1117 TTEREVE DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

a. Findin¢s: The applicant has stated that the brick screen and wall are necessary ro retain a pre-existink, ground cut immediately at the property line. The very nar:ow nature of the lot along with significantly sloping topography also adds to the need for the retaining wall. b. Conclusions: The grade difference at the property line appears to have been approximately two to five feet. Any �-etaining wall greater than 36 inches in height would be required to meet building setback requiremen:s of five feet. Criterion No. 2: That the variance will nut be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the subject property or to the City as a whole. a. Findioas: The applicant has stated that the brick fence and wall ure a very attractive amenity to the site and neighborhood. The fence also provides a safety screen for children and pets for the adjoining properties. b. Conclusions: A letter from the property owner of 7025 Rainisr Drive which is located across the street in support of the reyuested variance was received and is attached as Exhibit #5 . Criterion No. 3: That the va�ance will only grant the subject property the same general rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subject property. a. Findin : The applicant has stated that the variance woufd only allow the normal space of the property and if the adjoining properties were to develop they would need to retain this same area to use their full property. b. Conclusians: Tt,ere are other properties in the area that have retaining wall stn�ctures on the site. Some of these appear to meet setback requirements and some do not. The older retai�ang walls do not appear to meet cmrent setbacks. Criterion No. 4• That the varia�ce is the minimum necessary to ailow the subject property the general rights described in Criterion 3.