BOC DECISION (644) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the assumption. Partition plat 99-99 created three UD zoned parcels. One parcel fronts 45u' Avenue, so under UD zoning, only two dwellings, one on each of the other parcels, would use the access easement. The property was. divided under'UD zoning and the easerhent was sufficient under IID zoning. Based on the above analysis, the hearings officer finds there is .not substantial evidence in'the record to find that it is more likely than not that four-plex development will not have a significant adverse impact upon adjacent existing or planned .uses and development. MCC 16.41.030(A) is not met. 12. As noted above, the proposed adjustment to allow six rather than four dwellings off of a private -roadway would increase the likelihood that residents or visitors would park in the roadway or in the designated turnaround area, inhibiting the flow of traffic and restricting emergency vehicle access. .The ,hearings officer finds there is not substantial evidence in the record to find it more likely than not that the proposed adjustment will.not have a significant adverse effect upon the health or safety, of persons working or .residing in the vicinity of the development. MCC. 16.41.030 (B) . is not met. 13. The adjustment may be the minimum necessary to develop the property with a four -plea but it is not the minimum needed to develop the property with a multi. family duplex use. Applicants' desired intensity of use should not dictate the need for the adjustment. In Wentland v. City of .Portland, 22 Or LUBA 15, 24--26 (1991), LUBA found.that the unnecessary hardships or practical difficulties . variance standard is not met simply because the particular intensity of use applicants propose would otherwise be frustrated. The hearings officer believes the same can hold true for this adjustment. standard, and that the adjustment is not. the minimum. necessary to -achieve the purpose of the adjustment or the minimum necessary to.permit development of the property for the proposed use - multiple family residential development. MCC 16.41,030(C) is not met. 14. MCC chapter 16.27 contains no purpose statement. But,' the purpose .of the private roadway.provision was adduced above to be.a. safety and road maintenance issue—The more dwellings using a substandard access, the greater the chance of problems with unmitigated wear and tear on the road and the greater_ probability of vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to pedestrian' conflicts and interference -with emergency vehicle: access. The intent and purpose of the specific provision to be adjusted. is -mot clearly inapplicable under the circumstances, and the proposed development does not maintain the intent and purpose of the provision to be. adjusted. MCC 16.41.030(D) is not met.