Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/02/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 PM FEBRUARY 22, 2018 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: July 27, 2017 3. Public Hearings A. Variance: Variance to the side yard for an attached garage Location: 4317 Browndale Ave. S. Applicant: Andre LaTondresse, on behalf of Kevin Johnston Case No: 18-03-VAR 4. New Business A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2572. Auxiliary aides for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/928-2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2017 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Members Present: James Gainsley, Anthony Howard, Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Justin Kaufman Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Office Assistant 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes: June 22, 2017 Commissioner Roberts made a motion to approve the minutes of June 22, 2017. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Unfinished Business A. Variance: Variance to the side yard (continued from June 22, 2017) Location: 9018 Minnehaha Circle North Applicant: Tom Muralt Case No.: 17-18-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated that the applicant withdrew the application on July 19, 2017. He said the application was presented to the board on June 22, 2017. At that time the hearing was opened and the applicant said he was considering alternatives for the garage remodeling and asked that the application be tabled to a future meeting. Commissioner Solmer made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 5. Public Hearings A. Variance: Variance to required minimum number of parking spaces Location: 3402 Library Lane Applicant: Lara Dietrich Case No.: 17-15-VAR Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2017 Page 2 Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated the applicant operates the Maestoso Music Studio at 3402 Library Lane. The applicant is planning a 2,900 sq. ft. expansion into the existing space located directly adjacent to the current business. The applicant requests a variance to allow three parking spaces instead of the required seven spaces. Mr. Morrison explained how the code addresses a use that is legally non- conforming to parking. He noted the expansion needs to comply with the additional amount of parking that is required. He reviewed existing and proposed parking requirements for the multi-tenant building. He discussed the ample on-street parking. Mr. Morrison reviewed the criteria for granting of a variance. He stated staff finds the requested variance to the parking requirements meets the criterion and therefore recommends approval of the requested variance. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Mr. Morrison noted a letter of support of the variance request received July 11, 2017, from STEP, St. Louis Park Emergency Program, 6812 W. Lake Street. The letter was distributed to the board. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. All commissioners stated they concurred with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Roberts made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 03-17 approving a variance from Section 36-361(c) to allow three parking spaces instead of the required seven spaces for the Maestoso Music Studio expansion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the city council. The 10 day appeal period expires Aug. 6, 2017. B. Variance: Variance to the maximum allowed floor area Location: 3947 Excelsior Blvd. Applicant: Patrick Crowe/Salt Salon Spa Case No.: 17-22-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, stated the applicant requests a variance to increase the allowed floor area from 2,500 sq. ft. to 3,750 sq. ft. for the proposed salon business. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2017 Page 3 Mr. Morrison reviewed existing conditions and zoning regulations for the site. He noted that as a property that is non-conforming to the parking regulations, the uses inside the building can continue as is. They can also change as long as the parking demand is not increased. He explained to assist with the non-conforming parking situation, the property owner secured 16 parking spaces on a vacant lot just 200 feet to the east of the subject property. Mr. Morrison said the parking situation will be improved by the salon use as peak demand time for parking of salon use is different than a typical office use. Mr. Morrison reviewed criterion for granting a variance. He stated the proposed application does meet the required criterion for granting a variance. