Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 07 20

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016 Page 13 of 17 Meseck says I am very sympathetic to what you are attempting to do with the design and to maintain the look of the house. I am sympathetic you don't want to encroach into the back yard, not only for the use of the yard but its impact on the neighbors. I am looking for some compelling argument. What Board Member Stuart said is very relevant. The discussion with Staff is it came down to this corner lot, which I think is a little bit unique and causes some difficult things in terms of design and extra space. Knowing how small these homes are, when they were built in Dutch Creek, and how unique of a neighborhood it is, I am inclined to be in favor of it. DeJong says Staff's analysis was thorough and I believe the conclusions are correct. I understand the situation with regard to being a tight lot and needing space. I do find there are multiple corner lots in that neighborhood and to allow this encroachment into the side setback would be precedent for anyone within that neighborhood to step forth and say, "I deserve five more feet" and I would have no argument to say no. The five feet was given previously. From my personal point of view, the setback should stand at 20'. Ewy says I have a different take on it. Second guessing the PUD, the 20' setback for front yards is set so a car can park in front of the garage without obstructing the sidewalk. I find it unusual that the PUD did not have any explicit language on what to do when you have a side yard abutting the street. I am compelled more to grant this variance because the house orientation is already set, we know where the garage is, and the 20' setback makes total sense for the front yard. They have looked at alternative design alternatives including not going vertically, by right, out of respect for their neighbors. With their neighbors' support, they have added a very modest addition to their house. It is just for this specific addition, and I am leaning towards granting the variance. DeJong says I concur with exception ' hbor across th street who can come in with a variance for the next round and wants t• °xpand the house 5 e east. I have no recourse to say no. I believe that 20' setback stands. Stuart says we are not bound by precede Every case tits o case. Ewy asks Staff if the PUD was done in phases, or one giant master Dutch Creek PUD? The concept of amending the PUD is arduous given the number of owners. I don't think this is going to be the only case over time given how small the lots are. Robinson says there is one PUD and the subdivision was not built in phases. Campbell says I am in agreement with Staff. Corner lots have a special situation everywhere in the City of Louisville. There are special provisions in the ordinance that deal with corner lots. They are unique, not only from the point of view of shoveling snow but in their setbacks. I am convinced that Staff has addressed the issues and probably will not be in support of it. Motion made by Stuart to approve 346 McKinley Court—Variance Request, a request for a variance from the Dutch Creek planned unit development (PUD)for relief from the side setback requirement to allow an addition to the second story, seconded by Ewy. Roll Call Vote: Name Vote James Stuart Yes _ Leslie Ewy Yes Gunnar Malmquist Absent_ Andrew Meseck Yes Thomas DeJong No Lowell Campbell No Motion passed/failed: Fail _ Motion fails 3-2.