Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 09 21

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 17, 2016 Page 6 of 10 Robinson says we should ask the applicant if they wish the Board to vote on the variance request. The applicant needs to know that they will need unanimous four votes to move forward. We can move to vote tonight or continue it to next month when more Board members may be in attendance. Doty says move to vote. Meseck asks what options does the applicant have if the application is denied. Do they have an opportunity to rework and resubmit? What about costs on the applicant's part? Robinson says they can make a request to waive application fees, which is up to the Planning Director. They can also appeal to District Court or they can move forward in compliance with zoning with building permits. They can apply for a new variance with a revised plan. Motion made by Ewy to approve 940 Caledonia St — Variance Request — A request for a variance from Section 17.12.050 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) for relief from front and rear setback and maximum floor area requirements to allow additions to the existing house. Case #16 -022 -VA, seconded by Malmquist. Roll call vote. Name Vote Andrew Meseck Yes James Stuart n/a Leslie Ewv Yes Gunnar Malmquist Yes Thomas DeJong n/a Lowell Campbell No Motion passed/failed: Deny Motion denied 3-1. Discussion continues. Robinson reads th application does not meet in his view. Malmquist asks what are our options? Meseck says Robinson listed them prior to the vote. Malmquist asks if Campbell is confused on the criteria and if perhaps we can discuss them further? Campbell says he is open to discussion. ell says is the criterion the Meseck discusses Criterion 2 which states regarding unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. Campbell says I feel this property is not unique in the sense that it is of a particular size. It has been subdivided once and for some reason, it was subdivided and reduced to a small size. Ewy says when it was subdivided in 1982 and without pulling that zoning code, we have to assume it was vetted by City Staff, went to Council for a subdivision, and met the criteria at that time for a subdivision. It was conforming at that point. The issue comes in because since it has been subdivided, the Old Town Overlay was applied this area. As I stated before, I don't think they did a lot test fit on every single existing home. They anticipate people coming in with lots that don't quite conform with the Overlay and say this is what has happened to my lot. It would be helpful for us as a group to step through and discuss more pointedly the criteria that are at issue. What we are dealing with tonight is not pre -1982, it is post Old Town Overlay. Meseck asks how the lot being subdivided applies to the current applicant. This property was not subdivided during their ownership. To handicap them based on something done much further in the past is a bit of a stretch. I have concerns about that approach. Malmquist says they are asking for a very small variance, about the size of a small closet. For what we have going on in Louisville, this is a modest change. Ewy says there are two variances; one for relief from front and rear setback and one for relief from maximum floor area requirements to allow additions to the existing house. Are both of those variances not approvable given the criteria that you are citing? Campbell says that there are other lots in the Old Town Area that are this size or smaller.