3226 ROCKEFELLER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

The epeciul condittona applying to this property are the folloWing: Tl�e property is a small city lot of 25' x 120' with a subatantial brick, single family structure. The character of the neighborhood is changing and there ia an apartment complex to the north and a lax office on the south so it is no longer deairable as a single family residence. Tlie property is advantageously situated cloae to the court house for the proposed buainess and has been in the family of one of the proposed buaineas owner's aince 1922 and they would like to keep it !n the family. Property in the immediate area has been developed along substantially tlie same lines. That is, [he better condition buildings have been converted to office apace and some of the lesa desirable ones have been demolislied and new office space cona[ructed. Ownershipa have been consolidated in the immediate area which leads one to the conclusion that new offices are forthcoming. The area will probably continue to aevelop as office aad multi-family residential apace. Inaemuch a3 the current property owner only hae 25 feet of widtli, it aeems �nlikely that they will he able to develop any new building and thua conversion of the preaeT reaidence to office would be their main ulterna[ive. Conclusion: There are exceptional and extraordinary circumatancea applying to the aubject property and to the intended use thereof. � 2. That sudi variance ie necessary for the preaervation and enjoyment of a suba[antial property right of the appellant posaesaed by the ownere '�, of other propertiea in the same vicinity or zone. , F1nding: The Applicant will be providing six spacea as required by Code even though technically only three of them may be counted. ; Conclueion: The variance request secma reaeonable. 3. That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detriment:al to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property ia located. Findln8: The Applicant will act�ally be providing aiz parking spaces as required by Code even though three of them will not meet Public Worke specificationa ior accesa, and the nature of the propoaed uae is sur_h that thia ahould adeq�ately serve the bueinese. Other City departmente had no adverse comments on tliis request and no comment has been received in response to a notice sent to owners within 300 feet of the aubject property. Concluaion: It does not appear that thie variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone. 4. That the granting of sucli variance will -.ot adversely affect the Comprehenaive General Plan. F!nd3ng: The 1987 Comprehensive Plan designation is Profeaeional Offices and Multiple Family use. Conclusion: The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. -2-