11925 SILVER LAKE DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

� . II . . � � � , , � ; , � � B. Finding: The area was annexed to the City Nov. 4, 1984, and ! ,I� construction prlor to that time cid not have to meet the � � development standards for permitted uses in the Plood fringe. � ii � Conclusion: The construction would be consi�tent with other j � single family 'structuras around the lake. i '� 2. That such variance ia necessar:� for tUe preservation and en�oyrment of � ;I a substantial property right of the appellant poscessed by the owners I il of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. ! � p. Finding: The BoarG of Ad�ustmenti has granted other requeets I ii Por variance from gross floor area ratio and the City will � continue to recommend doing so until the zoning code is changed. , �� !I Conclunion: The variance would a1Low a property right I �� possessed by other oxnera. I ' I I � B. Finding: Other properties around the lake have not had to fill above the regulatory flood elevation, and the Federal Flood I jInsuranee Regulationa require only that construction be at the �I regulatory f_ood protection elevation and not above. The Public Norks Department ha� reviexed and approved the proposed Isite plan. I � Conclusion: The variance would allow a property right i i� poesassed by othei•s in this vicinity. 3• That the authorization of such variance will not be maLerially I � detrimental to the public xelfare or in�urious to property in the ; vicinity or zone in whieh the property is located. ! A. Flnding: The actual lot cuvee�aga is .21 and the zoning code � � limits the height of the structure to 30 feet so there does not i � appear that there would be any adverse affect on other property. I i � Other City Departments have no ob�eetion to tlie varianae I request, however, the Pub13c Norks Dept. requires dedication of I ' right-of-rray along Silver Lake fload. i Conelusion: This variance would not be in�urioun to other property in the vicinity and zone. ; i � I B. Finding: If the property Were filled to two feet above the � � regulatory flood protection elevation it would have an adverse ' � affect on the existing single family structure to the north � �' since it would be elevated a considerable amount above that � I I� structure. There would also be less potential to impact any i� views at the loxer elevation. i � A 255 unit apartment complax is proposed for the property to i !� the south and it does not appear that this variance aould affect that pro�ect. �, � Conclusion: Granting of this variance should not be i� detrimental or in�urious to other properties in this vieinity. 'I 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the '� Comprehensive General Plan. �i . � �hB Finding: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as single I family residential. Conclusion: The variance Would not affect the Comprehensive I I Plan. ,. !� � I I I �