9610 1ST AVE SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� � b. Conclusion: The unusual circumstances applying to this property is the fact that ccnstruction of the house has begun do to an oversight on the part of the builder and also because the width of the lot is only 65 feet which would not leave adequate room to bui]d a house if the 30 foot setback were met. Criterion No. 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or li zone. ii a. Findina� An inspection done by the City's drainage expert, :�an Mathias, revealed that the stream channel immediately upstream and downstream of this site doesn't �, currently include a 25 foot stream buffer in most cases. I In fact, the stream channel has been enclosed at several I� locations in this vicinity. The habitat value of the �, reduced setback should, therefore, be comparable to the I existing conditions on other streamside properties in the vicinity. b. Conclusionc Granting of this variance would allow the applicants a property right enjoyed by others in the I vicinity and zone. i � i ; � criterion No 3• ' That the authorization of such variance will not be materially; ! detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in thel � vicinity or zone in which the property is located. I a. Findiny: Inspection of the property found that thell foundation for this home is within approximately five i feet of the top of the bank of the west fork of North� Creek. The existing channel is only approximately two� ; feet wide as it crosses the subject property. Although� the subject property is approximately six feet higher� than the stream, the property immediately to the north is� i very near stream level and likely floods already. i Therefore, the stream channel should not be disturbed or! filled in any manner and there are a couple of locations� where this has appeared to have occurred already. , i� The existing stream channel ,nakes a 90 degree turn just I ' as it enters the subject property. This location will ; bE highly susceptible to bank erosion, and bank � II�I erosion, if uncontrolled, may ultimately undermine the � �; foundation. j Any variance should be contingent upon compliance with conditions as recommended by Public Works in order to alleviate the above concerns. b. Conclusion: Compliance with conditions recommended by ,I Public Works is necessary to assure that granting this variar.,:e wuuld not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zone. C1-�.terion No. 4: That tne granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Conpr.ehensive General Plan. i a. Findina: The comprehensive plan designation for this I area is single family residential. i b. Conclusion: Granting of this variance will not adversely , affect the comprehensive plan since the proposed use is single family residential. -2-