Laserfiche WebLink
ft 3lally approved the proposal. The applicant has ibit E, prior to stafrs receipt of the topographic i by building setbacks of the LR-IB Zoning reviewed by the staff and it has been found that stricted by a bluff impact zone. Please review <br />sist Planning Commission in understanding the <br />Ration of both the toe and top of the bluff. <br />Ine the toe of the bluff and in this case is the <br />determined by the last 50* segment that results <br />ance application with topographic information <br />aff will report at your meeting of her findings <br />enda involving the impact of protected bluff <br />code is very restrictive. We are planning a <br />carer and less restrictive guidelines in the <br />>p of the bluff ends. Review Exhibit F, the <br />'lie elevation and yet the visual perception of <br />he intent of the slate regulation and minimize <br />rauss has advised that our City seems to have <br />ion of this specific code section because we <br />c that other municipalities have not begun to <br />>tion. We will continue to work closely with <br />section are required. <br />Zoning File #1911 March 16, 1994 Page 4Options of ActionApproval of variance application as proposed granting an area variance and a variance that <br />would allow encroachment of the bluff impact zone; or <br />Denial of variance application and recommend that applicant consider an amended lot line <br />rearrangement proposal that would provide a second building envelope to the north side of <br />property where slopes are more gentle and suitable for building construction. <br />inning Commission approve a variance that <br />npact zone in order to retain a functional <br />s but more genUe sloped portion of this <br />original lot have more gentler topographies, <br />line rearrangement be readjusted so that a <br />more gentle sloped ponions of the property <br />ad to the west instead of the north? This <br />nt of Mr. Lemmerman’s comprehensive