BOC DECISION (644) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Parking spaces 15. Under MCC 16..3.0.170(3), two automobile parking spaces per unit are required for multi -family dwellings with four or more dwelling. units. Four bicycle parking *spaces are required. A four-plex requires eight automobile parking spaces. Applicant asks to reduce the number of- automobile parking spaces from .eight to- six. Evaluatioh of this provision is closely tied to applicants' request to increase the number .of dwelling units on a.private roadway. As the number of dwelling units goes up, the number of required parking spaces also" goes up. Without the' first requested adjustment, there is no need for the second. The hearings officer believes the first adjustment is not justified, .so the second is not required. Still; .the adjustment criteria as applied to the parking space reduction request are examined. 16. Applicants basically argue that because the SRC only requires six parking spaces then six spaces are adequate under the SACP, and the SACP should trump the MCC. The SACP does not specifically address the number of parking spaces required on a multiple family designated property. The SACP also acknowledges that the county has zoning jurisdiction in the UGB. County development standards apply. As noted above, adding units while reducing parking spaces increase the likelihood of residents or visitors.parking .in the roadway or in the .designated turnaround area, which would inhibit the flow of traffic and restrict emergency vehicle access .(e.g. ambulance access). The hearings officer finds there is not. substantial .evidence in the record.to find that it is more likely than not that the proposed development will not have.a significant adverse impact upon adjacent existing or planned uses and development. MCC 16.41.030(A) is not met, 17. The proposed addition of dwellings and the requested adjustment to reduce the. -number of parking .spaces increases. the likelihood of residents or visitors parking 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 er residing in the vicinity development. MCC 16.41.030(B) is not -met.. 1-8. This adjustment is the minimum necessary ,to develop the property with a four-plex but is not the minimum to.develop the property with a duplex or 'tri -plea, multi family uses. Again, applicants' desired intensity of use should not dictate the need for the adjustment. The hearings ofii.cer,finds that the minimum adjustment standard is not met simply because the particular intensity of use applicants propose would otherwise be frustrated. The adjustment is not the min aLm..necessary to achieve the.purpose of the adjustment nor the minimum necessary to permit development of the property for .