1 lots more than could be developed without a variance, and thus the purpose of the variance is <br />2 simply to increase the applicant's profits.' <br />3 Respondents argue, and we agree, that the topographic constraints-the inaccessibility of <br />4 some of the flatter, buildable portions of the property without cul-de-sacs-is not a function of the <br />5 applicant's prior development. We also agree that the applicant's prior awareness of the property's <br />6 topography is not a basis to deny a variance under CDC 10.1510(A). In any case, as respondents <br />7 point out, when the applicant purchased the property the maximum length of a cul-de-sac under the <br />8 city code was 600 feet, later changed to 200 feet. Finally, we agree with respondents that the <br />9 topographic constraints that limit development of the subject property are not "personal <br />10 circumstances of the applicant or owner, such as financial circumstances," within the meaning of <br />11 CDC 101510(A). The cited topographic constraints would apply to any developer or landowner, <br />12 regardless of personal or financial circumstances. <br />13 This subassignment of error is denied. <br />14 C. CDC 10.1510(B) <br />15 CDC 10.1510(B) requires a showing that: <br />16 `To meet the need, the request is the minimum necessary variation from the [CDC] <br />17 requirement." <br />18 The city's findings state: <br />19 "The proposed dead-end streets extend only as far as necessary to access <br />20 developable portions of the property, including significant sections of the property <br />21 that are under 15% slope." Record 53 <br />Petitioners also argue that the city's findings are inconsistent with respect to topographic constraints, <br />citing to a finding that "topographic constraints are not a reason to allow a variance" with respect to SE <br />Yellowhammer Road. Record 50 (quoted more fully at n 2, below). We do not understand the argument. As far <br />as we can tell, the cited finding simply states that SE Yellowhammer Road is necessary to meet the connectivity <br />requirements of CDC 9.0710(A), there is no request for a variance to avoid constructing SE Yellowhammer Road <br />and, in any case, topographic constraints would not be a basis to allow such a variance, if one were requested, <br />apparently because the grade is only eight percent where the road connects with the existing public street. We <br />do not see the findings with respect to SE Yellowhammer Road and the two disputed cul-de-sacs are <br />inconsistent. <br />Page 5 <br />