Laserfiche WebLink
would require some combination of variances. <br />• d. That the variances(s) will not impair an adequate supply of fight and air to adjacent <br />property. <br />1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair an adequate <br />supply of light and air to the adjacent properties, as these conditions already exist and have <br />not been shown to impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. <br />2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variance will not impair an <br />adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent properties. <br />e. That the variance(s) will not impair the orderly use of the public streets; <br />1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not impair the orderly use <br />of the public streets, as these conditions already exist and have not been shown to cause <br />such impairment. <br />2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not impair the <br />orderly use of the public streets. The prospective owners have made a good faith effort to <br />keep as much parking as possible on the site and to confine the traffic impact to the part of <br />Lindig that is immediately adjacent to the restaurant. <br />f. That the variance(s) will not increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety; <br />1. Side setbacks and lot width: Staff finds that these variances will not increase the danger of <br />fire or endanger the public safety, as these conditions already exist and have not been <br />shown to endanger public safety. <br />• 2. Parking, rear setback and landscaping: Staff finds that the variances will not increase the <br />danger of fire or endanger the public safety. <br />g. Whether the shape, topographical condition or other similar characteristic of the tract <br />is such as to distinguish it substantially from all of the other properties in the zoning <br />district of which it is a part, or whether a particular hardship, as distinguished from <br />mere inconvenience to the owner, would result if the strict letter of the Chapter were <br />carried out. <br />This property, a legal lot of record, is distinguished from other B-1 properties in that the sum of <br />the required side setbacks is greater than the total width of the property. This creates a <br />particular hardship for any owner if the strict letter of the Chapter is carried out because it <br />renders the property literally unusable for any permitted or conditional use defined for a B-1 <br />parcel. <br />h. Whether the variance is sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of <br />the property, and to determine whether a substantial hardship to the owner would <br />result from a denial of the variance. <br />Staff finds these variances are not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owner of <br />the property other than the ordinary gain from the running of a viable legal business. Staff finds <br />that substantial hardship would be imposed by denial of the variances on lot coverage and <br />parking. If the lot coverage requirement were enforced, a much greater variance on parking <br />would be needed and the overflow parking and traffic would spill into the neighborhood. The lot <br />• is too small to accommodate all the required parking for this use, even if all landscaping were to <br />119623v03 2 <br />RNK:r07! 14/2005 <br />