Statement:
The Council voted at the July 19, 2005 meeting to appeal the Hearings Board's decision of Planning Action 2005-00328 at the request of the appellant of the Type I approval, Colin Swales. The item is time sensitive because the 120-day limit expires on August 18, 2005. The current time line would require the hearing completed and a decision made at the August 16, 2005 meeting. If the Council chooses to deny the application at the August 16, 2005 meeting, staff will have prepared Findings available for immediate approval and signing. This will allow staff to then mail the signed Findings to all parties on August 17, 2005, thereby meeting the 120-day requirement. If Council chooses to grant the application at the August 17, 2005 meeting, the 120-day rule, although still technically applicable, looses its urgency and findings may be drafted, adopted, signed and mailed at a later meeting. The applicant likely will agree to an extension of the 120-day if the application is approved. |
Background:
On February 23, 2005, the applicant filed the request for the above referenced planning action. On April 20, 2005, the application was deemed complete by staff. The application was administratively approved and a public notice was sent on April 21, 2005. A request for a public hearing was received on May 2, 2005. The application was rescheduled and noticed for a public hearing at the June 14, 2005 Hearings Board meeting. The Hearings Board approved the application at the June 14, 2005 meeting, and the findings were reviewed and approved at the July 12, 2005 Hearings Board meeting.
The 120-day limit expires on August 18, 2005. The applicant would have to agree to grant additional time if a decision is not made at the August 16, 2005 meeting. The Council voted at the July 19, 2005 meeting to appeal the Hearings Board's decision of Planning Action 2005-00328 at the request of the appellant of the Type I approval, Colin Swales.
The application requires a Conditional Use Permit to use one of the residential condominiums in a mixed-use building for a hotel/motel unit. The issues raised by the appellant and discussed by the Hearings Board at the June 14, 2005 public hearing involved the definitions of a hotel and motel and the required number of off-street parking spaces for a hotel/motel. The Hearings Board determined the proposed unit is consistent with the definition of a motel given that it includes cooking facilities and a separate entrance connected to a stairway that exits out of the building. In addition, the Hearings Board found that the proposed hotel/motel unit requires a total of two off-street parking spaces with one space required for the guest room and one space for the owner or manager.
A hotel is defined in 18.08.320 as "A building in which lodging is provided to guests for compensation and in which no provisions are made for cooking in the lodging rooms." The appellant argued that since the proposed guest unit includes a kitchen that it could not be considered a hotel unit. The Hearings Board did not make findings concerning this application meeting the definition for a "hotel," based on the assumption that the proposed guest unit could not be considered a hotel unit since it includes a kitchen with cooking facilities.
A motel is defined in 18.08.510 as "A building or group of buildings on the same lot containing guest units for rental to transients, with separate entrances directly exterior and consisting of individual sleeping quarters, detached or in connected rows, with or without cooking facilities." The appellant argued that the proposed guest unit could not be considered a motel unit because it is not in a detached configuration or connected in rows. The Hearings Board determined the proposed unit is consistent with the definition of a motel given that it includes cooking facilities and a separate entrance connected to a stairway that exists out of the building.
Legal staff has determined that the definition of a motel is a threshold issue of interpretation for the Council, and has provided the following information as guidance for the interpretation. If the proposed use of the unit does not fit the definition of a motel (or hotel), then the application for a Conditional Use permit fails. If the Council interprets the definition of a motel to include this proposed unit, then the Council must also apply the Conditional Use Permit criteria to determine whether or not the application meets the CUP standards.
The first issue of interpretation of 18.08.510, "Motel" is whether the exterior entrance to the stairwell that reaches the third floor unit is a "separate entrance directly exterior." Since the exterior door leads directly to a stairwell rather than a lodging room, the Council must decide whether this application meets the definition of a motel. For example, does the fact that the exterior door, which, leads to a stairwell that can access other parts of the building, including the second condominium unit mean that the proposed unit cannot be defined as a motel? In other words, must the separate entrance that is directly exterior mean that the door must lead directly to the proposed guest unit?
The second issue of interpretation is whether 18.08.510, "Motel" requires the individual sleeping quarters to be detached or in connected rows. In this case, the proposed guest unit including the sleeping quarters and kitchen is contained within a mixed use building. The question is whether a guest unit located within a mixed-use building containing other uses meets the definition of a detached individual sleeping quarter. However, the ambiguity of the definition including the confusing wording and sentence structure could lead to a variety of questions.
Finally, the required off-street parking for hotels and motels is addressed under the residential uses in Chapter 18.92 as follows: "Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager (18.92.020.A.4)." The appellant argued that one parking space should be required for each bedroom in the proposed guest unit. The Hearings Board considered the proposed unit to be one guest room, based on the unit as a whole, requiring one off-street parking space consistent with past planning approvals. The Hearings Board recognized that in the past required parking for hotels/motels has been calculated based upon one parking space per guest accommodation available for compensation. |
(4383.2KB)