further finds that the small scale retail use to be located within a dwelling unit as proposed in the current application seems well-suited to the transitional nature of this block of First Street. The Commission finds that over time, the existing structure has seen modifications to its siding and windows to the degree that it no longer retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period of development. The home as it exists seems to present a relatively weak side elevation to the street, which when combined with the existing fencing between the building and the street, give it little or no presence in the streetscape. The exterior physical improvements proposed for the structure are similar to the existing siding and trim of historic homes in the area, and consistent with other recent renovations in the neighborhood. The proposed conversion to retail involves raising the roof peak and PA #20\0-016\\ June 2\", 20\\ Page 8 adding a new door and windows, and the Commission .finds that these improvements will substantially enhance the building's sense of entry and presence within the streetscape. rendering it more in keeping with the Site Design and Use Standards and specifically the Historic District Design Standards, and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. , The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare. The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as a secondary destination due to its close proximity to the Ashland Food Co-Op and other commercial uses within the district, and will generate primarily pedestrian traffic from people already shopping elsewhere in the vicinity. The Council finds that the Planning Commission considered Dr. Lang's objections, which were provided during public testimony to the Planning Commission and restated by reference in the appeal request, in reaching their decision, and ultimately found that the proposal satisfied the applicable requirements for a small retail use within a dwelling in the Railroad Historic District detailed in AMC 18.24.030.1 and for Conditional Use Permit approval found in AMC 18. I 04.050. The Council can find no specific lack of evidence, and no factual or procedural error of law with Ihe decision and none has been clearly and distinctly identified by Dr. Lang in the objections referenced, and as such the Council denies this second point of opposition to the proposal. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission, and hereby adopts the identified Planning Commission findings referenced above, and found on pages 60-62 of the Planning Commission record for this application. The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. 3, The proposal cannot provide adequate parking and will further worsen the current parking situation; The third ground for appeal is that the proposal cannot provide adequate parking and will further worsen the current parking situation. In considering this third ground for appeal, the Council noted that the application does include a request for a Variance to the off-street parking requirements to reduce off-street parking provided from the three spaces that would be required without a Variance to provide only one space. The Commission's findings on this issue are found on pages 59-60 of the record and are as follows: The Planning Commission finds that vehicular access is being proposed at the front of the property off of First Street, and due to the size of the proposed retail space (599 sq. ft.), two off- street parking spaces are required in addition to the single off-street parking space required for a residential unit of this size. As a commercial use, one of the three required off-street spaces is required to be a disabled person parking place with an PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 9 adjacent van-accessible aisle; this requirement is based not only within the land use ordinance but also within applicable state and federal laws under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given the narrow 25-100t lot width, the site is only able to accommodate the single disabled person parking place and adjacent aisle, and a Variance to reduce the three required parking spaces to only provide a single parking space on site (a 66 percent reduction in the parking requirement) is required. The Commission further jinds that while the applicants have expressed an interest in providing the disabled person parking space within the adjacent right-ol-way in order to accommodate two off-street parking spaces within the front yard, both the Building and Engineering Departments who review such requests for compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations have identified difficulties with accommodating the disabled person parking space within the right-ol-way in terms of both the technical details of providing an accessible route from the right-ol-way to the business entrance and in terms of requiring a disabled person to exit a vehicle in an area with significant amounts of commercial traffic already occurring. The Commissionjinds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site which do not typically apply elsewhere in that the lot's width, which is only 25 feet, is prohibitive from entirely complying with parking space requirements. The minimum lot width for a lot accommodating less than two units within the district is 50 feet, and generally lots within the city are required to have at least a 40 foot frontage along a public street. AMC 18.92.055 also identifies the redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a Variance to parking, and the Commission jinds that his hardship combined with the lot's 25-100t width represent unique of unusual circumstances which have not been self-imposed. The Commissionjinds that the applicants propose to provide double the required amount of bicycle parking for the proposal, with one rack to be provided in front of the building, and another to be provided in the shed at the rear of the property. In addition, the Commissionjinds that the reducing the parking requirement by 66 percent will encourage a small start-up business through the allowance for a mixed-use arrangement on the property, and that this will increase the vitality of the neighborllOod as well as providingfor substantial physical improvements to the existing home. The Commission approves a Variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the