3102 ROCKEFELLER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

�� >H ��x �.' H �Hx[o yxH �H� � H 'i1 y H x ��d OH H�g HV C�g � H t+7 HH 8 �' �d� �� ZHfn HOrn t � � � �� Criterion No. 2: That such variance is n�cessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property rigltt of the appellant pos sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. rindin4: There are other law oPfices 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 spaces since they coul� back out into thP al.ley. The applicant's property does not abut an alley and since Public {9orks will not allow them to back out onto Rockefeller, they must either provide a drive through to the adjoining property or provide spnce to turn around on the site in order to go forward onto Rockefeller. In some cases the nther conversions to law offices were alloweu to stack some of the spaces when they had al- leys abutting. The stacked spaces were to be used by the employees. The Doard has also granted variances for parking in tlie case of conversions to professional office. Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow the ap- plicants a property right already enjoyed by uthers in the vicinity and zone. That the authorization of such variance will not be naterially detrimental to the gublic welLare or injurious to property in the 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 park- ing spaces in this area and it is there recommendation that the variance not be granted ; however, they have stated that if the variance is granted, the parking ar- rangement be designed so as to provide five off-street parkinq spaces with no necessity for vehicles to back across the public sidewalk when leaving the site. Public works has suggested a parking arrangement 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 proFerty 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. Cxiterion No. 4: That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. Pindina: The General Plan design�tion for this area is Central City Dfixed Use and professional office use is permitted. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance will not adversely affect the compreliensive plan. -Z-