Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/03/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MARCH 24, 2016 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: July 23, 2015 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings A. Variance: Variance for Fence Height in a Front Yard Location: 4120 West 28th Street Applicant: Eric and Johanna Rossbach Case No. 16-10-VAR 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business 7. Communications 8. 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 952/924-2572 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2015 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on July 23, 2015, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Paul Roberts, Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Justin Kaufman Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Roberts called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2015 Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of May 28, 2015. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Front Setback Location: 3771 Kipling Avenue South Applicant: Beth and Zach Klawitter Case No.: 15-23-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He discussed that they proposal is to construct an addition to the front of the house and to complete this, they need a four-foot variance to the required 34.9’ front yard setback requirement. The property is zoned R2, single family residential and is approximate 6,780 sq. ft. in area. The lot width is 50’ and the minimum is 60’. The lot is approximate 135’ deep. The property has a detached garage located in the back with access out to Kipling. The proposed addition is to enclose the entryway and the kitchen addition to the side. The floor plan is included in the report and shows the existing and proposed conditions. They are primarily looking at the kitchen area. They currently have a pass-through kitchen with appliances and counters on the interior wall and some cupboards and a sink on the exterior wall and the covered stoop to the right of the kitchen. The counter and cupboard space in the existing kitchen compared to the proposal is relatively the Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 2 same before and after the addition. The primary change was the addition of an island in the kitchen and the walk space behind it, which separated it from the kitchen and an enclosed entryway to the right of the kitchen. The front yard setback requirement came into play in 2005, after the result of a study that took several months. Before the existing regulation came into play, they used to have an averaging formula looking at the properties 150’ in either direction and averaged the existing setbacks to come up with what they had. The disadvantage of that was it wasn’t very intuitive, but also if you have a house that is out front, all of the other ones could never match it. There was also the question of equity and fairness. Alternatives were considered and they looked at every block in the city to find out what each block was like. While there are many similarities, there were many differences block to block. When St. Louis Park was developed, it was the first house that was built on that block that determined the setback for that block and all of the other houses had to match it or be further back. That was why there are different setbacks from block to block. Many cities determined the setback with the zoning. They looked at that as an option when they did the study, but the feedback was overwhelming that they didn’t want a standardized setback because part of the character of St. Louis Park is how it developed over time. The front setback is a key part of that character. That option was thrown out. The next option they came up with was what they adopted today. They look at the house closest to the front property line to establish the setback for that block. It works out pretty good. In the R2 district, there is a minimum of 25’ and it is the greater of the two. There are a couple exceptions that were introduced at that time. The open covered porch was included as an exception to the front setback rule and that was a result of character of St. Louis Park and the intent of having eyes on the street. They are considered to be aesthetically pleasing and encourage people to go in the front yard and engage one another and keep their eyes on the street. Another exclusion is the enclosed entryway. A lot of houses go right into the living room and it is nice to have a little space out front where you can have an enclosed area for a closet and put shoes. They debated and ended up on 5’ x 8’. As they look at the block that was the subject of today’s application, the existing setback to the North the houses line up. As you go to the South, it steps back about five feet. You see a couple bump outs and those are enclosed entryways. They measure this setback to the main wall of the house. The neighboring house to the North is shown to match up to the applicants and as you extend south, it matches with the front of the entryway, but that is an exception. The variance is required for the kitchen portion. Staff is recommending denial of the application and the findings are listed in the report. There was a petition submitted from the neighbors in support of the variance request. Chair Roberts noted the petition would be submitted as Exhibit A into the public record. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 3 Zach Klawitter, applicants, stated in addition to the petition, they had letters from neighbors on Kipling to be made part of the record (Exhibits B, C, D). Beth Klawitter stated the reason they were appealing was because they love where they live and love the neighborhood. They want to stay in St. Louis Park. They have three kids under six and it was important to them as a family. They love their house and have been there for eight years and have great relationships with their neighbors. It was pointed out that it was only the island, but it was more than that. It was part of the flow of the home and where they gather. They also use the space for family celebrations. Mr. Klawitter added that they moved into an entry-level house and had done a lot of improvements and remodeling and had done it right. They had increased the property value. They had the support of their neighbors. The last room of the house that needed work was the kitchen. They had looked at many options and couldn’t do anything but move toward the street. It was the last option and would not be intrusive to the neighbors. Commissioner Gainsley asked if they felt there were no alternative