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 10 of 17 <br /> Question from Board to Staff: <br /> Ewy asks if the PUD had any exclusion for side yards abutting a street and treat the front of the <br /> house differently than the side yard? <br /> Robinson says the PUD language is 20' setback from the street property line. It treats the front <br /> and street side the same. <br /> Ewy asks what the normal side yard setback would be in the neighborhood. <br /> Robinson says the interior side is a 5' setback off the interior lot lines. <br /> Ewy says if a variance is granted, does it reset the entire side yard setback or the side of the <br /> house abutting the street. Is it now reset to 15' and any development could happen in that 5' <br /> from now on? <br /> Robinson says the variance allows the proposed addition. If they want to add additional square <br /> feet on that side, they would have to apply for a new variance. <br /> Campbell asks where the existing addition is located, is it on the back? <br /> Robinson says the existing addition is on the back and the sed addition is on the side. <br /> Presentation from Applicant: <br /> Rachel Fox and Dan Fox, 346 McKinley Court, Loui , CO <br /> Charlotte Perry, contractor <br /> I have a couple thoughts about the two criteria that the Staff feels we don't me: ' r corner lot <br /> is narrower than the other corner lots in Dutch Creek. It is news to us to learn tha ®ur lot is <br /> narrower than standard corner lots. Criterion #3 says we cannot reasonably develop the <br /> property in conformity with the provisions. We spent a lot of time with the designer looking at <br /> different ways to expand our property. You will see on our drawing that there was an addition <br /> when we purchased our house. One consideration was to build out over the addition which will <br /> maximize square footage but would be a more expensive way to attain the goals we want. I <br /> understand we can build out over our addition because it will not change our footprint. We feel <br /> that this will considerably block our neighbors from sunlight coming into their yard. Our whole <br /> reason for wanting to be in Dutch Creek is our neighbors. We tried to leave Dutch Creek last <br /> year and moved, but within a year, we came back. Even though we got a bigger house with <br /> more space, we did not have the neighbors. We are trying to find ways to accommodate our <br /> family in the space that we have. We have a pretty small house, approximately 1400 sf. We <br /> have four children. If we push out the back of the house the same amount of square footage <br /> that we are considering on the side, in working with the designer, it would not allow us to carve <br /> out four bedrooms. We don't want to move the bathroom because that would be an additional <br /> expense. Building out the back doesn't help us design-wise to gain the four bedrooms. We had <br /> a misunderstanding with our designer because in talking to the City, she thought we had a 15' <br /> setback on the side. There are three McKinleys in Louisville, and we submitted the plan this way <br /> because we thought we had the additional setback space to build out the 5' bump-out. In <br /> looking at the plan overall, pushing out this extra 5' on the second story will look nicer than <br /> building over the addition. We thought this would preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. <br /> Dan Fox speaks. In looking at the overhead, the issue with Criterion #2 is that this condition <br /> does not exist throughout the neighborhood. There are few corners in Dutch Creek. There are a <br /> lot of rounded corners with extra wedges making bigger properties. We are the only corner in 50 <br /> houses around us. To me, I have an issue with the word "throughout" because this is not <br /> throughout the neighborhood. It is only in these occasional places where there is a cul-de-sac. <br /> Most of the roads have these wavy curved ways to turn to eliminate tight corners. In terms of <br /> Criterion #3, I think we are finding a reasonable way to develop that will work for our family <br /> since we have four kids and need four bedrooms in that area. The variance itself is not over the <br /> whole side of the house, so visually, it does not extend the corner, but just goes out a little bit on <br /> that side. We are trying to make minimal changes. The reason for all of this is that the house is <br /> so jammed. We are trying to get a few feet here and there to make this possible for our family. <br /> Rachel Fox says we hope we are not asking for too much. We are trying to not block anyone's <br /> view. We are choosing a design to fit the look of the neighborhood. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.