proposal by 66 percent; of the three off-street parking spaces typically required for the proposal, only one off-street space is to be required. The Commission recognizes that the ultimate determination as to whether the one off-street parking space to be provided on site is to be a disabled person parking place or a standard parking place will be subject to the requirements of both the Public Works and Building Divisions. PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 10 The Commission further finds that if the disabled person parking space can be accommodated within the adjacent right-oi-way or elsewhere off-site within two blocks of the subject property to meet the state and federal regulations, then only one standard space would need to be provided on-site and the required landscape buffer between the space and the property line could accordingly be increased to the extent allowed by the final approved parking space configuration. In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the placement of a disabled person parking space off site, the required ADA-accessible space would need to be installed on off-street; in this case the Commission finds that it would be preferable that the parking space use as a disabled person parking place be limited only to the proposed business's hours of operation, with the space to be made available to residents of the connected dwelling during off-hours. Conditions have been included to require that the final placement and installation of parking places shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions. The Council finds that the Planning Commission considered the applicants' requested parking Variance in light of the appellant's original objections, which were provided during testimony and which have merely been restated here by reference with the appeal, and determined that the necessary Variance was ultimately merited based on a thorough review of the details of the request in light of applicable Variance criteria found in AMC 18. I 00. In particular, the Council notes that the Planning Commission recognized the lot's substandard 25-foot width, which was insufficient to accommodate a single disabled-accessible parking space with the associated aisle, accessible route and full landscape buffers, and lack or alley access as unique or unusual circumstances which necessitated a Vanance, and found that with approval the proposal would lead to the creation of a start-up business that would increase the vitality of the surrounding neighborhobd while leading to substantial improvements to the existing building. The Council finds that the appeal fails to point to a specific lack of evidence, or to a factual or procedural error of law for which that decision should be reversed. The Council further finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the decision of the Planning Commission. The Council hereby adopts these findings, as referenced above and found on page 59-60 of the record. The Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this appeal ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. 4. The proposal will adversely affect livability in the immediate area; The fourth ground for appeal is that the proposal will adversely affect livability in the immediate area. In his objections to the proposal, Dr. Lang asserts that the conversion 'of the existing residence to a retail space will lead to more traffic, and hence more noise and congestion and thus adversely affect the quality of life for surrounding residences. In considering this item, the Council noted the following findings of the Planning Commission, found on pages 61-62 of the record: The Commission finds that the proposed Conditional use will have no greater adverse PA #2010-01611 June 21",2011 Page 11 material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. As previously noted, the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in the R-2 zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one residential unit. The Commission finds that the standards which allow for small scale retail uses within dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district have been crafted to ensure that small scale retail uses within dwelling units will not overpower or overshadow the residential character of the existing residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit and the equivalent of one half-time employee who works up to twenty jive hours per week. These small scale retail uses with Railroad District dwellings are also to be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The Commission finds that to fully comply with AMC 18.24.030./, retail commercial uses in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be integrated with the residential unit, and to ensure compliance with this requirement a condition has been added to require that a door providing a clear connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on the plans submitted for building permit. With this condition in place, the Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements for a small scale retail use within a dwelling unit with the Railroad District. The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district. Properties to the west and north of the subject property are zoned Employment (E-1), with established businesses in place including the Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and DJ's Video. To the south and east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District. The Commission further finds that the small scale retail use to be located within a dwelling unit as proposed in the current application seems well-suited to the transitional nature of this block of First Street. The Commission further found on page 62 of the record that: The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse 'environmental impacts such as dust, odors. air quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare. The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as a secondary destination due to its close proximity to the Ashland Food Co-Op and other commercial uses within the district, and will generate primarily pedestrian traffic from people already shopping elsewhere in the vicinity. PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 12 The Council finds that after considering the appellant's objections, which were raised during