112 113TH ST SE 2016-01-01 MF Import

t1RR-�-1�45 12�40 FROM SFQ7�1'i9AJi� It�K'. TO 347E,�E8 P.fl3 ( in sixe. This wetland is drfined as a Category TI wetl.and per Subsexion 37.090.B.2. Subsection 37.100.A.2 of the Cicy of Everett Zon�ng Code tequires a 75 foo[ buf%r &om the edge of a Categury I[ wetlaad. The entire site falls tntirely within thc 75 foot wetland bu�'er. Subsection 37.OSi).S states that nothing in the ESA ordinante is intended to preclude reau�nable economic use of property �e set forch herein. Subsection 42.100.8 of the zoning code, using F.eview Proce:s II.B, authorizes the PI- �in� Director to "....approvc, disapprove or approve with co:;ditions the use proposed by the applicant". If thc requirement of this ordinance as applied to a specific lot would deny all reasonable economic use of the lot, development will be parmitted i£ the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Direaor using Feview Pracess II.B all the following: 1. There is no cther rcasonable use or feasble altemative to the proposed development with less impact on the enviromnentaliy sensitivo area; and 2. The propased development does not pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare on or off of thc subjecs loc; and 3. Any alterations pertnittcd t: the requiremcnts of this Ordinancc shall be the minimum necessery to ellow for reasonab(c 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 :i�b epplicant in s.�bdividing the oroperty or adjuning a boundary line thereby creatin; the undevelopab�e condition after thc efTective date af this Ordin��ce; and The proposal mitigates the impacts on che environmentally sensitivt arcas to the maximum extent possible. The Planning Director's tonclusions are as fotlows: 1. The�e is �ro other reasoriable use or allernatii�e to fhr proposed dev¢lopment wi�h less impac1 upon ihe enviro�imerrtafly sensifive area. The site is within the R-1 zone. R-1 zomng ailows for only one single fami�y residence upon a mi�imum lot sizo of',uCO square feet, which is the least intense "reasonable° land use for this prope:ty. ihe proposed residence will be no large. .han surcounding residences. 2. 7he ��roaosed developme�r! does nol v^ r a rhreal fo the pr+blic healdr, sajery m�d we!j are an or o,(/'of rlre ,vbl=ct lot. 77i� � ro�osed reside:ice wiil be designed end built in accordance with the C.it:• oFEv� ; c,t Bwlding Code. Any allera[ions perm/fled h� rhe reg�drement of rhis Ord/nance slra!! be the �,!I»imum necessary tv allow jor reara�able use oJthe properry. T'he residence wiL' u�ver 1<ss tha.n 1,750 square feet of lot area, the minimum footprint allowed on any city lot. To allow for � reasonable sized building area, the 20 foot tiont setback will