3201 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

On August 8, 1988, the information necessary to complete the Use Permit applic�tion was received. After seviewing the application, on August 23, 1988, a letter wa:> sent by the City to Snohomish County-Camano Board of Realtors de- nying the Use Permit since nineteen off-street parkinq spaces are reauired by code and they were only proposing to provide four off-street parking spaces. The Applicant contends that the number of parking spaces required by the City is far in excess of those spaces needed to supply the employees and tenants with suitable parking. Tlie two structures in question house the Board of Realtors business office staffed by three employees, the business office of Senator Vognild, staffed by onfi employee, and two residential units. b. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applying to� the proposed use based on the limited number of employees and the limited need for any other visitoi or customer tol� parking; however, at a minimum, one off-street parking! i space should be provided for each of the two residential, I units (this would meet the R-5 code requirement for' ; residential use) and one for each of the employees in the � office space for a total of seven :paces. i �Criterion No. 2: I �That such variance is nece�ssary for the ,joytuent of a su6stantial property right sessed by the owners of other properties in ',zone. Findina: The applicant contends that since the use is � permitted in the zone and they are unable to construct the required number of parking sn^-:s on the site or lease � them within 300 feet as pern�. _ad by code, they would not', be permitted to continue the use of their building withoutl the variance. Other cAnversions o£ sinqle family resi3ences to office space have either provided parkinq to code or obtained a variance for the parking. In one recent case, the applicant was able to provide the nur,.t,er of required off-street parking spaces (six): however, three of them, did not meet public works specifications and so the IIoard did grant the applicant a variance to provide three spacesl that met public works requirements and also provide threei additional spaces that were tandem to the approved spaces, that could be used by employees. Conclusion: other property owners chanqing the use of a � buildinq have provided parking to code or obtained a', variance for a portion of the required parking, but have i not been granted a total exemption from the parkinq code. ', �Criterion No. 3: i �That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the �vicinity ar zone in which the property is located. a b. preeervation and en- of the appellant pos the same vicinity or a. Findina: The Applicant contends that the uses of the building arz permitted in the zone and would in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding property. Because of its close proximity to the County Courthouse, on-street parking is heavily used and the city has re- ceived complaints from a resident in the area regarding the .lack of on-street parking. In addition, par.king is only permitted on one side of Wetmore in this block.