PCAgenda_95Dec11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DSIT, INC. [~j 008/01D Planning Report ? 5981Vorthrop/Schitiman-Kloser t 21815 4 STANDARDS Ft3R GRANTING A VARIANGE have analyzed each of the criteria in Sec. 9-15.D3, Subd. 4 of the ,Zoning Gode (the standards for granting variances) in relation to the applicants' variance request. Following is my analysis; a. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare; I# is well established in planning law that community aesthetics are considered part of the "public welfare" that can be controlled by zoning regulations. The history of the OMId Grove neighbofiood with respect to variances is one of jeabusly guarding the front yard setback to protect the continuity of design along the public streets. Granting the variance would be detrimental to this part of the public welfare, 1 believe. b. That the granting of the varianct~ will not substantially diminish or impair property values or improvements in the area; This its a difficult cri#erion tQ quantify, but to the extent that surrounding properties adhere to the setbacks and rely on r~ighboring properties to do likewise, there could be some negative effect on property values by encroaching in the setback. c. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantia! property rights; We agree that having atwo-car garage is des~-able but may not be considered a `"substantial property right". We have also shown that there arse other ways to build a garage on site without needing a variance. Therefore, the variance is not necessary in order to get a two-car garage. The applicants believe that putting a garage in any location other than their plan would result ~ loss of enjoyment of some of their yard space and views. This is certainly true, but the question is how significant is this loss tassuming an attractive, compatible, we&built garage is constructed}, and does this outweigh the public's substantial interest in a consistent public street frontage? In my opinion, the enjoymenrt of unobstructed yard space is not a "substantial property right", nor is it a higher interest than the public interest in stnyet frontages. d. That the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; The requested variancxr would affect adjacent properties only very minimally in this regard, if at all. The adjacent property to the east has a front balcony whose views would be limited somewhat by the proposed garage.