Child Care, Inc. - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

The development site and the surrounding area are reported in the staff report to have no unusual topographic features. The area is flat with slopes of less than 3 %. Existing vegetation on the site is primarily open grass area with a few shrubs and small unmaintained trees along the perimeter of the site. B. Evaluation E.C. 9.582 requires that off - street parking be located on the development site for all uses in the RA Suburban Residential Zoning District. E.C. 9.586(b)(b) requires .9 spaces for each outside employee for child care facilities. On the basis of a potential of up to 12 workers on the site, the staff computes a need for a minimum of 9 vehicular parking spaces for the development. As indicated above, it is contemplated those spaces will be provided in the adjacent Maurie Jacobs Memorial Park parking lot. In order to allow the provision of parking to be off -site, positive findings must be made on all variance criteria found at E.C. 9.740. Positive findings cannot be made on those criteria. Only E.C. 9.740(1)(a) and 9.740(1)(b) are discussed in detail. While the criteria found at E.C. 9.740(1)(d)(e) and (f), the criteria particularly pertaining to parking situations, can be met, the first two criteria for all variances are not satisfied. The first two criteria for variance approval are standards that have been interpreted repeatedly by the Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon Court of Appeals, and Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Variances have traditionally been considered as an escape valve to allow property owners relief from the requirements of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance when the requirements make the land completely unusable or usable only with extraordinary effort. Erickson v. City of Portland, 9 Or App 256, 261, 496 P2d. 726 (1972). The traditional view of forums interpreting particularly the first two criteria is that variance should only be approved in extraordinary circumstances. Erickson v. City of Portland, supra, 9 Or App at 262. LUBA's view of the role of variances and the meaning of particularly the first two criteria for the allowance of a variance in the Eugene Code is typified by the statement in Bowman Park v. City of Albany, 11 Or LUBA 197, 223 (1984): "...Relief is available only in the unusual case where enforcement of code standards renders the property virtually incapable of economic or beneficial use. Conversely, relief is not available under [such a standard] merely to make the land more profitable or [to] accommodate a particular use or site development plan." The particular criteria are addressed below. 2 - FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL (CU 95 -8) C: \FINDINGS \DEC.95 \CU -95-8 (JWS:cjm)