3226 ROCKEFELLER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

The apecial conditions applying to thia property are the following: The property ia a small city lot of 25' z 120' with a subetantial brick, aingle family structure. The character of the neighborhood is changing and there ia an apartment complea to the north and a larr office on the south so it is no longer deairable ae a single family reaidence. The property is advantageouely situated close to the court house for the propoaed bueinesa and hae been ia the family of one of the proposed businesa owner's eince 1922 and they would like to keep 1t in the family. Property in the immediate area has been developed along subatantially the eame linea. That is, the better condition buildinge have been converted to office apace and some of the lese deairable onea have been demoliahed and new office apace conetructed. OWnershipa have been coneolidated in [he immediate area irhich leade one to the conclueion that new offlcea are forthcoming. The area will probably continue to develop ae office and multi-family residential epace. Inasmuch as the current property owner only hae 25 feet of width, it seeme unlikely that they will be able to develop aay nerr building and thus converaion of the present reaidence to offlce ttould be their main alternative. b. Conclueion: There are exceptional and eatraordinary circumatances applying to the subject property and to the intended uae thereof. Criterion 2: That euch variance ie neceaeary far the preservation and enjoyment of a aubatantial property right of the appellant poasesaed by the ownera of other propertiea in the eame vicinity or zone. a. b Flnd3ng: The Applicant will be providing eix epaces ae requlred by Code even though technically only three of them may be counted. Conclueion: The variance requeat seema reaeonable. Criterion 3: That the authorization of auch variance will not be materially detrimental to the public Welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zo¢e in xhich the property le located. a. Finding: The Applicant xill actually be providing sis parking apaces as required bq Code even [hough tl;ree of them will not meet Public Worka speciflcationa for accese, and the nature of the propoaed use is auch that this should adequately serve [he busineae. Other City departments had no adverae comments on thia request and no comment hae been received in reaponse to a notice aent to owners within 300 feet of the aubject property. b. Conciueion: It does not appear that this variance would be materially detrimental [o the public welfare or injurioue to property in the vtctni.r.y or +�� -2-