Statement:
The appellant submitted an appeal request stating four issues as the grounds for appeal including: 1) content of the written notice, 2) traffic generation, street safety, vehicle maneuvering room, and visibility, 3) change in character of street and 4) "focus on the protection of residents instead of the convenience of parking and access for the individual requesting the alterations." Subsequently, the appellant submitted additional information, dated April 14, 2005 on pages 1 through 6 in the record, expanding on the grounds for appeal. On April 25, 2005, the applicant submitted revised findings of fact, responses to issues raised by the appellant and background information. The applicant's submittal is date stamped April 25, 2005, and on pages A-1 through D-13 of the record. The record was distributed to Council on April 25 for the May 3, 2005 Council meeting to provide additional time for review. The current time line would require the hearing completed and a decision made at the May 17, 2005 meeting, with adoption of findings on June 7, 2005. The applicant would have to agree to grant additional time if a decision is not made at the May 17, 2005 meeting. |
Background:
On January 7, 2005, the applicant filed the request for the above referenced planning action. On January 19, 2005, the application was deemed complete by staff. The 120-day limit expires on May 18, 2005. The applicant granted a 30-day extension to the 120-day time limit resulting in the new time limit of June 17, 2005. The current time line would require the hearing completed and decision made at the May 17, 2005 meeting, with adoption of findings on June 7, 2005. The applicant would have to agree to grant additional time if a decision is not made at the May 17, 2005 meeting.
The Staff reports included in the record provides a description of the proposal, and the issues raised. See pages 33-37 of the record for these reports, and pages 18-21 for the findings.
The application requires Site Review approval and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to locate parking spaces between the building and the street. Additionally, the proposal includes moving the trash enclosure to the east side of the building and expanding a private patio area on the north side of the building.
Originally, a Variance was included in the application to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces. The Off-Street Parking chapter requires that the number of spaces provided by a use in ground surface lots to not exceed the required number of spaces by more than 10%. However, the application was revised prior to the public hearing at the Hearings Board to remove parking in the existing parking area, and instead use the area as a vehicle turnaround. As a result, the need for a Variance was eliminated. The current revised site plan also maintains the original total number of seven parking spaces, and therefore a Variance is no longer part of the application. There is a paved area west of the ADA parking on the revised site plan (page C-1) that was previously used as parking. If the application is approved, the Council may want to consider a condition requiring this area to be landscaped.
A timely appeal was filed by Gary R. Moore on March 21, 2005 including four objections (see below). The appellant submitted additional information, dated April 14, 2005 on pages 1 through 6 in the record, expanding on the grounds for appeal. On April 25, 2005, the applicant submitted revised findings of fact, responses to issues raised by the appellant and background information. The applicant's submittal is date stamped April 25, 2005, and on pages A-1 through D-13 of the record. Staff has reviewed the issues raised, and provided information pertaining to the objections by the order used in the appeal letter.
Objection 1
Regarding Objections 1, Planning Action 2005-00045 was properly noticed for a public hearing at the February 8, 2005 Hearings Board meeting in accordance with 18.108.080 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The written notice and approval criteria were mailed on January 20, 2005 to property owners with 200 feet of the subject property (see page 39-45 of the record). In addition, a notice was posted on site and a public meeting notice was in the newspaper. The application and file were and are available for review at the Department of Community Development during business hours.
Objection 2
Regarding Objection 2, the Planning Commission required a larger vision clearance area than is required in 18.72.120.C to address neighbor concerns regarding visibility. The requirement is that the vision clearance area within ten feet of the driveway is free from obstructions greater than two and a half feet in height. The Hearings Board required the length of the vision clearance area adjacent to the street to be 25 feet in length to provide a greater line of sight (see condition number 10 of the findings on pages 20-21 of the record.) The originally submitted site plan included three proposed spaces including an accessible ADA space adjacent to Rogue Place (see page 48 of the record). As approved with condition 10, the vision clearance requirement required moving the spaces further away from the south property line which reduces the area available for parking spaces. Whereas the original site plan showed three spaces including the accessible ADA parking space accessed by Rogue Place, the current revised site plan shows two parking spaces accessed by Rogue Place and the accessible ADA parking space in the existing parking lot accessed by Hersey Street (see page C-1 of the record).
The applicant has submitted revised findings that project an average of 15 vehicle trips per day generated for the 1,352 general office space (see page A-9 of the record). The office space will have public entrances facing the existing parking area to the west of the building and facing the proposed parking area on the east side of the building. The applicant argues that the vehicle trips generated by the office space will likely be split between the two entrances and associated parking areas.
Objection 3 and 4
Regarding Objections 3 and 4, the approval criteria do not restrict the use of public streets to residential or commercial trips. Additionally, the criteria do not involve an assessment of the neighborhood character in transition areas between residential and commercial zoning districts.
In Staff's opinion, the evaluation of the street safety issues should focus on the Site Review criterion that requires adequate capacity of paved access to and through the development. In contrast, the Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is an exception to a site design requirement. The Basic Site Design and Use Standards require the parking to be located between the building and the street. Staff believes the intent of this standard is to locate building frontages adjacent to the street rather than parking areas. The reason for locating the building adjacent to the street is to create an interesting streetscape and pedestrian-oriented development. |