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Roberts asked if the 3,750 sq. ft. of useable space is on the first floor only and does not include the basement. Mr. Morrison responded that the 3,750 sq. ft. of useable space is on the first floor only, and the basement is occupied by another office use in its entirety. Chair Gainsley asked what would happen if the 16 off-site parking spaces were lost. Mr. Morrison said when staff reviewed the request they did not include the 16 spaces. The applicant secured the 16 spaces on their own initiative. The Chair opened the public hearing. Patrick Crowe, applicant, stated he was available to answer any questions. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Solmer said he was favor of granting the variance. Commissioner Roberts remarked about two similar cases for that part of the zoning code. Mr. Morrison said staff plans to look at that. Commissioner Solmer made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 04-17 approving a variance from Section 36-193(c)(11) to increase the maximum allowed floor area from 2,500 sq. ft. to 3,750 sq. ft. for Salt Salon Spa. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 27, 2017 Page 4 The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. Mr. Morrison read the statement regarding appeal to the city council. The 10 day appeal period expires August 6. 6. New Business 7. Communications 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of February 22, 2018 3A Variance to the side yard for an attached garage. Location: 4317 Browndale Ave S Applicant: Andre LaTondresse, on behalf of Kevin Johnston Case No.: 18-03-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 5 foot 11 inch variance to the required 11 foot 8 inch side yard for an attached garage. REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a 5 foot, 11 inch variance to the required 11 foot 8 inch side yard for the construction of an attached garage. If approved the house and attached garage would be a total of 79.8 feet deep and located between 4.9 feet and 5.8 feet from the side lot line. LOCATION: Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 2 BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residence Existing Conditions: The property is improved with a single-family home constructed in 1939. The home has an attached two-car garage which is a tuck-under garage located on the back side of the home. A driveway extends from Browndale along the north side of the home and expands into a large courtyard in the backyard. Below is a table comparing the existing lot conditions to the minimum standards required in the R-1 Single-Family Residence District. The table shows that the existing home is legally non-conforming to the required six foot side yard. City code requires a six foot side yard, but the home has a 4.9 foot side yard. The home is also legally non-conforming to the code that requires a greater side yard for homes with a side wall longer than 40 feet. The side wall for the existing home is 49.8 feet long, which requires a 6.4 foot side yard. Please note that the additional setback required by the longer wall is added to the existing side yard (4.9 feet), not the six foot side yard required by code. R-1 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON STANDARDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED/EXISTING DIMENSION Minimum lot size: 9,000 square feet 8,946 square feet (existing) Minimum lot width: 75 feet 50 feet (existing) Minimum rear yard 25 feet 66.5 (existing) Minimum front yard 51.9 feet 52.2 feet (existing) Minimum side yard 6 feet for side walls up to 40 feet in length. 11.6 feet required for proposed 79.8 foot long sidewall. 4.9 feet with existing 49.8 foot long sidewall. 5.9 feet for proposed 79.9 foot long sidewall. Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 3 Proposal: Drawings of the proposal are attached. The applicant would like to construct an attached garage on the back side of the home. The proposed garage would access the basement of the home in a similar manner as the existing tuck-under garage. The proposed garage would not have living space above it. Instead, it would have a flat roof with a deck constructed on top of the entire roof. The garage will open to the north and would be accessed by the existing driveway. The existing tuck-under garage will be converted to a recreation room. A small bathroom and mudroom will also be added onto the backside of the house, but on the north and east side of the existing tuck-under garage. The bathroom and mudroom addition could be constructed without variances, but the addition appears to force the garage to be located farther east resulting in a larger required side yard and larger variance request. Applicable Zoning Regulations: The sections of city code that is the subject of the variance is as follows: City Code Section 36-163(f)(5) Side Yard Width: 9 feet on one yard and 6 feet on the other yard, except when there is an attached garage accessible from the street or when the lot abuts an alley, both may be 6 feet. City Code Section 36-163(f)(7) The width of the side yard abutting a building wall shall be increased two inches for each foot the length of the wall of the building exceeds 40 feet. For the purpose of subsection (f) of this section, a wall includes any building wall within ten degrees of being parallel to and abutting the side lot line of a lot. ANALYSIS: As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicant also provided an analysis of each point in the attached letter. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The proposed additions are located in the rear yard, and are not generally visible to the community. The impact is limited only to the neighbor to the south. Staff believes the proposal does not significantly impact the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the additional side yard required for side walls greater than 40 feet in length is to: 1. Enhance the aesthetic character and appearance of the city. This is accomplished in part by preserving the sense of open space in the neighbor’s backyard. The city code has several provisions designed to accomplish this. Examples include a six foot height maximum for fences, six foot height maximum for ornamental structures located within three feet of the side lot line and increased setbacks for larger structures. Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 4 Detached garages could be considered an exception to this intent, however, that exception is allowed out of necessity. Detached garages need to be of a specific size and shape, typically 24 feet by 24 feet to comfortably accommodate two cars, and they need to be located in specific areas of the lot to provide access. These two criteria are critical to a functional garage, and typically require reduced setbacks. The code, however, places limitations on the size of detached garages allowed in an attempt to limit the exception given to them. Detached garages are limited to the smaller of 25% of the back yard or 800 square feet. 2. Preserve neighborhood character, public health and safety, property values and allow all residents a reasonable use and enjoyment of property. Much of this is accomplished by moving the activity typical of a single-family home farther from the neighbor’s backyard. In addition to infringing on the sense of open space, structures typically result in some sort of activity that includes noise and the presence people. This activity infringes on a neighbor’s ability to enjoy their property. For example, garages typically include noises from running engines, auto repair, hobby’s and kids’ activities. Decks also bring human activity, typically conversation and dining. While this activity is acceptable, it becomes more of an impact on neighbor’s welfare the closer it is located to the side lot line. 3. Provide adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. The variance is not needed to preserve the property owner’s ability to have a two-car garage. A detached two-car garage could be constructed without variances. The variances are required so that the property owner can have an attached garage and a bathroom and mudroom that are constructed outside the existing footprint of the home. Staff believes the variances are contrary to the intent of the code The proposed bathroom, mudroom and garage addition is located 5 feet 11 inches closer to the side lot line than required by code and results in a building wall that is 79 feet long located 4.9 and 5.9 feet from the side lot line. The greater setback for larger buildings is required for the reasons stated above. The 79 foot long side walls are not typical of single-family homes, and granting a variance to allow a home to have a 79 foot side wall with a reduced side yard is contrary to the intent of the code. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to “Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.” The Comprehensive Plan calls for the city to explore how zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, and building height can be made more flexible to allow expansions of existing single-family homes. These directives are called out by the applicant in his letter to the Board. The variance process, however, is not the correct tool to apply these criteria. The zoning ordinance itself is based on the directives of the Comprehensive Plan along with research, and several conversations with the community, planning commission and city council. Therefore, the regulations need to be implemented as stated. The variance exists as a tool to address the situation when the application of the zoning ordinance results in a property owner being denied a right typically enjoyed by others. Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 5 Staff does not believe the Comprehensive Plan supports the requested variance. The plan supports a two-car garage, but does not go so far as to say that attached two-car garages are a priority. Detached garages are a common and legal alternative. 4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items only. Single-family homes and garages are permitted uses in the R-1 Single-Family Residence district. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Staff does not believe the property owner has a “plight” requiring a variance. The property owner can legally construct a two-car detached garage in the back yard as many of their neighbors have. The application is based on a desire to have an attached garage. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed addition is not visible from the general community with the exception of those visiting Browndale Park. However, the addition is far enough away from the park as to not create a negative impact. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations are not considered as part of this application. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This is not applicable to the application. 5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. There are no unique circumstances preventing the property owner from having a detached two-car garage. The applicant states that detached garages are required by code to be compatible to the house therefore, a detached garage constructed at this property must have a 12:12 pitch roof to match the 12:12 pitch. He continues to explain that the high roof would block views into the park. While city code requires detached garages to be compatible, this compatibility is taken in two stages. City code requires garages less than 15 feet in height to be compatible to the home. City code further defines the character only by saying that detached garages greater than 15 feet in height are required to match the roof slope and siding of the house. Detached garages less than 15 feet in height are not required to match the roof slope or siding of the house. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The BOZA has historically considered a two-car garage to be a substantial property right. As a result, the BOZA has granted variances to accommodate them when there are no legal alternatives. As noted earlier, the property owner Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 6 can legally construct a two-car detached garage. Therefore, the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. 7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. As noted above, the intent of the code is to require structures with longer side walls to be located farther from the side lot lines. The intent of this provision is to preserve the light and air to surrounding properties. The subject property benefits from the change in grade. While the long building wall runs 5.9 feet from the side lot line, the grade increases from the wall to the neighbor’s back yard thereby diminishing the impact. 8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Staff believes this criterion has not been met. As noted above, the variance is not required to alleviate a practical difficulty or plight. It is needed to gain the convenience of an attached garage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the proposed application for a 5 foot, 11 inch variance to the required 11 foot 8 inch side yard for the construction of an attached garage, mudroom and bathroom addition does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution denying the requested 5 foot, 11 inch variance to the required side yard. PREPARED BY: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator REVIEWED BY: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Proposed resolution Letter from applicant Project plans Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 7 AERIAL PHOTO Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 8 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION DENYING A 5 FOOT 11 INCH VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 11 FOOT 8 INCH SIDE YARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 4317 BROWNDALE AVE S BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On January 22, 2018, Andre LaTondresse, on behalf of the property owner Kevin Johnston applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36- 163(f)(7) to allow a 5 foot 9 inch side yard instead of the required 11 feet 8 inch side yard required in the R-1 Single-Family Residence District. 2. The property is located at 4317 Browndale Ave S and described below as follows, to wit: That part of Lot 23, lying West of the Easterly 100 feet thereof, Block 2, ”Browndale Park,” Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 18-03- VAR on February 22, 2018. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings: a. