CC PACKET 05142019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Our Home Our home was built in 1952, 20 years before the zoning code and 41 years before a lot coverage ordinance was adopted. In the 50’s, single story homes with detached garages were customary in St. Anthony. 70 years later this continues to be the predominant home type in our neighborhood. During our remodel, we were able to maintain this neighborhood context while also preserving the façade of our home by building off the back of our house versus building up. What seemed like a logical idea at the time, is proving to be a detriment to us as our modest 15’ foot addition constitutes 15% (476 sf) of our allowed lot coverage with the total house coverage now being 45%. Lot Coverage From the timeline provided (Appendix A), a pattern of allowing more lot coverage within Saint Anthony is apparent. After adoption of the lot coverage ordinance in 1993, it was revised 2 times to increase coverage over the next 7 years, with the latest revision allowing 40% coverage to smaller lots. From our research, the ordinance was revised to accommodate lots like ours and many others in our neighborhood with single story houses and detached garages. The cutoff for 40% coverage was picked intentionally to exclude lots developed after the minimum lot size of 9000 sf became part of the zoning code (as far as we can tell). A few things of note, a 1-story home requires more lot coverage/square foot than a 2-story home of the same square footage. Detached garages also occupy more space than an attached garage, as do side-entry garages which require larger driveways than alley or street facing garages. More specifically, building code for a side entry driveway states a minimum length of 30’ with a suggested length of 35’. Our driveway is currently 32’ (reasonable) and accounts for 7.3% of our allowed lot coverage. Or 13% total when our garage is added in. While our lot is barely (3%) over the threshold (see Appendix B), it can easily be compared to the same size (60’ wide) lots on our block that are less than 9000 sf as all house widths are maxed at 45’ (15’ in setbacks). Similar lot sizes, similar house sizes, but our lot has the unique component of being longer (rear lot line not parallel) which puts it over the seemingly random 9000 sf threshold. This coverage percentage becomes more baffling for us when considering a longer lot requires more sidewalk to get from the front to the back of the lot (detached garage) but the code allows us much less (up to 10%) coverage than most of these same size lots. When researching “zoning amendment”, we found the following that is a main factor for granting relief from an ordinance: The effect that the ordinance has on your property value and the value of the nearby property. Granting most of the same width smaller lots in a neighborhood 10% more coverage than our larger lot qualifies. We can put a price to it after receiving a $129,000 improvement value on our proposed property taxes for the addition that again equated to 15% coverage increase. That would make an additional 10% of coverage worth approximately $86,000 in property value. The commission has denied our lot coverage variance as they didn’t want to set a precedent. By never allowing a “precedent”, a reverse intent is set that discourages neighborhood reinvestment which directly conflicts with the city’s comprehensive plan. No lot coverage variances mean home improvements are now at the expense of hardscapes (sidewalk, patio, etc.) or at the detriment to neighborhood character. For example, adding 15’ (2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom) onto our small 3-bedroom 2-bathroom home will no longer allow us to have reasonable sidewalk access from the front to the back of our home as we previously did. We are sure this will be missed when we attempt to navigate our 2 small children in a stroller from Pahl Ave to our garage in the alley. If said variance were granted and a precedent set, it could be deemed a “good” precedent because it is addressing an irrationality in the code. In the future, the NEW exception would only apply to lots over 9000 sf with similar circumstances (single story homes with detached garage). This thinking allows the variance to be granted with sound reasoning and limited expansion to other situations as it was granted based solely on the lot’s uniqueness and not just lot size. Even better would be the city amending the code to allow all lots over 9000 sf the greater of 3600 sf (8,999 sf x 40%) OR 35% for lot coverage so that homeowners with larger lots do not receive less coverage than smaller lots. A code amendment could also prevent homeowners with similar circumstances from going through the same measures or worse (repeal in court) than we have so far. 42