2014-01405 - retaining wall - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

[Recipient NameJ November 30, 2014 Page 2 7. N/A 8. Yes. The condition here is a special condition because ofthe age of the two adjoining properties. Both properties were"improved" in the early 1950's. 60 years of weather has changed to topog�aphy and conditions which are present between the two properties. What is also unique is that the house at 1880 is 6'-0"offthe property line,along with an accessory garage at 1890 being located 6'-0" ot�the property line in an area with(3)feet of elevation change between these structures. Re-grading the area with a proper swale,so the neighbor's water stays on their property,as a remedy will not work because of the grade elevation differences and the 70' of length with this issue. There are also utilities in this area that would have to be located and assumingly relocated. 9. Not Known 10. Yes. If this variance is not g�-anted the result would be one of two negative outcornes. 1.The gfiading of the yard at 1890 continues to shed water to the north resulting in water problems continually due to the topography. This is turn will result in the unsightly stacking of sandbags to protect the stxucture. 2.If the wall is built in eomplianee with the city ordinances the building suffers from lack of separation between grade and a wood structure resulting in physical damage and preservation of the prop�-ty. It will also result in the removal of the existing eg�ess window wells resulting in the limited enjoyment of the lower level as it is currently used. 11. No.The g�-anting of this variance will not adversely affect the zoning code. This is a simple existing condition that has been deteriorating over tune,not something new that proper plaruiing could have prevented. 12. Yes.There is no convenience associated to granting this variance except that allowing the retaining wall to be placed at the property line will result in a zero balance g�-ading situation. In other words we will not be adding or removing any soils from the area,just redistributing what is already there. It is however alleviating the difficulty of the drainage and water issues resulting f�m the existing conditions caused o�er tim�. StunmarY: The area we are asking for a variance t�o the retaining wall ordinance is 6' wide and 70' long. It is located to a side of the house that is not a foeal point from either the lake orthe road. One-third of this area is also common the neig�ibor's accessory garage which is also located 6'-0" off this same line and at an elevation 3'-0"higher than the grade at this property. The neighbor's located at 1890 Shadywood Rd. are in favor of this improvement as it will leeel outthe eroded slope of their yard and also help maintain adequate soil coverage over the footings at their accessory garage. They will not see the re�taining wall except for the top face from any point of their property. This may become a mute point as they have an intention to install a fence along this property line. No other person will see this wall as it will almost be entirely hidden from view because of the house only being 6'-0 off the property line and it not extending past the house front and back any more than what it takes to taper back down to existing gx-ade. The largest hardship is the water problem this condition has created over time. This variance would �liminate the hardship of continually cleaning a flooded basement and worry that the water is creating a potential for a future str-uctural problem with the foundation of the house which would result in a large disturbance to both us(1880)and our neighbor(1890)in order to remedy.