Laserfiche WebLink
FILE # 16-3832 <br />June 20, 2016 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br /> <br />Practical Difficulties Statement <br />Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit A. <br /> <br />Analysis (Practical Difficulties, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan) <br />Staff’s analysis of the practical difficulties is outlined above. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br />During the public comment period at the Council meeting, neighboring property owners spoke in <br />opposition to the conversion of the park to an off-leash park. They noted concerns that the fence <br />would impact wildlife movement and habitat, and a fence adjacent to their property would <br />negatively impact their property (The fence has since been pulled back from the property line to <br />allow for wildlife movement and to prevent interaction from the park to the private property. The <br />comments received to date center more on the presence of fencing versus the location of the <br />fencing. The minutes reflecting public comment are attached in Exhibit D. <br /> <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the <br />property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood? <br />3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate th e <br />impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? <br />4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />