3102 ROCKEFELLER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

b. ronclusion: There are this site, because of the existing building, amount of parking that ,�. unusual circumstances applying to its location, size and nature of and lot size which limits the can be provided on the site. (`ritPriOR YO 2' That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos sessed Uy the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: Th�re are other law offices in the vicinity that have been converted from single family residences. In some cases these were able to provide parkinq to code because they were smaller buildings; therefore requiring less parking and abutted an alley which gave them an opportunity to provide more spaces since they could back out into the alley. The applicant's property does not abut an alley and since Public Works will not allow them to back out onto Rockefeller, they must either provide a drive through to the adjoining property or provide space to turn around on the site in order to qo forward onto Rockefeller. In some cases the other conv��rsions to law offices were allowed to stack some of the spaces when they had alleys abutting. The stacked spaces were to be used by the employees. The Board has also qranted variances for parking in the case of conversions to professional office. b. Conclusion: Grantinq this variance would allow the applicants a property right already enjoyed by others in ; the vicinity and zone. �'��iterion No. 3• �', That the authorization of such variance will not be materially� detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in thel vicinity or zone in which the property is located. a. Findina: There have been no adverse comments received from adjacent property owners. Public Works has commented that there is a history of an inadequate number of parking spaces in this area and it is there recommendation that the variance not b� granted ; however, they have stated that if rhe variance is granted, the parking arrangement be zedesigned so as to provide fi�e off-street parking space:; with no necessity for vehicles to back across the public sidewalk when leaving the site. Public Works has suggested a parking arrangement that would provide five spaces and conform to the City's Design Standards and are recommendinq that a desiqn similar to that be used in order to provide the maximum number of parking spaces and an effective traffic flow pattern (see Exhibit 5). b. �onclusion: Granting this variance should not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity and zone if the parking is redesigned to provide five off-street parking spaces, and the design is approved by Public Works. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan.