500 SE EVERETT MALL WAY B BASE FILE 2016-01-01 MF Import

F ND NGS AND CONCLUSIONS: All applications for rea�onabie use determinations are subject to compliance with the five review criteria in EMC Chap:er 19.37.050.6. The reasonable use decision process is set forth in EMC Chapter 19.35.050.B. For a description of existing site conditions, refer to the oriainal Planning Director Determination (II.0 #9-95) dated June 7, 1995. Criterion #1 - There is no other reTsonabie use or feasible alternative to the proposed developtrient with less impact on the environmentally sensitive area. Findinas: The applicant has presented several development scenarios for this site. These include varying configurations of retail structures, parking and drainage improvements. Tl�e site plans reviewed by the City during the SEPA process included: A. June 1. 1�4 Two buildings with a iotal of 29,300 square feet of retail space and 132 parking stall�. This pian did not meet the buffer requirements for environmentally sensitive st�:ep slopes B. arc 30 199 Two buildings with a total of 32,000 square feet of retail space and 107 parking stalls. This pian was approved with a 50% buffer reductio�i from the environmentally sensitive steep slope. The Applicant subsequently determined that this configuration was unmarketable to the type of retail tenants beir�g sought for the site, which wanted a larger building footprint and ample parking in front of the building. C. Auaust 23 1995. The current site plan shows a 30,800 square fcot structure with 103 parking stalls. nfter acquiring project approvai, the applicant determinad that the site configuration approved during the SEPA process did not meet the needs of prospective tenants. These potential clients indicated an interest in providing a subsiantial amount of customer parking in front of the building, rather than behind it. Although there app�ar to be other site design alternatives tliat would have less impact on the environmentally sensitive area (i.e., smaller building foofprint or use of multiple building footprints), these alternative� have been rejected by the applicant due to marketing trends and the space needs of potential retail clients. Due to the disturbed nature of the slope and buffer areas, and due to the distance from the development to the wetland, encroachment of the driveway into the required buffer would not have a significant impact on the wetiand or slope. Conclusion: Alternatives to the proposal have been evaluated by city staff and the applicant, and have been rejected due to impacts on the sensitive areas, or because they were not marketable to prospective tenants. The proposed 30,800 retail building appears to be a reasonabie request, based on an evaluation of environmental impacts and the phyeical constraints of the site. Criterion #2 - Tlie proposed development does not pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare on or off of the subject lot. Findings: As a result of the reduction of the required setback from the top-of-bank, the prima�y irr;pact would be on the slope leading down to the wetland, and on uvater quality of the wetland and th2 North Creek drainage basin. Any potential impacts resulting from increased slormwater