proposals that would not require a variance? Mr. Klawitter replied no. Commissioner Solmer asked if they had looked into the possibility of relocating the kitchen? Ms. Klawitter replied they had and Sicora Building came in with different design potentials and this was the best recommendation from the designer for what they were trying to accomplish. Because the kitchen is in the front of the house, in order for them to move the kitchen anywhere else, it would require extensive relocation of mechanicals and would not be possible with a growing family. Allison Landers, Sicora Building Solution for Small Houses designer, stated she does design for resident in St. Louis Park and people go to her to find solutions for small homes. In the past, a lot of people have felt that bigger is better. She had worked with a lot of clients with ramblers and relocating kitchens by flipping them to the other side of the stairs and it is very expensive. She tries to have small steps and small pieces and try to be efficient and sustainable. They are trying not to relocate the kitchen and maintain the integrity of the home. Character had been brought up and Sicora Homes is known for their character in the community. They don’t do really giant additions and take pride in craftsmanship and small and petite solutions for growing families. They try to be efficient with their designs and bigger isn’t always better. Commissioner Gainsley asked if she was knowledgeable with the zoning ordinance? Ms. Landers replied she would never claim expertise in something Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 4 that she didn’t do every single day. She was here to represent why they designed what they did. Chair Roberts opened the public hearing. As no one else was present wishing to speak, Chair Roberts closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gainsley explained that the problem was the front yard aspect was almost “black letter” law and cast in concrete. There was no way to get around it. What they were doing did not fall into any of the exceptions and there were no practical difficulties with rivers or rocks and there was no hardship. It was a matter of being the way the owner wanted to go and what the designer designed. If they did it, it would be contrary to the Compressive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Since they didn’t have a choice, he could not approve a variance for this. Commissioner Solmer thanked Mr. Morrison for the historical background of how they got here on the ordinance. That tells there were previous struggles on expanding toward the street and the intent of the current ordinance is to make a final decision on that and he didn’t think they wanted to reopen that topic. Commissioner Bloyer agreed and remembered the history of front yard debate. The only thing that gave her pause was that they didn’t have any options and that was the one thing that bothered her about this. She was only thinking of the water being a huge problem and not even the mechanicals. She would like to see there being a way to do it, but at the moment she hadn’t heard anything that would let her do it either. Chair Roberts agreed with the rest of the board members. They are a judicial board and have to look at law in front of them. They could all understand what they were trying to accomplish and have empathy for what they were trying to do, but their job was to look at the ordinances and the zoning to come up with the correct solution based on that. He didn’t see another way for them to do it based on the zoning. They have use of the house and use of the property. There is nothing wrong with how the property is laid out that was preventing this, but the zoning calls for the front yard setback to be such as it. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt a resolution denying an application for a 4.0 foot variance to the required 34.9 foot front yard at 3771 Kipling Avenue South. The motion to deny was approved on a vote of 4-0. Commissioner Gainsley noted that the applicants always have the right of appeal. Unofficial Minutes Board of Zoning Appeals July 23, 2015 Page 5 Chair Roberts stated that there is a 10-day appeal process where they can appeal to the City Council. Mr. Morrison noted an appeal needed to be made to the Assistant Zoning Administrator. They had ten days from today. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Morrison reviewed previous BOZA cases and Council actions. 8. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amy Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of March 24, 2016 4A Variance for Fence Height in a Front Yard Location: 4120 W 28th Street Applicant: Eric and Johanna Rossbach Case No.: 16-10-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving an application for a 6 foot fence in a front yard at 4120 W 28th Street. REQUEST: The Applicants, Eric and Johanna Rossbach are requesting a variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence in the front yard of a property zoned as R-1 Single Family Residential. The current height maximum for a fence in the front yard is 4 feet. LOCATION: Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS:  The home was constructed in 1940.  It is a two-story single family home, approximately 3,743 square feet.  The property is located on a corner lot with frontage on Inglewood Avenue and a side yard abutting West 28th Street. The rear lot line is adjacent to an alley and the side yard located to the north abuts a residential property. R-1 DISTRICT STANDARDS COMPARISON STANDARDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED/EXISTING DIMENSION Minimum lot size: 9,000 square feet 7,841 square feet Minimum lot width: 85 feet 60 feet (existing) Minimum Front Yard (west) 40 feet 40 feet Minimum Rear Yard (east) 25 feet 40 feet Minimum Side Yard (north) 5 feet 5 feet Minimum Side Yard Abutting a Street (south) 15 feet 19 feet BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL: The applicant purchased the property in September of 2015. The house has four bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a detached two-car garage abutting an alley. The home was built in 1940 and is situated in the northeast corner of the property, leaving a large setback on the west and south property lines, and a minimal setback along the north and east property lines. The property currently has a sun room located on the west side of the principal building, but lacks private outdoor living space. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 3 The applicants propose to erect a fence located in the front and side yard of the property to create a private outdoor living space. The applicants stated that due to the location of the principal building on a corner lot, there is no adequate outdoor living space in the rear yard. The applicants stated they have reviewed the layout of the home with professional landscapers to determine an alternative solution to a fence, but no adequate solution has been found. ZONING ANALYSIS: Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards. As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff has provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicants have 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 safety and welfare of the neighboring property is not impacted. The neighbor’s property does not have a driveway or other improvement that could be impacted by the fence. Staff finds that this proposal does not impact the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants state the proposed fence maintains the intent of the ordinance because of the odd layout of the property. Given the odd positioning of the home in the northeast corner, there is less than a 5’ side yard setback located behind the house where a backyard would typically be located. The applicant believes that the creation of a 6’ privacy fence in the front yard of a corner lot (along Inglewood Avenue) will achieve the goal of privacy without significant impact to neighboring properties. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. 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.” Other amenities is further defined in the Comprehensive Plan as “den/forth bedroom or porch or superior architecture”. The addition of private outdoor living space could be an added value to this property and will not alter the current use as Low Density Residential. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 4 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. The single family home is a permitted use in the R-1 zoning district. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The applicants assert that this is correct as the house was built in its current configuration in 1940 and he acquired ownership in September of 2015. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The fence material will be made of high quality wood (see attachments) that the applicant asserts will heighten the value of the property. The fence location will meet all visibility requirements and neighboring property owners have provided letters of support for this project. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations do not appear to be a factor with the request. 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. Staff believes the location of the house on the property presents a unique circumstance. The location in the northeast corner abutting an alley and residential property prevents the owner from utilizing the fence location designated by the zoning code. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. Staff also believes the narrow lot width is unique. The minimum corner lots in the area are 85-135 feet in width. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The applicants have stated without the 6 foot privacy fence, they are not able to create a private outdoor living space on their property. The intent of the fence is to create a backyard that can be enjoyed by the applicants and their family within their property. Therefore, staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. 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. The proposed wooden privacy fence does not present any concern for the impairment of light and air to surround properties nor the addition of congestion, fire, and endangerment of public safety. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 5 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 the side yard is the only opportunity to provide a private open space for the property that is accessible from the house. Staff believes this criterion has been satisfied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that all 8 criteria have been satisfied for the proposed variance. Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution approving the variance to Section 36-74(d)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard instead of the allowed 4 foot high maximum, subject to the 50 foot visibility triangle being maintained at the corner of Inglewood Avenue and West 28th Street. PREPARED BY: Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photo Property Photos Proposed resolution Letter from applicant Fence Material Photos Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 6 AERIAL PHOTO Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 7 PROPERTY PHOTOS Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 8 Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 9 Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 10 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-74(d)(2) OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT HIGH FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD INSTEAD OF THE ALLOWED 4 FOOT HIGH MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1, SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AT 4021 WEST 28TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On February 22, 2016, Eric and Johnna Rossbach applied for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-74 (d) (2) of the zoning ordinance code to allow a six foot fence in the front yard rather than the allowed four feet maximum. 2. The property is located at 4120 W 28th Street and described below as follows, to wit: [That part of the abandoned right of way of the Great Northern Railway Company in Government Lot Numbered 2, Section Numbered 31, Township Numbered 29, Range Numbered 24 and that part of vacated Cedar Street as platted in Block Numbered 3, Cedarhurst, described as follows: Beginning at an intersection of the North line of West 28th Street with the East line of Inglewood Avenue as opened, thence North along the East line of said Inglewood Avenue a distance of 60 feet; thence East parallel with the alley as opened through said Block Numbered 3, and the extension to the North line of West 28th Street; thence West along the North line of West 28th Street to the point of beginning, including any portion of any street or alley adjacent thereto, vacated or to be vacated. Abstract property] Hennepin County, Minnesota 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 16- 10-VAR on March 24, 2016. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance meets 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. The Board of Zoning Appeals has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. Board of Zoning Appeals – March 24, 2016 Eric and Johanna Rossbach, 4120 W. 28th Street 11 b. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. c. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. d. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 16-10-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. 6. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to initiate the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for the variance from Section 36-74 (d)(2) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard instead of the allowed 4 foot high maximum, subject to the 50 foot visibility triangle being maintained at the corner of W 28th Street and Inglewood Avenue is granted based upon the findings set forth above. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: March 24, 2016 Effective date: March 31, 2016 ___________________________ Justin Kaufman, Vice-Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner Memo To: Members of The Board of Zoning Appeals From: Eric James Rossbach cc: Nicole Mardell Date: February 23, 2016 Re: Fence Variance | 4120 West 28th Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 55416 As required and outlined on signature page of the Variance Application, I have addressed the following items which support the requested variance: 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community.  Applicant Response: The requested variance does not have a negative impact on the health, safety or welfare of the community. Visibility for immediate neighbors will not be restricted. There are no driveways of adjacent properties that will be affected. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.  Applicant Response: My wife and I purchased the property in September of 2015. The property sits on 0.18 acres, was constructed in 1940 and is located in an R-1 Single Family Zoning District. The current use is a single family dwelling with the home currently having 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and a detached 2 car garage. As shown in the aerial, the property is on the NE corner of 28th Street West & Ingelwood Avenue and is situated in the furthest NE corner of the lot which presents virtually a zero setback from the northern property line (see attached photos); further there is an alley adjacent to the eastern property line. Given how the home is situated on the lot with no back-yard and furthermore that the front of our house and main front door faces 28th street, our intent is to create a backyard by installing a 6’ high privacy fence which cannot be achieved by installing a 4’ high fence. We have reviewed the layout of the home with multiple landscapers and other professionals to determine if there is an alternative solution that would not require a variance with no luck. The fence will meet all other requirements outlined by the city’s zoning ordinance. 2 3. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan  Applicant Response: The property’s current use is consistent with the comp plan which guides the property as Low Density Residential. Therefore, the requested variance will have no impact on any future plans the city has for the property. 4. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. This means that: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is described. A variance can be requested for dimensional items  Applicant Response: This is correct. Current zoning is single family residential and the variance will not affect that zoning; it is also consistent with the comp plan. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner.  Applicant Response: This is correct. We purchased the home in its current configuration. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.  Applicant Response: The fence material will be made of wood (see attached photo’s) and be a 6’ high privacy fence with total linear footage of +/- 130’; it will be installed by a reputable fencing contractor located in the Twin Cities metro area. The fence will meet all corner lot requirements related to the visibility triangle. Attached is an aerial showing the general location of the fence. The character of the property and immediately adjacent properties will be benefitted. Immediate neighbors are in support of this requested variance. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.  Applicant Response: Confirmed. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.  Applicant Response: Not applicable. 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.  Applicant Response: This is very accurate. Given the shape of the site and how the home was constructed there is not a location to install a 6’ privacy fence. As shown in the corresponding attachments, the building is located on the NE corner of the lot. There is less than 3’ from the northern exterior wall to the property line which does not allow for a back yard. Under current city code, a 6’ high fence is allowable along 28th street; however as you can see that is the location of the main front door including the mailbox. The fence will enclose an area on the western side of our home. We currently have a sun room on this side of the house and intend to create double doors for access directly from our house into the backyard. We feel the request is within reason allows us the the 3 opportunity to create a backyard given the circumstances and dimension of the property/lot. 6. The granted of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.  Applicant Response: This is very accurate. Without approval of this variance my family’s opportunity for enjoyment of our property is not achieved. The intent is to create a “backyard” with privacy, which is not achieved under the current regulations of a 4’ high fence. Attached are photographs showing the location of the current front door as well as the limited area to the north of the property. This is virtually a zero setback. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonable increase congestion, increase the danger or fire or endanger public safety.  Applicant Response: Attached are photo’s showing the type of fence we intend to install. It will be a wooden privacy fence and will present no endangerment to public safety. It will be professionally installed to the highest standard. Our immediate neighbors are in favor of this request, with no negative impact to their property. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.  Applicant Response: This variance will allow us the opportunity to have adequate privacy that we will otherwise not be able to achieve due to a lack of proper area.