testimony before the Planning Commission and merely restated here with the appeal, the Planning Commission found that the nature of the specific requirements for small scale retail uses within dwelling units in the Railroad Historic District were such that impacts to the livability and character of the impact zone were minimized, The requirements for these small scale retail uses within residences specifically limit the size of the retail uses to no more than a 600 square foot area within the residence and require that they be occupied by the business owner with no more than one half-time employee, that they be located on a street having fully- improved sidewalks on the business side, and that they be primarily pedestrian-oriented business. The Planning Commission further found that the small size of the building, type of business, and location in the Railroad Addition historic district took full advantage of existing pedestrian traffic and thus minimized traffic impacts. The Commission noted that the use proposed was likely to serve as a secondary destination to the adjacent co-op and surrounding E-l uses and would be primarily pedestrian oriented. ' The Planning Commission determined that the use would be in keeping with the transitional nature of the block, that the improvements would enhance the sense of entry, street presence and render the building more compatible with its surroundings, and that in terms of noise, light and glare, the scale and nature of the use would no more adverse material impact than would a single family residence. The Planning Commission ultimately found the proposal to satisfy the requirements for small scale retail uses within residential dwellings in the Railroad district along with the criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval, with the imposition of conditions requiring that there be a door provided between the residential and retail portions of the home to better integrate the two uses within the structure and that any modifications to the proposed use or conditions of its operation be reviewed through the Conditional Use Permit process to ensure continuing compliance with these requirements, and made findings accordingly. The appellant has shown no factual or procedural error which would merit the reversal of the decision. The Council concurs with the findings of the Planning Commission above, and hereby adopts these findings as to this appeal ground, as referenced above and found on pages 61-62 of the Planning Commission record for this application. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission on this matter. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the Planning Commission's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. 5, Failure to meet the requirement that the site be located on a street having a fully-improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business (as detailed in AMC 18,24.030), The final ground for appeal is that the proposal fails to meet the requirement that the site be located on a street having a fully-improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business, as detailed in AMC 18.24.030. In considering this item, the Council noted AMC 18.24.030.1 detailing the Conditional Use requirements for retail commercial uses located within dwelling units in the Railroad Historic District requires that the site be located on a street having a fully-improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The Council further PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 13 noted that while there was no sidewalk in place at the time of the Planning Commission's decision, the Planning Commission was aware that sidewalk installation was under contract by the City through a "Miscellaneous Concrete" project and was slated for installation in the immediate future. The Council notes that in considering the Conditional Use Permit request in light of these circumstances and requirements the Planning Commission found, on page 61 in the record, as follows: The Planning Commission further finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street and is currently improved with paving, curbs, and gutters in place. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op 's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. On the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, sidewalk installation is now under contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled for completion in the immediate future. Sidewalks will be in place prior to commencement o( the proposed retail use. The Council finds no lack of evidence or factual or procedural error of law here as the Planning Commission reasonably determined that, because the sidewalks were under contract by the City for completion in the immediate future and would be in place prior to commencement of the proposed retail use, the requirement was satisfied. The Council concurs with these findings, and hereby adopts them as to this appeal ground, as referenced above and found on page 61 of the Planning Commission record for this application. The Council finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission pn this matter. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the Planning Commi~sion's decision with regard to this ground should be upheld, and this ground for appeal should be denied. C. DECISION Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, and on the findings set forth above, the City Council concludes first that the appeal request failed to clearly and distinctly identify grounds within the request, as required by code, and is rejected on that basis. However, the Council also finds it appropriate to consider the decision of the Planning Commission based on the five grounds for appeal referenced in the appeal request to avoid a potential remand by LUBA and in doing so finds that there is substantial evidence contained within the whole record to support the findings of the Planning Commission with regard to each of the five grounds for appeal, and hereby adopts the identified Planning Commission findings in their entirety. Those findings are appended to this Final Decision as Appendix A. The City Council accordingly finds that the Planning Commission's decision should be upheld, and denies the appeal as to the appeal request itself and all five of the individual appeal grounds contained therein. The Council reaffirms