11501 2ND AVE SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

. l � lots into one parcel. The existing residence and developed rear yard area on lot 12 would remain unchanged. The majority of the proposed development area on lot 11 in addition to the existing residence and developed yard area on lot 12 falls within the westem 75 foot wetland buffer area that is required for the riparian wetland cortidor located on these two lots. As mitigation for the proposed development, the applicant proposes to place the remaining portions of lots 11 and 12 into an Environmentally Sensitive Area covenant. This would � result in approximately 89% of lot 11 and approximately 50% of lot 12 being placed within a native growth protective area covenant. In addition, the applicant will provide buffer � enhancement by planting new trees within the native growth area at a three to one ratio for each tree that is removed from the proposed development area. A field inspection of the site has been made by City staff to evaluate the proposal and a review of documents submitted with the resonable use application for this proposal has been conducted. Documents submitted for revieH� :�iclude a wetlands report for the enviromentally sensitive areas located on the site, and a biological assessement to determine compliance with the State of Washington's Endagered Species Act. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Section 37.050.8 states that nothing in EMC Chapter 19.37 is intended to preclude reasonable econom;c use of property as set forih herein. If the requirement of this ordinarce as applied to a specific lot would deny all reasonable economic use of the lot, development will be permitted �f the applicant demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the Planning Director: 1. There is no other reasonable use or feasible altemative to the proposed development with less impact on the environmentally sensitive area; and 2. The proposed development does not pose a threat to the public health, safery and welfara on or off of the subject loh, and 3. Any alterations permitted to the require �ents of this Ordinance shall be the minimum necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property; and 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 condition after the effective date of this Ordinance; and 5. �'he proposal mitigates the impacts on the environmentally sensitive areas to the maximum extent possible. The Planning Director's conclusions are as follows: 1. There is no other reasonable use or altemative to the propused development with less impact upon the envlronmentally sensit/ve area. The existing R-1 zoning allows for a minimum of one single family residence per lot. The applicant proposes to construct a single story garage/shop building that will be accessory to ��