8208 FLORIDA DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

OCT--?1-02 09 � 19 FROM:EVERETT PLANNING DEPT IU.42525�E742 PAGE 3/7 3. Any alterations permitted to the requirements of this Ordir.er;ce shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the orope�t��; and 4. The inabilily of the applicant to denve reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in subdividing Lhe property or adjusting a boundary line thereby creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of ihis Ordinance; and 5. The proposal mitigates the impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent possible. The Planning Director's conclusions are as follaws: 1. There Is no other reasonable use or alfemative to the;�roposed development With less impact upon the environmenta!lysensitive area. The existing R-1 zoning allows for only one single family residence per lot, which is the least intense "reasonable" land use for this property. The proposed residence would extend into the wetland buffer in the nortnem portion of the lot. Other development options have been pursued by the Applicant and were unsuccessful. In 1989, the Applicant filed an application for a two-lot short subdivision of the propeRy. 7his application was rejected on grounds that it did not provide adequate protection of the weiland on the s�biect property. if this application were approved, k would have been necesssr,� :�fill a portion of rhe wetiand. The instant proposal would not result in filling of the wetland, but would encroach into the buffer, up to approximately 10 feet from the wetland. will extend to the edge of the most eastem portion of the wetland. The R-1 zone does not allow other housing types (i.e., duplexes) or commercial businesses. 2, rhe proposed deve/opment does not pose a threat to the public heafth, safety and welfare on or ofi of ihe subject/ot. The adjoining land to the west consists of a large, forested wetland. Other properties to the north and east are developed with single-family residences. Because of th�tooegraphy and drainage pattems in tf,.� area, any runoff from the subject si:e would likely be directed to the existing u+etland, and not to the other adjcining propeRies. Therefore, the proposal �vould not have any drainag� impar.ts on the surrounding properties, and would not adversely afled the public health, safety and welfare. 3. Any alte�ations permitted to!he requirement of this Ordinance shali be ihe minimum necessary to allow for reasona6/e use at the property. The required wetland buffer for Category II wetlands is 75 feet. The entire lot consists of wetland and buffer. It is not feasi6le io construct a residence on the site and maintain the setback requirements from the wzt!and. The proposed residence would be constructed to within approximately 10 feet of the wetland. A building envelop is show� on the site pian and covers a 40' by 60' area. The yard for the residence would e�end within the buHer area on the south side of the residence. The proposed buffer alteration is the minir�um necessary to allow for reasonable use of the propeRy. �� ,� «