Laserfiche WebLink
D. Proposed 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 />