2320 RUCKER AVE EVERETT NEUROLOGICAL CENTER 2018-01-02 MF Import

. { �, b. Conc�usion: There are unusnal circumstances applying to this property because the clinic is in a residential structure in a residential neigh- bor.hood and the applicant is tr.ying to main- '��'' T.ain the residential character c ; the site in �''�a y order to be com�atible with the n�ighborhood. A�fx a y y Crbter�on No. 7.• H �� _ . y H That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment oE a substantial pr.oper.ty right of. the appellant pos- o� H� sessed by the owners of other pro�erties in the same vicinity y H or zone. H z . • �iy� a. 1'indina: The Applicant has provided documentation as to O i..� the number of patients cominq to tliis tacility H �g from January through April 1989 in order to �,. � demonstrate that the number of patients coming to a neurological clinic is a gr.eat deal less r y� than other types of clini.cs; therefere, he �..�y will. be providing parking to till the needs of gy the clinic use as other cl.inics in the city C y are required to do. The summary of the infor- ' ; ^.�� r mation provided (see Exhibit 4) shows that the ' t'� � maximum number of patients seen .in any one �z-7o� � hour at the clinic is six, which along with the maximum number of staff and doctors would require 12 off-street parkinq spaces if they al.l drove to the site. Tlie Applicant is pro- posing to provide ].7 off-street parking spaces whiclt would be in excess of the amount actu- ally used by patients, <ioctors, and staff, thus leaving additional spaces Por deliveries 1�' ' and ssrvice calls. � s �, Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow the �� ,,,� applicant's clinic a propertp right as pos- ,,,� � sessed by other clinics in the city. � Criter�on No. J- � � That the authorization of such variance will not I�e materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vic,inity or zone in which the property is ]ocated. 1 a. Findina: In the past the Board denied a request for a parking variance for the buildi.ng at 2730 Rucker, one block to the north. That variance -- �. request was to provide l5 parking spaces on site instead of the 24 parking spaces required � by code Eor the conversion of Pour units in � y�� an existing six-plex to two proPessional of- fices. The request was for a J8 per.cent re- duction in parking. The conclusion of the ' I3oard in denying that variance was that due to encr.oachment of professional off:ices into a resi.dential area and the consequent removal of exi.sting residential uni.ts, and due to the ex- traordinary number oE �arking spaces proposed to be waived, aggravati.ng existing tratfic and parkinq congesti.on in the area, granting the variance would be detrimental to the public welf:are and i.njuri.ous to other properties i.n the area. �