02-25-1993 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA

Browse Search

Page 3 of 4 Zoning Board of Adjustment SE93-003 Building setback lines (as measured from rights-of-way) have been established to promote traffic and general safety. The patio is in close proximity to the traffic lanes of a high traffic intersection. Even discounting possible hazard due to a traffic accident, the dust and noise generated by traffic hardly make an outdoor eating area in this location conducive to public health and safety. Finally, there is the issue of hardship. Exceptions and variances to Zoning Ordinance requirements should not be granted based on convenience or problems created by actions of a property owner. An exception to Zoning Ordinance requirements should be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that strict enforcement would cause an unreasonable hardship. In terms of the Zoning Ordinance, a hardship would relate to an unusual property characteristic. In other words, is there a feature of the property that would prevent the property from being developed in a manner that complies with applicable zoning requirements. This is not the case with Mr. Payne's property. As shown on Exhibit ~ Mr. Payne's restaurant occupies Lots 27-33 of Block 50. The restaurant building sits on part of Lot 31 and Lots 32 and 33. The remaining property is developed as parking area. In researching this request, staff checked for adequate parking. Based on the restaurant's floor area (including the patio), 40 parking spaces are required by Ordinance. There are 40 designated parking spaces in the parking lot. Additionally, the tax roll indicates that Mr. Payne owns Lots 5 and 6 of this block. These lots are located across the alley from the restaurant. There is adequate property on the south side of the restaurant to accommodate a patio dining area. A patio on this face of the building could comply with setback requirements. A patio in this location would additionally be both cleaner and safer. Construction of a patio in this area would cause a minimum of disruption to parking. Additionally, displaced parking could be located on Lots 5 and 6. Based on these facts, there is no hardship involved in this case.