1623 ENGLAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� � c a. Findings: The appiicant has stated that the proposed variance is necessary due to the exceptional and extraordinary characteristics of the site. These characteristics include the location of the existing house, the available area to construct a functional garage, and the existing topography on site. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing carport which is constructed within 3 feet 4 inches of the front property line, and build a new garage with a setback of 8 feet from the front property iine. The City finds that the subject property does contain a steep slope area along the east side of the property. The site generally slopes northeast, with the proposed garage located on one of the more leo�el points of the site. The existing house is located forvvard (soulh) on the site with little room to maneuver around either side of the structure. Due to the placement of the house on site there is minimal area in front of the residence to constr�ct a garage which would mee: ail zoning code requirements. b. Conclusions: The subject site does have extraordinary features, such as steep slopes and the location of the existing residence, which limit the options for piacement of the proposed garage on site. Criterion No. 2: That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the subject property or to the C'ty as a whole. a. Findings: The appiicant has stated the proposed yarage will not adversely effect any of the neighbors' property. The subject property is the last lot along the easement drive which is accessed off of England Avenue. The property to the east of the subject site is accessed from England Avenue rather than the easemsnt drive, and therefore the proposed garage will not effect this neighbor. The placement of the proposed garage should not effect the required vehicular backup space and will not interfere with cars from turning around at the end of the easement drive. There are no neighbors to the south of the struciure which wouid be effected due to the existing retaining wall on site. b. Conclusions: The City provided written notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site and no comments were received. The proposal should not be materially detrimental to the neighborhood area or the City as a whole. The proposed variance has been reviewed by the City Public Works and Building Departments. The following comments were received: a.) A building permit will be required for this work. This work must meet the building code requirements with regards to setbacks from the slope; b.) A geotechnical study wili be required. Criterion No. 3: That the variance will only grant the subject property the same general rights enjoyed by other propeRy in the same area and zone as the subject property. /4