07-02-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Farrell Variance Report July 2, 2003 Page 2 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Criteria Responses: a. The exceptional or extraordinary circumstances associated with this lot, as identified in previous variance resolutions, are that the development potential of the lot is restricted by its size, the County’s taking of ten feet of right of way alongside County Road I and by the City’s corner lot setback requirements. b. While it can be argued that the literal interpretations of the Code do not deprive the property owner of rights enjoyed by others, the posting of the No Parking signs has in fact limited Mr. Farrell’s ability to utilize on-street parking. c. While Mr. Farrell does ultimately control the number of vehicles parking on the lot and while he was aware of the parking limitations when he purchased the property, Mr. Farrell did not design the building or site plan and had anticipated utilizing on-street parking for overflow purposes. d. Granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege in that other commercially-zoned properties have been awarded reduced parking setbacks in unique situations. e. Approving a variance from the approved 10-foot parking lot setback to a 2-foot setback is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship in that two additional parking stalls could be added to the lot. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that the variance would serve to minimize the amount of on- street business parking associated with the businesses at 2402 County Road I. g. The variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish neighborhood property values.