3102 ROCKEFELLER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

•� �• That such variance is necessary Por the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos sessed. by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: There are other law offices in the vicinity that have been converted from single family residences. In some cases these were able to provide parking to code because they were smaller buildings; therefore requiring less parking and abutted an alley which gave them an op- portunity to provide more speces since they could back out into the alley. The applicant's property does not abut an alley and since Public �orks will not allow them to back out ont� Rockefeller, they must either provide a dLive through to the adjoininq property or provide sp.�ce to turn around on the site in order to go forward onto Rockefeller. In some cases the other conversions to law offices were allowed to stack some of the spaces when they had al- leys abutting. The stacked spaces were to be used by the employees. The Board has also granted variances for parking in the case of conversions to professional office. b. Conclusion: Granting this plicants a property right the vicinity and zone. b •� ,• variance would allow the ap- already enjoyed by others in That ths authorization of such variance will not be materially� detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the; vi�inity 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 park- ing spaces in this area and it is there recommendation that the variance not be qranted ; however, they have stated that if the variance is granted, the parking ar- rangement be desiqned so as to provide five off-street parking spaces with no necessity for vehicles to back across the public sidewalk when leavinq the site. Public Works has suqgested a parking arranqement that would pro- vide five spaces and conform to the City's Design Stan- dards and are recommending that a design similar to that be used in order to provide the maximum number of parking spaces and an effective traffic flow pattern. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance should not be materi- ally 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. a. Findina: The General Plan designation for this area is Central City Mixed UsP and professional office use is permitted. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan. -'-