Laserfiche WebLink
-: , : ; , <br />- � <br />Norris Variance <br />Planning Case Na. 550-9 <br />April 7, 1999 <br />Page 3 <br />d. Thcrt grantirrg the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special <br />pi•ivilege that is derried by this Title to owrrers of other lands, siructures or buildings in <br />the same district. <br />The granting of this variance would not con�er upon the applicant any special privilege, in <br />that property owners are encouraged to update and improve their property. The fact that <br />the subject pro�oerty presents impediments to further expansior� would be the basis for the <br />varlance. <br />That the variance requested is the mrnrmunz vcrriance which would alleviate the haYdship. <br />Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. <br />If the intent of the variance is to ailow a building expansion up to five feet of the property <br />iine in keeping with the setback of the proposed garage, then the variance requested is the <br />minimum variance which could alleviate tlie F�ardship. <br />f. Ttie varia�rce would not be mate�ialZy delrinrental to the purpose of this Title or to other <br />property in the same zo�re. <br />The basis for this Code provision is to promote a separation between properties. <br />Maintaining a greater setback for more intensive uses (living space as opposed to garage <br />space) is a means to accomplish this separation. In this case, the proposed addition would <br />be behind a proposed garage, ail of which would be buffered and separated from the <br />adjacent property io the north by its own garage. <br />g. The proposect variance wilZ not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />prope�ty or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets oY increase the <br />danger of fit�e or endctnger the public safety or substantially diminrsh or� impair prope�ty <br />values within the neighborhood. <br />Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neigkboring properties' suppiy of <br />Iight or air, iY would not create any additional traf�ic impa,ct nor would it increase tl�e <br />danger of fire or endanger the pubiic safeiy. If there wauld be any impact to property <br />values, the impac� is assumed to be positive. <br />According to the City Code, a(1 of �he precedin� criteria shall be satis�ed in ord�r to justify the <br />granting of a variance. As pointed out in the abav� responses, a hardship gnay e�st in ihis case. <br />But because the criteria. tend �o be more subjective in nature, the analysis rarely points to a clear <br />- response. In this situation, if the application for a reduced setback variance were denied, the <br />- applicant could stiil have a living space expansion, however at a potentially-reciuced square <br />footag�. <br />� � _. � <br />