2601 E GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

. � , C � 4. Ths Inability of the applicant to derivs roaaonable eoonomfc use of the property is not the result of acUona by the applicant in subdividing th�� property c+r adJusting a boundary Iine thereby a+eadng the undevebpabte condi8on after tha aNective date oi this Orcfinance; and 5. The proposel mitigates the impacts on fhe environmentally sensiWs aroas to the maximum extent possibie. The Planning Dirsctor's condualona aro as tollows: 1. fiere !s no other reasonable uas or altemative to the proposed deve/opment wJth less Impact upon the environmentapy ssnslUve area. The R-2 zone allows a duplex upon a minfmum bt size of 7,500 square feet The duplex will not have a groater impact upon the alope or wetland than a singie famiy roaidance. The sbpe area and wetlend wiil bs teft in its present state and remain seperate from the duplex and its rear yard with a fence. 2. The proposed development does not pose a threat to the pu61k health, safety and welfare on,or o/f of the su6/ect lot. If the recommendaUons of the geotechnical study are followed, the devalopment will not pose a throat to the public. The duplex will ma(ntain a 15 foot aetback from the top of slope. 3. Any aReraBons permitted to the ieyulrement of thls Ordinance shall be the minlmum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. The duplex is typ(cal in size to other reaidenoea In the aroa. The appl(cant proposea to reduce the setback from the iront property Iine to 18 feet. This wfll allow the duplex to setback as much as possible from the top of slope. Trie zonfng code requires garages to setbadc five feet from the front facade of the duplex. Thfs setbacks the 21 foot deop garage 25 feet from the front lot Iine leaving only a 13 foot setbadc from the top of slope. To maintain a 15 faot sstba„k and a 12.5 fcwt buffer from the top of slope, the front facade needs to move forward lwo feet into the front setback. This front setback will encroach no further into the front setback than the adjacent properties to the noRh and south. 4. The inability of the appdcant to derive reasona6le economic use of the property!s not ihe result of actions by the applicent In subdivldi� the prope�ty or adJusGng a boundary line thereby creeting the undevelopa6le condiBon aRer the elfective date of this Ordinance. The lot was created prior to the eflective date of thfs Ordinance. 5. The proposal mitigates the impacts on tt,e enNronmentally sensiHve areas to the maximum extent possible. Condidons have been ir*�oosed upon the project which will mitigate any potential environmentai (mpacts. Mitigation requirements fndudes placing permanent fencing along the top of slope, and recordfng a native growth protection easement covenant to rotect the site's environment �ive area. Signed: �C ,�� (.(/ •, / � Paul A. Roberts, Director '� PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT