BOC DECISION (644) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A. The proposed development will�not have a significant adverse impact upon adjacent existing or planxied uses and development; and B. The adjustment will not have a significant adverse effect upon the health or safety,. of persons working or residing in .the vicinity.; and C. The adjustment is the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose of the adjustment and 'is the minimum necessary to permit development of the property for the proposed use; and D. The intent and purpose of the specific provision to be adjusted is clearly inapplicable under the -circumstances; or the proposed development maintains the intent and purpose of the provision to be*adjusted. Dwelling units 10. Should the BOC interpret MCC 16.27.510(B)(4) as .a stand alone exception to access standards, it' would limit development on the subject -property to two units because two units to the .west already take access solely from Blueberry Lane. (Without the interpretation, no dwelling units would be allowed and there would. be no need for any adjustments.) Assuming that MCC 16.27.510(B)(4) is. a stand alone requirement, applicants asked to, vary the provision'to ailow.six units to use Blueberry Lane - the two to the east, and the four applicants plan to develop. 11. As noted above, the provision limiting the 'number of dwellings off a private drive prevents, over use of a nongovernment maintained road developed to lesser standards. At I the same time that applicants propose doubling traffic from the development, they propose reducing the number of required parking spaces by a quarter from eight to six. Additionally, applicants object to DPW -'$ requested condition'of approval requiring. -applicants to provide'a 20' paved surface on what.would be an over burdened Blueberry Lane. The roadway now has a 12' paved surface, 'standard for a private roadway restricted to four .dwelling units. Under DPW's proposed condition of approval, applicants would need to add only 8' of pavement. The additional 8' of paved surface would almost bring the roadway.to public road standards and somewhat mitigate the proposed additional burden on the easement. Adding units and reducing parking spaces would increase the likelihood of residents or visitors parking in the roadway'or in the designated turnaround axes, which would inhibit the flow of vehicle and pedestrian traffic .and restrict emergency vehicle access (e.g. ambulance access). Applicants argue that because the area- is designated for multiple family use, it must be assumed that the easement was intended to be used for more than four.dwelliugs. There is,no evidence.in support