Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 03 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 17, 2016 Page 8 of 12 DeJong says I want to state that Staff did a very thorough and reasoned analysis. I agree with the analysis and conclusions made by Staff. I find that there is no opposition by any immediate neighbors of the property. At this point, I find the size of the addition of the deck is not unreasonable. I am in support of the two variance requests. Campbell says I was disappointed in Staff's response to my questions of not having the physical dimensions of the Tots next door. That would create the unique hardship, in my mind. I am not convinced that this property is unique. For that reason, I would not support it. Stuart says I would agree that the set of houses are unique, not just this one house. These were all zoned in improperly. Ewy says it was a mistake during the PUD process. We have talked to the Planning Director about rectifying this problem that is pervasive through the City. We reviewed a case perhaps one - quarter mile away that was a slightly smaller lot, and the BOA did grant an exception to the case almost verbatim. We have a long precedence for this. In talking to the Planning Director, you'd have to do a PUD amendment with property owners in concert signing onto regarding lot coverage. What lot coverage would make all the homes legally compliant, and then determine whether or not it should be slightly higher to allow modest improvements? That is a very significant undertaking. If it had been just this PUD, not such a problem, but we are talking about massive amounts of properties. It is truly of the age between 1984 and mid 1990s when Louisville took off and grew. It was a common error. Stuart says one house is not unique compared to the house next to it. It is these groups of houses were miss -zoned and the rules were incorrect. Property owners come to us to try and give them some lenience and relief for the bad rules. The rules were applied incorrectly to them. They should have a minimum of 12,000 sf and the lot coverage is associated with that 12,000 sf. If you have half the lot size, you should have twice the lot coverage. They were noncompliant when the City put the rules in, and that was a mistake. Ewy says in this type of neighborhood with lot sizes that range from low 5,000 sf to 7,000 sf, as a whole this PUD doesn't even meet the minimum threshold of Louisville zoning. Our zoning code was never updated as a City. All these neighborhoods were platted and zoned as part of the PUD process. This house is not particularly unique and each neighbor would have an expectation to do the same. In this particular neighborhood, if we were setting the thresholds today, we would be looking at close to 35% under normal Planning expectations. We are in an awkward role where we have certain rules for variance and reading them and holding to the letter, I agree you would have a question on uniqueness. But because of the pervasive problem, the BOA is granting these variances as long as the requests are reasonable. If these folks had come in and expected to quadruple the size of their deck and really push out the front of their home, this would be a different discussion. That would change the character. Stuart asks Robinson, Sa ht has concurred with these decisions we have been making over the last many years. Robinson says when w t started getting a lot of these variance requests, we talked to the City Attorney. He concurred that this was the best way to handle these, going through individual variance requests. We talked through the criteria with him and he agreed with our reasoning on them. It is the same reasoning we have been using for the last 3 to 4 years because we get several requests per year. Without speaking for the City Attorney since he is not here, based on previous conversations, it is my understanding that he agrees with this interpretation. Campbell says these comments don't change my concern. Ewy asks a procedural question. Because tonight we must have a unanimous vote, does the applicant have any options?