While the new garage design appears to present no issue or impact on surrounding property and setting the structure further back from the rear property line should help overall with alley visibility. But staff does have concerns about the reorientation of the vehicle access doors towards the alley which would leave very little room for maneuvering. Vehicle access doors would be located within the rear the required rear yard here. And vehicles may need to back out into the alley with no visibility. The new garage would substantially line up with the neighboring garage across the alley which would create hazardous conditions.

This proposal is not just a preferred layout, it's the best solution that we found to meaningfully reduce the nonconformity while maintaining a safe and reasonable use of the property. So, um, this is kind of the key existing condition today. About 91 square feet of the garage extend into that required setback. The garage is also directly on the property line. So the current condition is both more encroaching and more constrained than what we're proposing. So under our proposal that encroachment is reduced from approximately 91 square ft to approximately 9 square feet. So, roughly a 90% um reduction in the non-conforming area.

I would argue the maneuvering they're doing now is way more dangerous to everybody around them, neighbors, pedestrians, everybody walking by. I would I would argue that staff did a really good job on it and sent it to us and this is exactly what we're here to do.

Attached garages are an accessory use. The zoning code standards regulate attached garage width to ensure such uses are subordinate in design and purpose to the principal structure. A garage comprising 96% of the width of the structure is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance or the comprehensive plan. The requested variance in this regards is not the minimum relief necessary from the code standards to enable enclosed parking on the property.

The need for this variance is based on the property's front lot line designation which we were just discussing not long ago. Washurn Avenue is designated as the front lot line despite the home facing Bedet Macauska Parkway. The home's practical frontage and entrance face Bedet Macauska Parkway not Washurn Avenue. There is an associated zoning code impact. This designation activates zoning section 550.340 limiting garage size and layout facing the front lot line.

I do find some practical difficulties just with the parkway restrictions, the no alley. They're not asking to increase the curb cut, which I appreciate. So, I think the risk to to folks commuting through it or walking through it isn't as isn't that risky. I get we're doing the percentage of the actual face of the facade restriction, but because the house is orientated towards a road that existed after the platting was put in place, I think we said 1931 was when the house was built, then the parkway was built after that. So, there's no consideration to the the house's construction prior to that. It was just looking at a lake. So, I I do see there's some practical difficulties.

The intent of the ordinance is to restrict primary structures from their required yards and permit less obstructive features within the required yard. staff finds the proposed encroachment significantly diverts from the spirit and intent of the ordinance, an open front porch could be constructed and would provide the desired gathering space and not necessitate a variance. Uh the second finding is not met.

This house is the only house on the block without a porch and the proposed porch would help the home fit more closely with the established character of the block. A front porch is part of how neighbors interact in Minneapolis, especially on warm summer evenings like we're enjoying now. The practical difficulty comes from an unusual condition on this side of the block. The front yards are extraordinarily deep uh at the at the near neighbors, roughly 2 and 1 half to four times the standard uh statute depth of 20 ft. Uh because of that, the front yard increased rule creates a self-reinforcing setback that makes it difficult to add the kind of porch that is otherwise common or ubiquitous in the neighborhood.

So just to make sure in terms of like the the enclosed porch to habit is now if we approve this variance the enclosed porch will then be considered a habitable space which means that the applicant could also enclose that space and transform it into a living space that is an addition to their home and also build above it unless we had the condition that Mr. Ellis just suggested around a hypothetical condition around not having it as not allowing them to build above it without another variance.

The existing dwelling is located less than 3 ft to the north property line and was established prior to the city's first designoning ordinance in 1924. The historic age of the home and structural layout create issues with additions to the south of the structure. These conditions were created prior to the applicant's interest in the property and are not solely economic in nature.

The side addition or rear edition offset to the south would create roof disongruence, significantly alter the street presence and create extreme circulation difficulties for the interior spaces. The property has made significant investment in solar panels on their south facing roof and has two primary AC compressors located at the southeast corner of the house. Both of those uh both of these added the functional challenges and proposed solutions addressed by the additions are specific to the historic circumstances of the northeast corner of the house and those were all well addressed I think by the city.

The there are no unique features of the home that prevent them from putting it in a way that does not encroach upon the setback. When we looked at um staff's presentation, there was a slide where you could see where they envision the um addition. There's plenty of room nearby to the left of that to the south of that that wouldn't encroach and violate the setback requirement. Second, um the spirit of the code. One of the uh purposes of the code is to allow for light. With respect to my clients, this um interferes with that scope um in that purpose of the code. Last, um my clients contend that this will be injurious to them because it will harm their ability to recover to to obtain sunlight and for it to enter the home.