the Planning Commission's approval ofa Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert an existing historic, non-contributing 6 I 4 square foot residence into a 599 square foot retail store, with a 447 square foot residential addition to the rear of the property; Variance to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from three to one; and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards to reduce the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and property lines with the conditions below which were attached , PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 14 to the Planning Commission's original approval. I) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. The approval being granted is specific to the proposal being requested, including the specific business being proposed and the requirement that the business owner reside in the residential unit on the property. If the proposed use of the site, including the nature of the business or business-owner occupancy on site is changed, a modification of the Conditional Use Permit shall be submitted and approved prior to implementing any changes to the approved proposal. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their March 2, 201 I meeting shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. 4) That the applicants shall explore the possibility of further extending the eave on the south side of the building to cover the bicycle parking area next to the front door. 5) That the applicants shall obtain required fence and sign permits prior to the modification of fencing or installation of sign age. Fencing shall be consistent with the general requirements of AMC 18.68, and signage shall be limited to that allowed for Conditional Use Permits in the R-2 zoning district in AMC ] 8.24 and 18.104. 6) The Planning Commission is supportive of placement of the ADA-accessible space within the right-of-way, if possible, within two blocks of the subject property. In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the placement of an ADA- accessible parking space within the First Street right-of-way as proposed by the applicants, the required ADA-accessible space shall be installed within the front yard and the Commission is supportive of its use as an ADA-accessible space being limited to business hours with it to be made available to residents of the connected dwelling unit during off-hours. Final placement and installation shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions. 7), The Commission has approved a Variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the proposal by 66 percent; of the three off-street parking spaces typically required for the proposal, only one off-street space is to be required, The Commission recognizes that the ultimate determination as to whether the one off-street parking space to be provided on site is to be ADA- accessible or a standard space will be s'ubject to the requirements of the Public Works and Building Divisions. If the space must be ADA-accessible, the Commission suggests limiting its use to business hours, with the space to revert to use by residents of the site during off-hours. Additional landscape buffers shall be provided to the extent allowed by the final approved parking space configuration, 8) That the building plan submittals shall include: a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar PA #2010-016t I June 21",2011 Page 15 Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade. Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of the building permit, and all transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be consistent with those described in the action, compatible with the surrounding area and identified in the building permit submittals. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with II-B-6a) of the Multi-Family Site Design and Use Standards. e) That a door providing a connection between the proposed retail space and the associated dwelling unit shall be provided and identified in the plans submitted for the building permit. 9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: I b) c) d) a) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including that a fire department connection shall be provided and that adequate fire flow shall be provided shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be determined based on area calculations using the final building plan submittals. 10) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the required off-street parking shall be installed and maintained in permeable pavers as proposed by the applicants. b) That a new driveway curb cut shall be installed to serve the proposed parking in the front yard under permit from the Public Works Department. Concrete colors used shall be consistent with the Ashland Historic District concrete standards, and the driveway width shall be the minimum necessary to serve the required parking installed. The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work within the right-of- way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the building plan submittals. PA #2010-01611 June 21",2011 Page 16 d) That the electric services shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e) The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. If bicycle parking is to be provided in garages, final interior dimensions of garages shall be provided to insure adequate space needs and signage clearly identifying the spaces as limited to bicycle parking shall be provided. t) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.72.115.8. ~~;;I John Strom~erg, MayO~ City of Ashland J""'21.201~ Date ( . 0 PA #2010-0]611 June 2]", 20]] Page 17 APPENDIX A. Adopted Findings of the Planning Commission's April 12, 2011 Decision PA #2010-01611 June 21", 2011 Page 18 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 12th, 2011 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-01611, A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING NON-HISTORIC, NON-CONTRIBUTING 614- SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE INTO A 599-SQUARE FOOT RETAIL STORE WITH A 447-SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 260 NORTH FIRST STREET. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICATION INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE OFF- STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE ONLY ONE OFF-STREET P ARK1NG SPACE WHERE THREE ARE REQUIRED, AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FIVE-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN PARKING AREAS AND PROPERTY LINES, APPLICANTS: Melissa Syken and Patricia Way RECITALS: ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS, ) & ORDERS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I) Tax lot #1500 of Map 39 IE 09 BA is located at 260 First Street, within the AsWand Railroad Addition historic district and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2), 2) The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert an existing historic, non-contributing 614 square foot residence into a 599 square foot retail store, with a 447 square foot residential addition to the rear of the property located at 260 First Street. In addition, the applicants are seeking a Variance to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces, TIrree off-street parking spaces are required however given requirements for a disabled person parking place with the required aisle adjacent to the space the applicants are only able to provide one off-street parking place due to the lot's 25-foot width. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards is also requested to reduce the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and property lines. The proposal, including the design for the renovations and proposed addition, is outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page 1 D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through tha development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. 4) The criteria for and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in Chapter 18,72,090 as follows: 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 will not substantially negatively impact adjacent prop~rties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. 5) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B, 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. C, That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. 6) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18,104,050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relavant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject properly. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livabifity of the impact erea shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibifity with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. PA #2010-016] 1 April 12, 2011 Page 2 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other fectors found to be relevent by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 8th, 2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to the Off-Street Parking requirements, and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' "Parking Landscaping and Screening Standards" subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION I. 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 "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2, CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission finds that all applicable city ordinances, with the exception of the required parking and associated landscape buffers between parking areas and property lines, have been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 district. Variances to address the parking and landscape buffers are addressed below, The Commission further finds that there currently exist sufficient public utilities to service the proposed commercial and residential uses. The property is served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of- way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are lldequate to serve the proposed commercial and residential uses, The existing electrical service is ,a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a nearby pole; the Electric Department has indicated that changes to the existing service may be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel. A condition has accordingly been included requiring PA #2010-01611 April 12, 20 II Page 3 the applicants to develop a final electrical service plan to be approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of building permits, with any electrical service upgrades necessary to be provided at the owner's expense. The Commission finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street. The Commission finds that the First Street right-of-way between A and B Streets is 70 feet in width, and that the current improvements in place include curbs, gutters and paving along the subject property's frontage. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. Sidewalk installation on the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, is under contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project which is scheduled for completion in the immediate fUture. . The Commission finds that under the Site Design & Use Standards, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street and to be within 20 feet from the right-of-way upon which they front. The proposed use and associated building modifications improve the street side fal'ade by increasing the roof peak, enclosing the lean-to porch, removing the existing non-conforming fence in the front yard, and providing landscaping and pavers in the front yard as well as greatly enhancing the building's sense of entry and presence in the streetscape. An accessible route from the new curbside sidewalk along First Street will lead to the front door. Between the front yard parking area and the structure, there are to be two bicycle parking spaces in accordance with city standards. No street trees are proposed with the application; the lot is only 25 feet in width and the existing trees within the right-of-way at either side of the property are found to satisfy the street tree spacing standards. 