Resolution 4351 - Laserfiche WebLink

9. There is a wetland on-site that is located in the northwest corner of the subject property. This wetland, which is part of the Merrill and Ring Creek drainage, requires a buffer with limitations on development at this portion of the subject property. (Cunningham testimony) 10. The wetland was the subject of a wetland report drafted in 1991 and was categorized as a Category II wetland with a required 75 foot buffer. The Applicant has requested a reduction of this buffer to 37-1/2 feet. (Exhibit 1 & exhibit 10) 11. Prior to placement of the fill or any development in the area, the wetland and the buffers have been altered. The Planning Department concluded that most likely the fill that was placed on-site during the construction of SR 526 and Casino Road was placed over the wetland. Evidence of this theory includes the road slope of SR 526 which extends to the edge of the wetland and that part of the run-off from SR 526 flows into the wetland. (Cunningham testimony) 12. The proposed development will enhance the buffer adjacent to the wetland. Because the wetland and buffer have been disturbed and have caused damage to the natural species which has resulted in invasive species, there is a need for enhancement of the wetland. With the use of a landscaping plan that includes planting of natural trees and shrubs, the wetland can be enhanced. With the enhancement of the wetland, a reduction in the buffer is warranted. (Cunningham testimony) 13. The proposed buffer of 37-1/2 feet is 50% of the standard buffer of 75 feet. (Exhibit 1) 14. Although properties zoned R-3 can be developed with multiple-family structures, there is a 35 foot height limit. Pursuant to Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 19.4.020.A, building heights are measured from the base elevation which is defined as "the average elevation of the approved topography of a parcel at the midpoint of each of the four sides of the smallest rectangle which will enclose the proposed structure, excluding all eaves and decks". (Exhibit 1) 15. The Applicant requested that instead of measuring the building from the base elevation as defined in the EMC, the height of the building should be measured from the existing grade. This would allow the Applicant to measure the structure from the top of the fill, rather than from the base, which would be below the fill placed on-site. (Sullivan testimony) 16. The grant of the variance will not be detrimental to the subject property or to any of the properties in the area. The structures are proposed to have setbacks that are consistent with the Everett Zoning Code and which will be set back further than adjacent residences. (Exhibit 1) 4