Laserfiche WebLink
D. Prouosed findings to deny variances <br />. 1. A variance is not necessary for the property to be put <br />to a reasonable use under current zoning regulations. The <br />property owner currently has an attached one-car garage and <br />current regulations would allow the construction of a 600 <br />square foot detached garage in the rear year, which is a <br />reasonable accessory use in connection with residential <br />property. <br />2. The property has no unique geographical characteristics <br />to justify the granting of a variance, and the plight of the <br />property owner is due to the property owner's failure to <br />obtain and/or read the city's zoning regulations. <br />3. A 988 square foot garage is out of character with the <br />size of other garages in the city, and will alter the <br />essential character of the locality. <br />4. The granting of variances would impair neighboring <br />property owners' values by at least five percent, which is a <br />substantial diminution or impairment of property values and <br />improvements in the area. <br />5. No particular hardship would result to the property <br />owner if the zoning code is strictly enforced. Financial <br />• losses and inconvenience to the property owner may occur if <br />the variances are denied; however, these financial losses <br />and inconveniences t not offset the harm to the neighborhood <br />that would result if the variances were granted. <br />6. The equities which would favor granting variances to <br />complete construction of the 988 square foot garage are <br />primarily the economic expenditures by the Braces. These <br />economic interests are outweighed by the public interest in <br />consistent enforcement of zoning regulations, the prevention <br />of buildings which are out of scale with surroundings, and <br />the continuing administrative burdens of ensuring that such <br />a large accessory structure is not used for non-residential <br />purposes. <br />VII. CONCLUSION <br />The planning commission is charged with <br />recommending the approval or denial of the variance request, or <br />recommending an alternate variance to the city council with <br />findings and necessary conditions. The council will hear the <br />request at its January 27, 1993 on or about 7:00 PM. Council <br />action on a variance is final. <br />13 <br />~'~Z-`'-/9 3 <br />