Laserfiche WebLink
I � <br /> g. The topography, the adjacent undeveloped alley, the shared access and <br /> shape of the Property create practical difficulties in locating the home in a <br /> conforming location. <br /> h. The Planning Commission recommended the patio and deck location be <br /> revised to be consistent with the 2006 approvals. <br /> r, <br /> .<.. <br /> i. Newly revised topographic information,for the�Property results in the top of <br /> bluff location depicted further up the�`slope,than was shown in 2006. The <br /> Planning Commission's recommendations.regarding the deck and patio were <br /> based on the 2006 approval and the top of�:bluff as identified in 2006. The <br /> revised plan submitted by the 'Developer meets the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendation but does result in greater encroachments of the bluff and <br /> bluff impact zone with structure and grading. �`�.: <br /> j. The Developer's request will alleviate �practical difficulties inherent to the <br /> Property and not�created by the De�eloper.' ��' <br /> �: : <br /> k. The Developer's request''will not alte��.the essential character of the <br /> neighborhood and will resulf; in minimal,��negative impact on adjacent <br /> - properties. <br /> I. The Developer's,request is m harmony_:with:the purpose and intent of the <br /> ordinance. ��'� �'�° �� � <br /> m. The Developer`�has�tlemonstrated that enforcing the side, street setbacks; lot <br /> area and 'lot w'idth;�`and bluff setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance <br /> - depri�e the De�eloper of the:reasonable use of the Property. <br /> �T .. <br /> 4:-. The City Council has,�considered this application including the findings and <br /> �:-recommendation:of the Rlanning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by <br /> � the Developer and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the <br /> health, safety antl:welfare of the community. <br /> 5. The City:Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to <br /> it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting <br /> the variance�would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire <br /> hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the Developer, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; <br /> is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Owner; and would be <br /> in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan <br /> of the City. <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br />