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent the construction of a two-car garage. b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. A detached garage can be constructed without a variance. c. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or difficulties under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do not exist. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 18-03-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Board of Zoning Appeals – February 22, 2018 Andre LaTondresse, 4317 Browndale Ave S Agenda Item 3A. 9 CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested 5 foot 11 inch variance to the required 11 foot 8 inch side yard required for the proposed addition to the home located at 4317 Browndale Ave S. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: February 22, 2018 Effective date: March 5, 2018 ___________________________ James Gainsley, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Variance Application Narrative EXHIBIT A 4317 Browndale Avenue S. P. 1 1/22/2018 Introduction and Overview This home, belonging to Kevin and Kate Johnston is located at 4317 Browndale Avenue S. The home was built in 1939. The home has a tuck-under 2 car garage, at the rear of the home, but the garage headroom is impracticable with only 6’-4” high overhead doors. Because of this the Johnstons do not use it for storing their vehicles. A main goal of the proposed remodeling and the reason for this Variance application is the Johnstons’ desire to transition from an unworka- ble attached garage to a functional attached garage. The remodeling will provide primary living and master bedroom suite on the main floor of the home with additional family bedrooms on the second floor. The basement will have a recrea- tion room, a bathroom, a guest bedroom and mechanical/utility spaces. Proposed additions expand the kitchen on the main floor, add a basement bathroom, and provide a mudroom and attached garage with a functional roof deck. The property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residence Zoning District. The R-1 District re- quires a minimum lot area of 9000 sq. ft. and a minimum lot width of 75’ (Sec. 36-163(f)(5)). This property has an area of x 8,946 sq. ft. but is only 50 feet wide. Like most of the properties backing up to the park, this property is quite deep and narrow relative to the R-1 standard. Because of the narrowness of the site, the only way for the Johnstons to achieve an attached garage with workable vehicular access, egress, and maneuvering space is to go straight back from the rear of the house and to make the garage as shallow as possible. The R-1 District requires a minimum 6’ side yard setback to the near-side. The existing home is 5’ from the property line and extends 59.8’ at the 5’ setback. This is accepted as an existing condition. However, the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 36-163(f)(7) further requires that the primary structure extend no more than 40’ at the designated setback after which the setback require- ment increases at 2” for every foot over 40’. This is the specific requirement from which this application is seeking a Variance. Effect of Requested Variance Upon the Health, Safety, & Welfare of the Community The requested Variance will have very limited impact on the community. The two properties that will be affected by the project are the neighbor to the south and Browndale Park. The im- pact of the proposed Variance on these properties is discussed in the following sections of this narrative. The Request is in Harmony with the General Purposes and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance The purposes of the Zoning Ordinance include, “Enhance the aesthetic character and appear- ance of the city,” and to “Provide adequate off-street parking and loading facilities.” The purpose of the residential section is, “to preserve neighborhood character, public health and safety, property values, and allow all residents a reasonable use and enjoyment of property.” The requested Variance is in harmony with these and other generally expressed purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Variance Application Narrative EXHIBIT A 4317 Browndale Avenue S. 1/22/2018 P. 2 The Request is in Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The Livable Communities Goals include: “Provide attractive public streets and spaces that con- tribute to creating connections and a sense of community.” Strategy E states: “Promote high quality design of public…open spaces that will benefit anticipated users with proper considera- tion given to use, design, maintenance, appearance, location, and accessibility of the space.” The relationship of homes to public amenities such as parks is an important consideration in