4710 GARDNER AVE 2018-05-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

only e�idence of detrimenfi from the existing fence in the record is fihe statemenfi by one member of the public that the six-foot fence in the front setback "takes away from fihe open feeling quality passessed by other yards on the street". The photographs af surrounding parcels in evic�ence show front yards completely blocked from view by sight-obscuring vegetafion or by solid walls. The Applicants' existing fences pravide more transparency than these surrounding lats due to the aiternating missing boards on fihe fence fronting Gardn�r. With the faurel at least partially blocking the view of the six- foat fence in the front setback, and without concern from fihe City Engineer, the recard does not show detriment from the exisfiing fence along the trail. (Findings 3, 5, 6, 90; 12, '3, 74, 16, 17, and �8) 2. Regarding the south fence, the record clearly shows topography to be an exceptional circumstance calling for fialler fencing. Regarding the west fence, #he Applicant's testimony regarding the need for security and privacy from activities on the �ublic trail was corroborated by an adjoining neighbor. The subject parcel's location adjacent ta a public trail satisfies the variance criterion requiring exceptional circumstances_ (Findings 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11) 3. Other fots with similar circumstances can request similar variances for new fences, so there is no special privilege. In the existing condition, there are several over height fences in the neighbarhood. Based on Staff testimony, the transparency requirement does not by code apply to the subject property; hflwever, should it subsequently be deemed to apply, the nan-transparent west fence in the front yard setback is not incansistent with several nearby fron#yards that have sight-obscuring barriers surrounding them. The Applicants' existing fences are not out of character with surrounding development. (Findings 5, 6, 7, 19, 12, 13, 14, 95, 96, and 97) 4. The discrete segments of fence that are over height provide the privacy and security desired from fences without resulting in excessively tall fence height as viewed fram any other lot or public righ�-of-way. Retaining the existing fence is not more than the minimum necessary. (Findings 5, 6, 7, 11, 92, �3, 94, 15, 16, and 9� 5. The proposed variance would be consistent with the Everett Generai Plan. (Finding 5, 6, and 19) 6. The Applicants caused neither the lot's tapography nor its adjacency to a public trail. The variance is nofi fihe result af self-created hardship. (Findir�gs 3, 5, 6, 10, and11} 6 