2,3 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a request for an Administrative Variance to the required five-foot landscape buffer between parking areas and property lines. The subject property has a pre-existing non-conforming width of only 25 feet, and with the likelihood that a disabled person parking place will need to be accommodated on site along with the accompanying aisle adjacent to the space and an accessible route, the required five-foot landscape buffer cannot be provided within the available lot width. The applicants propose to place a three-and-a-half foot wide ramp adjacent to the north property line, and a three-and-a-half foot landscape buffer between the accessible route ramp and the proposed parking areas. No landscaped buffer is proposed adjacent to the south property line. The Commission finds that this configuration is the minimum Variance necessary and all that can be accommodated with the lot's narrow width, and that the proposed buffer strip breaks up tpe visual impact of the property's front yard being mostly paved due to address parking requirements. The Commission further finds that the applicants' proposal to offset impacts of the amount of paving, by using permeable pavers in place of the standard asphalt or concrete, is an appropriate means to mitigate the visual impacts ofthe prominent placement ofthe paved area within the front yard and the location of the site within an historic district. PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page 4 d The Commission finds that the lot's narrow width along the street frontage justifies the requested Administrative Variance to reduce the required landscape buffer between the proposed parking and the property line. The Commission further finds that approval of the Administrative Variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter which calls for reducing the adverse effects of development on surrounding property owners and the general public while creating a business environment that is safe and comfortable and enhancing the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use; and ensuring high quality development is maintained throughout the City. Conditions have been recommended below to require that permeable pavers or other similar be ,used for the proposed parking spaces, as proposed by the applicants, to minimize visual impacts of paving in a manner that is compatible with the historic district; that the width of the curb cut be minimized to only as wide as is necessary to allow vehicular access to the ADA-accessible parking space; and that if the disabled person parking space can ultimately be accommodated off site within the adjacent right of way, that the width of the required landscape buffer between the parking space and the property line be increased accordingly. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that vehicular access is being proposed at the front of the property off of First Street, and due to the size of the proposed retail space (599 sq. ft.), two off- street parking spaces are required in addition to the single off-street parking space required for a residential unit of this size. As a commercial use, one of the three required off-street spaces is required to be a disabled person parking place with an adjacent van-accessible aisle; this requirement is based not only within the land use ordinance but also within applicable state and federal laws under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given the narrow 25-foot lot width, the site is only able to accommodate the single disabled person parking place and adjacent aisle, and a Variance to reduce the three required parking spaces to only provide a single parking space on site (a 66 percent reduction in the parking requirement) is required. The Commission further finds that while the applicants have expressed an interest in providing the disabled person parking space within the adjacent right-of-way in order to accommodate two off-street parking spaces within the front yard, both the Building and Engineering Departments who review such requests for compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations have identified difficulties with accommodating the disabled person parking space within the right-of-way in terms of both the technical details of providing an accessible route from the right- of-way to the business entrance and in terms ofrequiring a,disabled person to exit a vehicle in an area with significant amounts of commercial traffic already occurring. The Commission finds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site which do not typically apply elsewhere in that the lot's width, which is only 25 feet, is prohibitive from entirely complying with parking space requirements. The minimum lot width for a lot accommodating less than two units within the district is 50 feet, and generally lots within the city are required to have at least a 40 foot frontage along a public street. AMC 18.92.055 also identifies the redevelopment of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page 5 - hardship for the purposes of granting a Variance to parking, and the Commission finds that his hardship combined with the lot's 25-foot width represent unique of unusual circumstances which have not been self-imposed.. The Commission finds that the applicants propose to provide double the required amount of bicycle parking for the proposal, with one rack to be provided in front of the building, and another to be provided in the shed at the rear of the property. In addition, the Commission finds that the reducing the parking requirement by 66 percent will encourage a small start-up business through the allowance for a mixed-use arrangement on the property, and that this will increase the vitality of the neighborhood as well as providing for substantial physical improvements to the existing home. The Commission approves a Variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the proposal by 66 percent; of the three off-street parking spaces typically required for the proposal, only one off-street space is to be required. The Commission recognizes that the ultimate detennination as to whether the one off-street parking space to be provided on site is to be a disabled person parking place or a standard parking place will be subject to the requirements of both the Public Works and Building Divisions. The Commission further finds that if the disabled person parking space can be accommodated within the adjacent right-of-way or elsewhere off-site within two blocks of the subject property to meet the state and federal regulations, then only one standard space would need to be provided on-site and the required landscape buffer between the space and the property line could accordingly be increased to the extent allowed by the final approved parking space configuration. In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the placement of a disabled person parking space off site, the