the Saint Louis Park Comprehensive Plan. Parks are valued in the plan for their role as public gather- ing spaces. For this reason, sensitivity to the impact on parks is critical. The property that is the subject of this Variance request is one of about a dozen properties that back directly up into Browndale Park. Impact on the park is one of the important considerations of this discussion. The 2004-2005 Housing Summit evaluated how existing policies meet the needs of current resi- dents and neighborhoods. (p 75.) As a result, “housing goals and strategies were developed and approved by the City Council.” Among these, Goal 10 is: “Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bath- rooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.” Goal 11, Strategy B includes: “a. Implement ordinance amendments to allow home remodeling or housing redevelopment on smaller lots.” Goal 15, Strategy B includes: “Explore how zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, and building height can be made more flexible to allow expansions of existing single-family homes.” Practical Difficulties in Complying with the Zoning Ordinance As discussed in the introduction this property is located in the R-1 District. The introduction of this section of the ordinance states, “The purpose of the R-1 single-family residence district is to provide appropriately located areas for single-family living on larger lots ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling.” The reality is that this is not a “larger lot” nor are the neighboring lots. They are all tiny, narrow lots. The lot is just below the minimum square footage for the District. Its width is 66.6% of the minimum lot width of 75’. A 75’ or wider lot would generally assume a house footprint that is square or oriented to run across the lot for greatest street exposure. All of the requirements for the R-1 district are built around this reality. The homes on these narrow tiny lots are cottages and generally oriented to run into the lot with room to get a car to the rear of the property. It is logical that the R-1 re- quirements will run into difficulties when applied to the lots. In particular the (Sec. 36-163(f)(7) requirement that increases the setback at 2” per foot for side yards deeper than 40’ is much less of a problem on wider lots that have ample space to move needed functions deeper into the lot. On this lot, increasing the side yard depth on one side means running up against the opposite lot line. Adding to homes on these narrow lots, of ne- cessity, means extending straight back in most cases. A Variance in this case does not alter the essential character of the location, it simply acknowl- edges the essential character of the location. It is not an economic consideration, it is a space and function consideration. Variance Application Narrative EXHIBIT A 4317 Browndale Avenue S. 1/22/2018 P. 3 Circumstances Unique to the Shape, Topography, Water Conditions, or Other Physical Condi- tions of the property As illustrated below, complying with this requirement to widen the side yard setback once be- yond 40’ makes the attached garage impossible to achieve. Illustration 1 – Impact of Side Yard setback The Johnstons’ alternatives are as follows: 1) build the attached garage as designed, (Requires Variance), 2.) rotate the attached garage design away from the south property line to comply with the setback requirement, (Compliant Option A above), 3.) build a detached garage near the north side and rear of the property, (Compliant Option B above). Option A This option has very limited viability due to the narrowness of the site. There is inade- quate space to allow turn-around in front of the garage, and even direct entry would require multiple maneuvers to avoid a second car. As illustrated below, this situation is made even worse if the garage is turned square to the house. Illustration 2 – Option A - Inadequate vehicular maneuvering space This arrangement would almost certainly demand backing either in from the street to the gar- age or out from the garage to the street. Both of these are a risk in a neighborhood with small children adjacent to a park. Variance Application Narrative EXHIBIT A 4317 Browndale Avenue S. 1/22/2018 P. 4 Option B This option, the detached garage, has several drawbacks. First, it does not accomplish an attached garage which is an important goal on the project. Second, it takes up a significant portion of the existing back yard. Third, the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 36-163(d)(4)a) requires that “all detached garages…shall be compatible in design and materials to the principal building on the parcel. The existing house is characterized by 12:12 gables. A detached garage of simi- lar design would be effectively a one and a half story structure and