1710 32ND ST 2018-01-02 MF Import

OON r4N . J On August 8, 1988, the information necessary to comple the Use Permit application was received. After reviewi the application, on August 23, 1988, a letter was sent the City to Snohomish County-Camano Board of Realtors d nying the Use Permit since nineteen off-street parki spaces are required by code and they were only proposi to provide four off-street parking spaces. The Applicant contends that the number of parking space: required by the City is far in excess of those spacee needed to supply the employees and tenants with suitable parking. The two structures in question house the Boarc of Realtors business office staffed by three employees, the business office of Senator Vognild, staffed by on( 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 visitor or customer to parking; however, at a minimum, one off-street parking space should be provided for each of the two residential 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 spaces. That such variance i- necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Finding: The applicant contends that since the use is permitted in the zone and they are unable to construct th9 required number of parking spaces 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 without) the variance. Other conversions of single family residences to office' space have either provided parking to code or obtained 4 variance for the parking. In one recent case, the applicant was able to provide the number of required off-street parking spaces (six); however, three of them did not meet public works specifications and so the Board did grant the applicant a variance to provide three spaces that met public works requirements and also provide three± additional spaces that were tandem to the approved spaces) that could be used by employees. b. Conclusion: other property owners changing the use of a building have provided parking to code or obtained a variance for a portion of the required parking, but have not been granted a total exemption from the parking code. i Critgrion No. 3 (That the authorization of such variance will not be materially ddetrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the (vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Finding: The Applicant contends that the uses of the building are 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- caived complaints from a resident in the area regarding the lack of on -street parking. In addition, parking is only permitted on one side of Wetmore in this block.