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

� Mr. Braaten stated that his property is unsuitable for building since he has problems with flooding. When installing a 15" culvert on his property, his cat became stuck in the mud. After 3 days of rain, the culvert was within an inch of beinq completely full. He felt that the 12" culvert installed for the Kasparian driveway was too small and too high and would therefore cause the stream to backup. He also stated that he had informed the builder that a setback from the stream is required before the foundation was poured. He asked how the hold harmless agreement would protect his yard from being flooded. Ms. Maddy explained that the agreement was between Mr. Kasparian and the City. Lane Morrison, of 18 W. Intercity spoke against the variance stating that he had also informed the builder that bulldozing next to the stream was not permitted. He explained that the hardship was self created since the owner created a lot that could not meet setback reguirements. He also stated that a swamp existed there years ago before it was filled. The fill i� created a six foot dropoff between the subject property and his ; property and is responsible for flooding his neighbor's i properties. Mr. Kasparian stated that the property would remain the same whether he built there or not and that it would have no effect � on the adjacent property. He also questioned why Mr. Braaten ' was disturbing the stream bed himself since the City had told him there could be no disturbance of the creek. Dee Buchea asked where the 12" culvert was installed. Robert Johnson, Mr. Kasparian's builder, explained that the culvert was placed in the stream properly and that it is the size required by the City. The water now flows freely through the culvert after some dirt was removed from the culvert. Ms. Maddy stated that the City's drainage expert, Dan Mathias, had inspected the area and found that the stream channel was enclosed at several locations, both upstream and downstream and that a 30 foot buffer was not provided in most cases. He felt the reduced setback should be comparable to existing conditions on other stream side property in the area and that in order to alleviate any concerns, the variance should be subject to the conditions as recommended in the staff report. Motion: Frank Bennett moved to approve the variance as recommended by staff. Dee Buchea seconded the motion. Vote: All in favor. 1