would create a significant obstacle to the view into Browndale Park not only for this home but for the homes on either side (see Illustration 3), whereas the low profile of the of the basement garage and roof deck blocks no one’s view into the park. Finally, the rear yards and lawns of the properties along the west side of Browndale Park run directly into the park and the homes and other structures on these properties effectively define the spacial edge of the park. A garage in this location would create a significant visual intrusion on this edge the park (see Illustration 4 – next page), Illustration 3 – Option B – Impact of detached garage on view into park Variance Application Narrative EXHIBIT A 4317 Browndale Avenue S. 1/22/2018 P. 5 Illustration 4 – Option B – Visual lntrusion of detached garage into park space Granting the Variance is Necessary for the Preservation and Enjoyment of a Substantial Prop- erty Right The home currently has a non-functional attached (tuck-under) garage. The goal of the Vari- ance is to achieve a functional attached garage while providing the least impact on adjacent properties including Browndale Park. Granting the Variance will not Impair Surrounding Properties, Increase Congestion, Increase Danger of Fire, or Endanger Public Safety As stated, the two properties that will be affected by the granting of this Variance are the neighbor to the south and Browndale Park. The south side of the proposed garage structure and roof deck will be visible to the neighboring property to the south. (See South Elevation on Sheet 2. of the submittal drawings). Since this is an extension of the basement of the primary residence nearly half of this wall is below grade. Variance Application Narrative EXHIBIT A 4317 Browndale Avenue S. 1/22/2018 P. 6 The main floor level of the home to the south is approximately two feet higher than the John- stons’ home. Therefore, granting the requested Variance will not cause the garage to intrude significantly into the neighbors view of the park. Referencing the east elevation (See East Elevation on Sheet 2. of submittal drawings), the visual impact of the proposed additions is minimal in regard to the impact on the rear yard and view from the park. The main and upper levels of the home are virtually unchanged. The basement of the home would extend forward to create the proposed garage with the deck above. The spacial impact from any point in the park is not significantly different than that which would re- sult from a deck in this location. If the Variance is denied, leaving the Johnston no workable alternative other than a detached garage, the impact on these properties would be significantly greater as demonstrated in Illus- trations 3 and 4 above. Granting the Variance would not increase congestion, increase fire danger, or endanger public safety in any foreseeable way. Granting the Variance will not Merely Serve as a Convenience but is Necessary to Alleviate a Practical Difficulty Providing enclosed storage for vehicles is a stated goal of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. A functional garage is not a mere convenience. The granting of this Vari- ance would provide the Johnston an alternative for a workable, attractive, attached garage that would have minimal impact on one neighboring property and Browndale Park. Denying this Variance would leave the Johnstons with no alternative but to build a detached garage that would have significant negative impact on their property, both neighboring properties and Browndale Park. The value of granting this Variance would appear to be clear. Conclusion We are requesting a Variance from the side yard setback increase required over forty-foot length in order to achieve the attached garage shown, since the existing attached garage is not workable. The Variance will enable a very low visual impact solution. Even though a detached two car garage could be build without a Variance, this would have a much greater negative vis- ual impact on this property, that of the neighbors either side, and on Browndale Park. There- fore, approving this Variance request will result in the most favorable outcome for the John- stons and the whole community. Variance approval with the condition that no future enclosed space can be added above the garage is totally acceptable as there are no plan to do this. J. Andre LaTondresse AIA JAL Architects LLC ISSUE DATE1/22/18DRAWN BYJALPROJECTJOHNSTONVARIANCEPROJECT NO.17.07PROJECT ADDRESSOF 44317 Browndale Ave SSt. Louis Park, MN 55424KEVIN & KATEJOHNSTONVARIANCE APPLICATION FOR1 PROPOSED KITCHEN /BATH ADDITION PROPOSED GARAGE /DECK ADDITION SURVEYThat part of Lot 23, Block 2, BROWNDALE PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota,lying Westerly of the Easterly 100 feet thereof. ISSUE DATE1/22/18DRAWN