3232 HOYT AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

� a� b. Conclusicn_ There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances ap,�lying to the subject property or the use thereof. The Ap��lica.nt created his own hardship by proceeding with the conversion of the building to a rooming house withoc'_ obtaining the proper permits and complying with city c:odes. Criteri.on No. 2: That such variance is ner..essar.y for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial propsrty right of th� a.ope11a.1t pos- sessed by the owners of otl.ier eroperties in the r>.ame vicinity or zone. a. Findings The Applicant contends that other property owners in the area are ahle to uti,ize their property to its best use whether it be as a residence, office or multifamily use, and that the best use of his �roperty is as a nine room roominq house. TP�is structure was constructed as a single family residence and provided parking for that use in a two car garage. The strucfiure has been c�nverted to a use that has a much greater parking requirement, that being one space for eacn yleeping room. There may be �ome uses in the area that are nonconforming for parking; however, if any of th��se uses is changed to a use that has a higher parking requirement as this one has, the new use would be required to meet the parki.ng requirements o� the zoning code. A reqnest for a variance to allow an eight unit apartment building to be constructed at 3306 xoyt and provide only eight parkinq spaces i�stead of the twelve required by, code was det�ied by the Board in Novenber 1987. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property riqht of the applicant as possessed by others in the vicinity and zone. �riterion No. 3_ That the authori.zation 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. Findina: Several letters in upposition to the variance were received by the Board arid several property owners and residents in the area testifie� that there was a considerable impact to the parking in the area from the rooming house and that granting the variance would be injurious to their property. h, o clus,ion: Grantinq this variance would be detrimental to the E�u51ic welfare and injurious to others in the vicinity and zone. C i e �i.�n_N�,�,� That tt:e grar.ting of sur.h variance will not adversely affect the Cumprehensiva General Plan. a. Findina: The Comprehensive Plan designation is m�iltiple-family, 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Policies state that adequate off-street parking should be provi3ed. b. Conc.t•�s.ion_ Granting this v.iriance would adversel.y affect �he cornpreher,sive qeneral plan since adequate par3:inr �oula not ba provided.