2102 ROSS AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

Reasonable Use Exception — The reasonable use review criteria are contained in Section 19.33D.400(B) and are listed below. 1. There is no other reasonable use or feasible alternative to the proposed development with less impact on the environmentally sensitive area. 2. The proposed development does not pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare on or off of the subject lot. 3. Any alterations permitted to the requirements of this article shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property. 4. The inability of the applicant to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in subdividing the property or adjusting a boundary line, thereby creating the undevelopable conditions after the effective date of this article. 5. The proposal mitigates the impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent possible. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FINDINGS 1. The Applicant requested approval of a Shoreline Permit for the construction of a steel fabrication and storage facility that would include a 45,000 square foot building, outdoor crane ways and storage, and 79 associated parking spaces. The project would be located at 2000-2200 Block of Ross Avenue, Everett, Washington. The Applicant also requested a reasonable use exception to reduce the shoreline buffer from 200 feet to 33 feet at the buffer's narrowest point. The majority of the proposed buffer would be less than 90 feet. The project is adjacent to the Snohomish River, which is a significant shoreline within the Stale of Washington. (finding 1) 2. The goals, policies, and regulations of the Washington Shoreline Act, as well as the ESMP, have been reviewed. The City identified those areas which are applicable to the proposed development. (findings 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18&20) 3. The General Regulations of Section 3 of the ESMP are satisfied. The development is consistent with the City's regulations relating to lighting, noise, landscaping, screening and buffering, cultural resources, flood hazard reduction, and public access. (findings 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 & 26) 4. Direct public access to the shoreline will not be required as part of this project. Because of the sensitive nature of the shoreline and the heavy industrial use generated by the proposed activity, public access to the shoreline is not practical. In lieu of direct access, the Applicant will contribute compensation for another project that will provide more oublic access availability to the shoreline in the general area. (findings 14 & 5) 5. The Applicant has used best available science in identifying, evaluating, and mitigating impacts of the proposal. The Applicant has provided credible 10