My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 07 20
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 07 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:03:12 PM
Creation date
7/15/2016 9:10:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAPKT 2016 07 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Board of Adjustment <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> June 15, 2016 <br /> Page 8 of 17 <br /> vehicle more appropriately and have more space to maneuver around the vehicle. I tend to <br /> agree with Chairman Meseck and Board Member DeJong on the fact that the setback <br /> encroachment, in and of itself, seems like a 1/2 foot is a minimum encroachment symmetrical to <br /> the garage and fits with the architecture. I do have concern on the lot coverage. It seems there <br /> could be some exterior modification that does not compromise your internal living areas. It looks <br /> like your covered porch is really close to 30" above ground level so there may be some <br /> modification to the ground or the porch itself that could put you in the territory of having the <br /> enlarged porch, and then back off the roof until you meet the 20% rule. I think you can achieve a <br /> lot of your design goals. <br /> DeJong says that Robinson and Staff's analysis and reasoning are well founded and I find <br /> their conclusion to be thorough and correct. <br /> Motion made by DeJong to approve variance request for 2252 Crown Circle for relief from <br /> Section 17.12.040 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) for front and side setback to allow <br /> additions to the garage and second story, seconded by Ewyll call vote. <br /> Name Vote <br /> James Stuart Yes <br /> Leslie Ewy Yes <br /> Gunnar Malmquist n/a <br /> Andrew Meseck Yes <br /> Thomas DeJong Yes <br /> Lowell Campbell No <br /> Motion passed/failed: Pass <br /> Motion passes 4-1. Setback variances . • <br /> Motion made by DeJong to approve the variance r- - 22 rown Circle for relief from <br /> Section 17.12.040 of the - Municipal Code ( ` C imum lot coverage <br /> requirements to allow addr'F s . - garage and second sto 1, seconded by Stuart. Roll call <br /> vote. <br /> Name Vote <br /> James Stuart Ye <br /> Leslie Ewy No <br /> Gunnar Malmquist n/a <br /> Andrew Meseck No <br /> Thomas DeJong <br /> Lowell Campbell <br /> Motion passed/failed: Fail <br /> Motion fails 1-4. Lot coverage variances not approved. <br /> Break from 7:33 to 7:36 pm. <br /> I will call for disclosure by the Board members on 346 McKinley Court of any site visits, any ex parte <br /> contact, any conflicts of interest, or other disclosures. <br /> Campbell says I drove by the property and looked at it from the street. I have no conflicts of interest. <br /> DeJong says I have no conflicts, had no ex parte discussion, and did a site visit to see the property but <br /> did not enter the property. <br /> Meseck says I did not visit the property, had no ex parte contact, and have no conflict of interest. <br /> Stuart says I did a site visit, had no ex parte contact, and have no conflict of interest. <br /> Ewy says I did not do a site visit, had no ex parte contact, and have no conflict of interest. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.