1 Petitioners argue that in a prior variance decision a city hearings officer interpreted <br />2 CDC 10.1510(B) to require a demonstration that a variance is needed to meet the minimum <br />3 residential requirements. According to petitioners, the minimum residential density for the subject <br />4 property is 75 lots. Petitioners cite to evidence that the applicant could develop 75 lots without <br />5 either of the two requested variances. Therefore, petitioners argue, the city cannot find that the <br />6 variance to the cul-de-sac length requirement is the "minimum necessary variation." <br />7 Respondents argue that cited hearings officer's decision involved a city policy that is no <br />8 longer in place and does not apply to the subject development. In any case, respondents contend, a <br />9 hearings officer's interpretation in an unrelated decision does not control the present decision. We <br />10 agree with respondents. The findings adopted by the city council in the present case treat <br />11 compliance with CDC 10.1510(B) as a matter of whether the variance-here, the length of the cul- <br />12 de-sac-is the minimum necessary to access the developable areas of the property, not whether the <br />13 variance is the minimum necessary to meet residential density requirements. Petitioners do not <br />14 dispute the city council's finding that the proposed "streets extend only as far as necessary to access <br />15 developable portions of the property[.]" That finding is sufficient to establish compliance with <br />16 CDC 10.1510(B). <br />17 This subassignment of error is denied. <br />18 D. CDC 10.1510(C) <br />19 CDC 10.1510(C) requires a showing that: <br />20 'There are development constraints associated with the property, or the present use <br />21 or permitted use of the property, which make development of a permitted use <br />22 impractical; or the variance is needed to allow the applicant to enjoy a substantial <br />23 property right possessed by a majority of property owners in the same vicinity." <br />24 The city's findings state: <br />25 " * * * there are severe topographic constraints associated with the property that <br />26 do not allow connection of the proposed dead-end streets with another street. <br />27 Thus, without the variance for the dead-end street lengths, development of <br />28 significant portions of the property with slopes less than 15% would not be <br />29 possible." Record 53-54. <br />Page 6 <br />