04-07-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Norris Variance Planning Case No. 550-9 • April 7, 1999 Page 3 d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. The granting of this variance would not confer upon the applicant any special privilege, in that property owners are encouraged to update and improve their property. The fact that the subject property presents impediments to further expansion would be the basis for the variance. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. If the intent of the variance is to allow a building expansion up to five feet of the property line in keeping with the setback of the proposed garage, then the variance requested is the minimum variance which could alleviate the hardship. f The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other • property in the same zone. The basis for this Code provision is to promote a separation between properties. Maintaining a greater setback for more intensive uses (living space as opposed to garage space) is a means to accomplish this separation. In this case, the proposed addition would be behind a proposed garage, all of which would be buffered and separated from the adjacent property to the north by its own garage. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood Were the variance to be granted, it would not impair any neighboring properties' supply of light or air, it would not create any additional traffic impact nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety. If there would be any impact to property values, the impact is assumed to be positive. According to the City Code, all of the preceding criteria shall be satisfied in order to justify the granting of a variance. As pointed out in the above responses, a hardship may exist in this case. But because the criteria tend to be more subjective in nature, the analysis rarely points to a clear • response. In this situation, if the application for a reduced setback variance were denied, the applicant could still have a living space expansion, however at a potentially-reduced square footage.