2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

parking, and the location will not impact the shoreline. (exhibit 1, staff report; exhibit 8, applh, ation; Jimerson testimony) 27. Because of the natural configuration of the site, the required 200-foot buffer must be reduced in order to effectively conduct the activity on -site. The Applicant requested a reasonable use exception for a reduced buffer to be less than 200 feet for part of the site, and at places to be less than 100 feet. The buffer less than 100 feet would vary from 33 feet to 90 feet. (Approximately 3.11 acres of the site is within the required 200-foot buffer.) (Jimerson testimony; exhibit 1, staff report) 28. If the Applicant were to adhere to the buffer requirements, including the 200-foot buffer, the subject property would have an irregular shape and would be a long and narrow parcel. Such a design would not be feasible for the proposed use. The long and narrow parcel would serve no purpose for any other use. There is no reasonable use or feasible alternative other than the proposed development that would have a less impact on this environmentally sensitive area. (Jimerson testimony; exhibit 1, staff report; McIver testimony; exhibit 8, narrative) 29. The subject property is not well suited fnr commercial uses. Its location is in an industrial area, there is limited area on which the property can be developed; and the sensitive areas of the subject property and the surrounding properties limit the use. There is no readily available water or sewer utilities. These physical and practical limitations restrict the possibilities for the use of the property. (exhibit 1, staff report; e;(hibit 8, narrative) 30. While the industrial use, as proposed by the Applicant, requires a significant building footprint, other industrial uses would require larger footprints. The orientation and shape of the proposed development with an east/west access allows I,je Applicant to utilize the available land in a productive manner while preserving sensitive elements of the site. (exhibit 1, staff report: Jimerson testimony; McIver testimony: exhibit 8, narrative) 31. The proposed development does not pose a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Although public sewer and water are not available, the Applicant would provide portable toilets and bottled water to the site. (McIver testimony: McClean testimony: exhibit 1, staff report) Condition #13, as recommended by the Planning Depa tment, requires the Applicant to obtain Snohomish County Health District approval of the use of the proposed sanitary facilities. (Jimerson testimony) 32. The Fire Department of the City of Everett reviewed the proposed application and submitted numerous conditions that would be required to be satisfied. The Fire Department determined that water flows in the vicinity are relatively low, and thus there are requirements for greater levels of resistant construction methods for fire purposes. The Fire Department, however, recommended approval of the