3207 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

r 2 3. The existing old atore on eite and 32nd Street property line atruc[ure vhich could continue preeent location. is located on [he We[more Avenue and ie a legally nonconforming to exist or be rebuilt on ite There ie an exis[ing 80 feet right-of-vay along Netmore Avenue and 32nd Street of which eixty percent ie currently �nuaed but will be utilized for street improvement in the future. The Applicant propoees [ha[ the 80 foot right-of-way provides ample and adequate setback distance betveen the etreets and the buildinge [o continue to eneure and main[ai� the aeatheGic and safety inten[ of the City Code. b. Conclusion: The demoli[ion of the exiating two etructurea on eite and construction of a new mixed-use s[ruc[ure on [he former structure's location vould greatly imprave the vieual character of the site and vill be consistent with the setback alignment of exiating buildinga along Wetmore Aven�e and 32nd Street. For economic, aesthetic and practical reaeons, granting [he requested variance will enable the Applicant to implement a more productive use of the property, vhich would otherviee be precluded by the current aetback and corner lote requiremen[s. Moreover, thia variance Will enable [he Applicant [o retain the design of the proposed building, and prevent an exceaeive and unuaed 100 foo[ setback/public right-of-vay vithin the City Core Area; and help create a conducive urban ambiance in [he City's Central Bueiness Dietrict. There are unuaual circumstances applying to this property and the�proposed uae thereof. Tha[ such variance is neceseary for the preservation and enjoyment of a aubstantial property right of [he appeilant possessed by the ownere of other properties in the same vicinity or sone. a. Finding: Some existing a.id newly built proper[ies within the projec[ ai:e's vicinity and zone are loca[ed on or i� close proximi[y to their property tines along Wetmore Avenue and 32nd Stree[. b. Conclueion: Gran[ing the variance is neceasary for the enjoyment of a property right already poeseseed by others in the vicinity and zone. That the authorization of such variance will nut be materially detrimental to the p�blic welfare or injurious [o proper[y in [he vicinity or zone in which [he property is located. a. Findin : In conjunc[ion vith [his variance applica[ion, a Sta[e Environmen[al Policy Ac[ (SEYA) Checklis[ was filed vith and revieved by [he Ci[y Planning Depar[men[. No adverse comment was received from Public Worka Department or any o[her City agency regarding this projec[ proposal and a Determina[ion of Non-Significance (DNS) vas issued on May 16, 1988, wi[h specific mitigation conditions to be compiled vith, contingen[ on approval of [he Applicant's variance raquest. b. Conclusion: It does not appear [hat [here would be any adverse aEfec[ on o[her proper[y ovners in the vicinity and zone if [his variance is gran[ed. -2-