My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOC DECISION (644)
Images9
>
Public Works - Planning
>
FOR PUBLIC VIEW ON INTERNET
>
Old Cases
>
BOC DECISION (644)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2017 1:30:37 PM
Creation date
10/30/2024 3:54:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Land Use
Case_Number
11-001
Document_Date
8/17/2011
Land Use Type
Zone Change
Tax_Lot_Number
072W07DC00401
Document_Type
Decision
Site_Address
4465 BLUEBERRY LN NE
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i <br />the, <br />proposed use multiple family residential development. MCC <br />16.41.030 (C) is not met, <br />19... MCC chapter 16.30 contains no purpose statement. However, parking <br />standards help ensure vehicle pedestrian and traffic safety. Too <br />few parking spaces can mean an inability to reasonably access a use <br />and lead to unsafe parking in areas not intended for parking, and <br />unnecessary recirculation. of traffic, with resulting vehicle to <br />vehicle and vehicle to pedestrian conflicts and interference with <br />emergency vehicle access: The intent and purpose of the specific <br />provision to -be adjusted is not clearly inapplicable under the <br />circumstances, and the proposed development does not maintain the <br />intent and purpose of the provision. tobe adjusted. MCC <br />16.41.030(D) is not met. <br />20.. The- hearings officer does not 'recommend approval of - the <br />adjustments. Putting too much development in too little space would <br />likely lead to unsafe conditions. Should the BOC disagree, the <br />hearings officer strongly recomncends the' BOC attach DPW' s, proposed <br />condition. of' approval requiring a 20' paved roadway surface to <br />bring the roadway more in line with public road standards. <br />VI. Recommendation <br />-It is hereby found that applicants have not met the burden of <br />proving .the applicable standards and criteria for approval. of <br />adjustments to reduce the number of required parking spaces from eight <br />to six, and -to increase the number of dwelling units allowed on a <br />private roadway from four to six. Therefore, thehearings officer <br />recommends the Marion County Board of Commissioners DENY the proposed <br />ad j us t mentis . . <br />It is hereby -found that applicants have met the burden of proving <br />the, applicable standards and criteria for approval of a zone change from <br />UD to RM have been met as long as the property .is developed to <br />standards. Therefore,. the hearings officer recommends that the Marion <br />County Board of Commissioners GkAXT the proposed zone change, subject to <br />the conditions set forth below. .The conditions are necessary for the <br />public health, safety, and welfare. <br />1. The applicant shall obtain all permits required by the Marion <br />County.Building Inspection Division. <br />2. All current and future development on the property must satisfy the <br />speoific development standards in the RM zone and MCC chapters 26 <br />through 40 general -development standards. <br />3. Prior to any building. permit approval, the applicant shall provide <br />evidence that any required permits or agreements have been filed <br />with the City of Salem and•that any required.upgrades to sewer or <br />water service have=been made to the City of Salem's satisfaction. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.