I is 620 feet in length. To obtain a major variance, City of Gresham Community Development Code <br />2 (CDC) requires a demonstration that all four criteria of CDC 10.150 be satisfied and one of the two <br />3 criteria of CDC 10.1530 be satisfied. Petitioners challenge the city's findings of compliance for <br />4 each of the five approval criteria. <br />5 A. CDC 10.1530(A) <br />6 The city approved the variance under CDC 10.1530(A), which provides: <br />7 "The circumstances that apply to the site or to the present or permitted use of the <br />8 site do not typically apply to other properties in the same vicinity or land use district <br />9 and are unique or unusual[.]" <br />10 The city's findings state: <br />11 "The circumstance that applies to the site, namely topographic constraints that do <br />12 not permit better connectivity of the local street system, do not typically apply to <br />13 other properties in the same land use district." Record 54. <br />14 Petitioners argue that this finding is conclusory and fails to My address both elements of <br />15 CDC 10.1530(A). According to petitioners, CDC 10.1530(A) requires a finding that the <br />16 circumstances justifying the variance are both (1) atypical and (2) unique or unusual. We agree with <br />17 respondents that the two alleged elements are essentially two ways of saying the same thing: the <br />18 circumstances must be unique or unusual rather than typical. <br />19 Petitioners next argue that there are no findings addressing other properties in the HPCD. <br />20 According to petitioners, the HPCD includes all areas of the city with slopes 15 percent or greater, <br />21 and the subject property is bordered by property to the north and west subject to the district. <br />22 Steep slopes are a common topographical limitation n the area, petitioners argue, and thus steep <br />23 slopes cannot justify a variance under CDC 10.1530(A). <br />24 As we understand the city's findings, the "topographic constraint" that constitutes the unique <br />25 or unusual circumstance is not steep slopes per se, but the fact that the flatter, buildable (<15%) <br />26 portions of the property are scattered along a ridge, and those buildable portions can be accessed <br />27 only by cul-de-sacs that exceed the maximum length normally allowed. Without the variance, the <br />28 city found, "development of significant portions of the property with slopes less than 15% would not <br />Page 3 <br />