3201 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

i� � .... � � i b. On August 8, 1988, the information necessary to complet� the Use Permit application was received. after reviewing the application, on Auqust 23, 1988, a letter was sent by the City to Snohomish County-Camano Board of Realtors de- nyinq the Use Pernit since nineteen off-street parkinc� spaces are required by code and they were only proposing to provide four off-street parking spaces. The Applicant contends that the number of parkinq spacea zequired by the City is far in excess of those space8 needed to supply the employees and tenants with suitable parking. The two structures in question house the Board of Realtors business �ffice staffed by three employees, the business office of Senator Voqnild, staffed by one employee, and two residential units. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applyinq to the proposed uae based on the limited number of employees; and the limited need for any other visitor or customer to parking; however, at a minimum, one off-street parking space should be provided for each of the two residantial unite (this would meet the R-5 code requireaent for residential use) and one for each of the employees in the� office space for a total of saven spaces. iCr.iterfon No. 2: i !That such variance is necessary for the preservation and ijoyment of a substantial property right of the appellant �sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity �zone. en- pos or a. Findina: The applicant contends that since the use is permitted in the zone and they are unable to construct the required number of parkinq spnces on the site or lease them within 300 feet as permitted by code, they would not be permitted to continue the use of their building withoutl the varianca. Other conversions of sinqle family residences to office spaco have either provided parking to code or obtained a ve=ienc� for the parking. in one recent case, the applicant was able to provide the number of required off-straet parking spaces (six); however, three of them did not 'eet public works spacifications and so the Board did qrwnt the applicant a variance to provide three spnces that •�t public works requirements and also provide three addi�ionnl spaces that were tandem to the approved spaces that could be used by employees. b. Conclusion: Other property owners changinq the use of. a buildinq have provided parking to code or obtained a variance for a portion of the required parking, but have not been qranted a total exemption from the parking code. �That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or ittjurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property i6 located. a. Findina: The l�pplicant contends that the uses of the buildinq are permitted in the zone and would in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or surroundinq 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 reqatding the lack of on-street parkinq. In addition, parkinq is only permitted on one side of Wetmore in this block.