BYJALPROJECTJOHNSTONVARIANCEPROJECT NO.17.07PROJECT ADDRESSOF 44317 Browndale Ave SSt. Louis Park, MN 55424KEVIN & KATEJOHNSTONVARIANCE APPLICATION FOR20'-0"7'-8"23'-10"13'-0"5'-6" EXISTING PLANTER - REBUILD WITH FRONT ENTRANCE AREA 30'-0" WINDOW WELL WINDOW WELL TRENCH DRAIN 1 main level plan scale: 1/4" = 1'- 0" plan north 2 lower level plan scale: 1/4" = 1'- 0" DOWN UP TRASH RECYC. GAS GRILL 2 FLOOR PLANSTO DAYLIGHT DOWN 23'-4"6'-8" EGRESS WINDOW BATH REC. ROOM LAUNDRY NEW WINDOWS TO DAYLIGHT HALLWAY GUEST BEDROOM UP UP DOWN MASTER BEDROOM HALLWAY MSTR. BATH KITCHEN FOYER UP 2R UP 2R NEW DECK FL: AZEK DECKING NEW WINDOWS REMOVE WINDOW BRICK-IN OPENING SL. GL. DR.DINING ROOM ENTRY TERRACE EXISTING PLANTER - REBUILD WITH FRONT TERRACE AREA MUD RM. NEW GARAGE MECH. LIVING ROOM NEW CLOSET - OUTFITTING T.B.D.EXISTING BEAM STORAGE SUMMARY OF WORK - MAIN LEVEL LIVING ROOM ARCHWAY TO FOYER OTHER? DINING ROOM MODIFY WALL TO KITCHEN OTHER? KITCHEN REMOVE DIVIDING WALL EXPANSION TO EAST NEW WOOD FLOOR ALL NEW FINISHES ALL NEW CABINETS ALL NEW APPLIANCES HALLWAY DOORS TO BATH & BEDROOM REPAIRS TO FINISHES & FLOORS MASTER BATH RECONFIGURE TO SHARED SPACE NEW TILE FLOOR NEW TILE SHOWER ALL NEW FINISHES NEW VANITY CABINET ALL NEW FIXTURES MASTER BEDROOM RECONFIGURED ENTRANCE RECONFIGURED CLOSET NEW CARPET FLOOR ALL NEW FINISHES NEW WINDOWS & SL. GL. DR. LIGHTING - TBD HVAC - MODIFY AS REQ. SUMMARY OF WORK - LOWER LEVEL GUEST BEDROOM ADD CLOSET ADD EGRESS WINDOW WINDOW WELL - DRAINAGE? OTHER? HALLWAY OPEN UP TO REC. ROOM DOORS TO LAUNDRY & UNDERSTAIR REPAIRS TO FINISHES & FLOORS FAMILY ROOM COLUMN RECONFIG? CEILING HGTS/DUCTS RECONFIG? NEW FLOOR SLAB INSULATE EXTERIOR WALLS EXPAND OPENING TO HALLWAY REPAIR WALL - SE CORNER NEW WINDOWS BATHROOM NEW SPACE BELOW KITCHEN NEW TILE FLOOR NEW TILE SHOWER ALL NEW FINISHES NEW VANITY CABINET ALL NEW FIXTURES MUDROOM NEW SPACE UNDER DECK ALL NEW FINISHES NEW LOCKERS/CUBBIES GARAGE NEW SPACE UNDER DECK NOTE 6'-6" HIGH O.H. DOORS LEVEL OF FINISHES? FLOOR FINISH? LIGHTING - TBD HVAC - MODIFY AS REQ. SEE SHT. 2 FOR SUMMARY OF EXTERIOR WORK RECOMMENDED STEP AND TERRACE MODIFICATIONS (FUTURE) PROPOSED BASEMENT ADDITION 1'-0"20'-0"EXISTING CONSTRUCTION 1'-0"NEW WALL CONST. EXIST. WALL CONST. EXIST. WALL TO REMOVE LEGEND NEW WALL CONST. EXIST. WALL CONST. EXIST. WALL TO REMOVE LEGEND PROPOSED BASEMENT & DECK ADDITION EXISTING CONSTRUCTION NEW WINDOW23'-4"6'-8" 30'-0" 0 5 10 15 20 ISSUE DATE1/22/18DRAWN BYJALPROJECTJOHNSTONVARIANCEPROJECT NO.17.07PROJECT ADDRESSOF 44317 Browndale Ave SSt. Louis Park, MN 55424KEVIN & KATEJOHNSTONVARIANCE APPLICATION FOR6'-6"1 north elevation scale: 1/4" = 1'- 0" 3 east elevation scale: 1/4" = 1'- 0" 3EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSTUCCO STUCCO ALUM. CLAD WOOD WDWS. STUCCO ALUM. CLAD WOOD WDWS. LAMINATED ASPHALT SHINGLES STUCCO STUCCO 2 south elevation scale: 1/4" = 1'- 0" LAMINATED ASPHALT SHINGLES ALUM. CLAD WOOD WDWS. STUCCO BRICK-IN EXISTING OPENING STUCCO PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION NEW CONSTRUCTION EXIST. CONSTRUCTION BEYOND NEW EGRESS WDW. AND WINDOW WELL EXIST. GLASS BLK. WDW. AND WINDOW WELL WINDOW REPLACEMENTWINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT ALUM. CLAD WOOD WDW. ALUM. CLAD SL. GL. DR. DORMER WINDOW REPLACEMENT EXIST. WINDOW EXIST. WINDOW EXIST. ENTRY DOOR NEW COPPER CAP NEW COPPER CAP REFACE EXIST. BAY REFACE EXIST. BAY REFACE EXIST. BAY REFACE EXIST. BAY SEE PLAN FOR PLANTER REDESIGN NEW ALUM. CLAD WOOD WDWS. AND WINDOW WELL EXIST. CONSTRUCTION EXIST. FNDN. REPAIR EXISTING ROOF - PROVIDE COST OF REROOFING WITH LAMINATED ASPHALT SHINGLES EXISTING ROOF - PROVIDE COST OF REROOFING WITH LAMINATED ASPHALT SHINGLES WINDOW REPLACEMENT WINDOW REPLACEMENT PROPOSED ADDITION EXIST. CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ROOF - PROVIDE COST OF REROOFING WITH LAMINATED ASPHALT SHINGLES LAMINATED ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW CONSTR. EXIST. BEYOND REPAIR & REPOINT EXISTING BRICK INSTALL REPELLANT REPAIR & REPOINT EXISTING BRICK INSTALL REPELLANT REPAIR & REPOINT EXISTING BRICK INSTALL REPELLANT SUMMARY OF EXTERIOR WORK DECK NEW DECK, STAIR, RAILINGS AZEk DECK & RAILING BRICK LIMITED REPOINTING/REPAIR APPLY REPELLANT PROVIDE SUPPORT OVER KITCHEN EXTERIOR SIDING. STUCCO COULD BE LAP SIDING ON MAIN LEVEL ROOFING NEW ROOF @ KITCHEN/MBR. REPLACE EXISTING - WHEN? WINDOWS NEW MARVIN CLAD WINDOWS REPLACE EXSITING??? NEW WINDOWS TO BE SDL W/ BRICK-MOLD FRONT STEPS/RETAINING WALLS/PLANTER EVENTUAL REPLACEMENT CONSIDER LIMESTONE STEPS & WALL STONE SEE SHEET 1 . APPROX. MAIN FLOOR LEVEL OF HOME TO THE SOUTH APPROX. MAIN FLOOR SEATED EYE-LEVEL IN HOME TO THE SOUTH APPROX. MAIN FLOOR STANDING EYE- LEVEL IN HOME TO THE SOUTH APPROX. GRADE AT PROPERTY LINE PER SURVEY SWALE BETWEEN WALL AND PROPERTY LINE 0 5 10 15 20