Child Care, Inc. - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

too great to allow the development. Nonetheless, the code does require a certain level of parking for day care uses. The application for a variance raises the question whether there is something unique about this site that makes the application of the code particularly onerous. That case cannot be made. It has been held repeatedly that a local government cannot grant a variance because it believes that the enforcement of its own ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship. See Standard Supply Company v. Portland, 1 Or LUBA 259 (1980) and Thomas v. City of Rockaway_ Beach, 24 Or LUBA 532, 537 (1993). The requirements of the criterion are particularly hard to ignore given LUBA's decision interpreting Eugene's own variance standards in a parking situation in Pierron v. City of Eugene, 8 Or LUBA 113, 126 -127 (1983). The Pierron case involved a conditional use permit to allow the addition of a new theater on the Bijou site and the need for parking to meet code requirements for this expansion. While the code then and still does allow off -site provision for parking for uses in a C -2 district, Bijou proposed to locate its parking more than 400 feet from the theater site, thus requiring a variance. LUBA pointed out that the basic problem with trying to establish that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships when a conditional use permit is at issue. LUBA states: "We agree with petitioners to the extent that the applicant has either failed to show or the commission has failed to make a finding that either practical difficulties or necessary physical hardship exist as a basis for granting the said variance. One must not lose sight of the fact that the variance is being required to meet the parking demands of an entirely new theater. The fact that it is housed in an existing out - building on the site does not change the fact that this is a request for an extension of a conditional use. The additional parking spaces would not be required if the applicant was to remain in operation under the provisions of their original CUP." Applied to the present situation, a conditional use permit is proposed to provide a day care use. There is no suggestion that this vacant land could not be used for an outright residential use. There is nothing inherent in the land that would prevent its utilization for its designated purposes. That is the significant problem in the instance of any application for a variance as part of a conditional use application so long as the City's variance criteria contain the present language. Much as the Bijou had in mind in their application, the present applicant has a particular development plan in mind and 4 - FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL (CU 95 -8) C: \FINDINGS \DEC.95 \CU -95 -8 (JUS:cjm)