Laserfiche WebLink
existing screening and the elevation of se <br />substantially below the elevation of the right-of-vrv ^, tend <br />to decrease the impact of that substandard setback. <br />b) The proposed construction in conjuction with removals of <br />other hard surface areas on the property, result in a net <br />overall decrease in hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Existing <br />75-250' hardcover is 54.8%. The revised plan reviewed by <br />the Planning Commission proposes a reduction to 49.7%. <br />Further reductions could only be accomplished by reducing <br />the degree of addition or removing hardcover areas of rock <br />and plastic which tend to protect the house from drainage <br />from the County roadway. These areas are shaded, further <br />impeding successful vegetation growth in that area. <br />c) The applicant since his initial proposal has revised his <br />request to minimize the magnitude of the additional <br />structure on the property. <br />4. After Planning Commission review, the applicant proposed <br />another revised plan (Plan #3), which further reduces the <br />magnitude of the structural additions on the property but which <br />results in a final 75-25C hardcover of 51.6%, an overall <br />reduction of 75-250' hardcover by 3.2%. This results from the <br />applicant's inability to remove portions of driveway hardcover <br />located within the shared driveway easement in the northeast <br />corner of the property. The Council finds that the Plan #3 <br />proposed 3.2% hardcover reduction, coupled with the relocation <br />and reduction, in the magnitude of proposed additions with that <br />plan, are appropriate and justified by the specific conditions of <br />topography, drainage, driveway layout, and existing house <br />location that are unique to this property. <br />5. The City Council has considered this application including <br />the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, <br />reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect <br />of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the <br />community. <br />6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other <br />property in this zoning district; that granting the variance <br />would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would <br />not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />Page 2 of 5