3202 WETMORE AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

11 .0.. 0"�, 2. 3. The existing old store on site is located and 32nd Street property line and is a structure which could continue to exist present location. on the Wetmore Avenue legally nonconforming or be rebuilt on its There is an existing 80 feet right-of-way along Wetmore Avenue and 32nd Street of which sixty percent is currently unused but will be utilized for street improvement in the future. The Applicant proposes that the 80 foot right-of-way provides ample and adequate setback distance between the streets and the buildings to continue to ensure and maintain the aesthetic and safety intent of the City Code. b. Conclusion: The demolition o.`. the existing two structures on site and construction of a new mixed -use structure on the former structure's location would greatly improve the visual character of the site and will be consistent with the setback alignment of existing buildings along Wetmore Avenue and 32nd Street. For economic, aesthetic and practical reasons, granting the requested variance wilt enable the Applicant to implement a more productive use of the property, which would otherwise be precluded by the current setback and corner lot; requirements. Moreover, this variance will enable the Applicant to retain the design of the proposed building, and prevent an excessive and unused 100 foot setback/public right-of-way within the City Core Area; and help create a conducive urban ambiance is the City's Central Business District. There are unusual circumstances applying to this property and the proposed use thereof. That such v:�riance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appellant possessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Finding: Some existing and newly built properties within, the project site's vicinity and zone are located on or in close proximity to their property lines along Wetmore Avenue and 32nd Street. b. Conclusion: Granting the variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a property right already possessed by others in the vicinity and zone. Tnat tho authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Finding: In conjunction with this variance application, a Steve Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist was filed with ane reviewed by the City Planning Department. No adverse nomment was received from Public Works Department or any other City agency regarding this project proposal and a Determination cf Non -Significance (DNS) was issued on May 16, 1988, with specific mitigation conditions to be compiled with, contingent on approval of the Applicant's variance request. b. Conclusion: It does not appear that there would be any adverse affect on other property owners in the vicinity and zone if this variance is granted. -2-