required ADA-accessible space would need to be installed on off-street; in this case the Commission finds that it would be preferable that the parking space use as a disabled person parking place be limited only to the proposed business's hours of operation, with the space to be made available to residents of the connected dwelling during off-hours. Conditions have been included to require that the final placement and installation of parking places shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the use would be in confonnance with all standards within the zoning district and in confonnance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies, with the exception of the required parking and associated landscape buffers between parking areas and property lines, have been met or exceeded for development in the historic R-2 district. Variances to address the parking and landscape buffers are addressed in the relevant sections of these findings. The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban stonn drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property, The property is PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page 6 currently served by a four-inch water main, a six-inch sanitary sewer main, and a twelve-inch storm drain located in the First Street right-of-way. The Public Works/Engineering Department has indicated that these facilities, which already serve the existing home, are adequate to serve the proposed commercial use and residence. Existing electrical service is a 200-amp overhead service dropped from a nearby pole. The Electric Department has indicated that changes to the existing service may be necessitated due to the conversion of uses on the parcel, and a condition has accordingly been included to require that the applicant develop a final electrical service plan to be approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of building permits, imd that any necessary electrical service upgrades be provided at the applicants' expense. The Planning Commission further finds that First Street is classified as a residential neighborhood street and is currently improved with paving, curbs, and gutters in place. The west side of the street along the Ashland Food Co-Op's frontage is improved with sidewalks, street trees, and 14 angled parking spaces. On the east side of the street, along the subject property's frontage, sidewalk installation is now under contract by the City through a current "Miscellaneous Concrete" project scheduled for completion in the immediate future. Sidewalks will be in place prior to commencement of the proposed retail use. The Commission finds that the proposed Conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, As previously noted, the subject property is a legal non- conforming lot that was created prior to current zoning regulations. As a legal lot of record in the R-2 zoning district, the substandard 2,300 square foot lot size has a target use of one residential unit. The Commission finds that the standards which allow for small scale retail uses within dwelling units in the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district have been crafted to ensure that small scale retail uses within dwelling units will not overpower or overshadow the residential character of the existing residences or their neighborhoods. Such businesses are allowed to be no greater than 600 square feet in total area, including all storage and accessory uses, and shall be operated only by the occupant of the dwelling unit and the equivalent of one half-time employee who works up to twenty-five hours per week These small scale retail uses with Railroad District dwellings are also to be designed to serve primarily pedestrian traffic, and are to be located on a street having a fully improved sidewalk on at least the side occupied by the business. The Commission finds that to fully comply with AMC 18.24.030.1, retail commercial uses in a dwelling unit within the Railroad Historic District must be integrated with the residential unit, and to ensure compliance with this requirement a condition has been added to require-that a door providing a clear connection between the proposed retail and residential spaces be provided on the plans submitted for building permit. With this condition in place, the Commission finds that the proposal meets the requirements for a small scale retail use within a dwelling unit with the Railroad District. The Commission finds that this block of First Street is located in a transitional area between the more intense commercial uses concentrated along A Street, and the established residential neighborhoods of the Ashland Railroad Addition historic district. Properties to the west and north 'of the subject property are zoned Employment (E- I), with established businesses in place PA #20]0-0]611 April ]2,201] Page 7 including the Ashland Food Co-Op, Plexis, Ace Hardware, and DJ's Video. To the south and east are the residentially-zoned neighborhoods of the Railroad Addition Historic District. The Commission further finds that the small scale retail use to be located within a dwelling unit as proposed in the current application seems well-suited to the transitional nature of this block of First Street. The Commission finds that over time, the existing structure has seen modifications to its siding and windows to the degree that it no longer retains sufficient integrity to reflect its historic period of development. The home as it exists seems to present a relatively weak side elevation to the street, which when combined with the existing fencing between the building and the street, give it little or no presence in the streetscape, The exterior physical improvements proposed for the structure are similar to the existing siding and trim of historic homes in the area, and consistent with other recent renovations in the neighborhood. The proposed conversion to retail involves raising the roof peak and adding a new door and windows, and the Commission finds that these improvements will substantially enhance the building's sense of entry and presence within the streetscape, rendering it more in keeping with the Site Design and Use Standards and specifically the Historic District Design Standards, and more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission further finds that proposed use will not create any adverse environmental impacts such as dust, odors, air quality; or any additional generation of noise, light or glare. The Commission finds that the small proposed retail space will serve largely as a secondary destination due to its close proximity to the Ashland Food Co-Op and other commercial uses within the district, and will generate primarily pedestrian traffic from people already shopping elsewhere in the vicinity, SECTION 3, DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this maller, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to the Off-Street Parking requirements and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards' "Parking Landscaping and Screening Standards" is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2010-01611. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2010-01611 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are allached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. The approval being granted is specific to the proposal being requested, including the specific business being proposed and the requirement that the business owner reside in the residential unit on the property, If the proposed use of the site, including the nature of the business or business-owner occupancy on site is changed, a modification of the Conditional Use PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page 8 Permit shall be submitted and approved prior to implementing any changes to the approved proposal. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall'be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their March 2, 2011 meeting shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. 4) That the applicants shall explore the possibility of further extending the eave on the south side of the building to cover the bicycle parking area next to the front door. 5) That the applicants shall obtain required fence and sign permits prior to the modification of fencing or installation of signage. Fencing shall be consistent with the general requirements of AMC 18.68, and signage shall be limited to that allowed for Conditional Use Permits in the R-2 zoning district in AMC 18,24 and 18.104. 6) The Planning Commission is supportive of placement of the ADA-accessible space within the right-of-way, if possible, within two blocks of the subject property. In the event that the Building and Public Works Departments are unable to approve the placement of an ADA-accessible parking space within the First Street right-of-way as proposed by the applicants, the required ADA-accessible space shall be installed within the front yard and the Commission is supportive of its use as an ADA-accessible space being limited to business hours with it to be made available to residents of the connected dwelling unit during off-hours. Final placement and installation shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works, Building and Planning Divisions. 7) The Commission has approved a Variance to reduce the off-street parking requirement for the proposal by 66 percent; of the three off-street parking spaces typically required for the proposal, only one off-street space is to be required. The Commission recognizes that the ultimate determination as to whether the one off-street parking space to be provided on site is to be ADA- accessible or a standard space will be subject to the requirements of the Public Works and Building Divisions. If the space must be ADA-accessible, the Commission suggests limiting its use to business hours, with the space to revert to use by residents of the site during off-hours. Additional landscape buffers shall be provided to the extent allowed by the final approved parking space configuration. 8) That the building plan submittals shall include: a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) ~ Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from the identified natural grade. b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, andpcirculation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in the R-2 zoning district. PA #2010-016] 1 April 12, 2011 Page 9 c) AD. electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the submittal of the building permit, and all transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. d) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be consistent with those described in the action, compatible with the surrounding area and identified in the building permit submittals, Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with II-B-6a) of the Multi-Family Site Design and Use Standards. e) That a door providing a connection between the proposed retail space and the associated dwelling unit shall be provided and identified in the plans submitted for the building permit. 9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including that a fire department connection shall be provided and that adequate fire flow shall be provided shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be determined based on area calculations using the final building plan submittals. 10) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That the required off-street parking shall be installed and maintained in permeable pavers as proposed by the applicants. b) That a new driveway curb cut shall be installed to serve the proposed parking in the front yard under permit from the Public Works Department. Concrete colors used shall be consistent with the Ashland Historic District concrete standards, and the driveway width shall be the minimum necessary to serve the required parking installed. The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work within the right-of- way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the building plan submittals. d) That the electric services shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e) The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verifY that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18,92.040.1. If bicycle parking is to be provided in garages, final interior dimensions of garages shall be provided to insure adequate space needs and signage clearly identifYing the spaces as limited to bicycle parking shall be provided. PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page ] 0 f) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with l8.72.115,B. y:?t1"i/?/ll} aW Planning Commission approval by Pam Marsh, Chair April 12th, 2011 Date PA #2010-01611 April 12, 2011 Page II