Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 10 19

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 21, 2016 Page5of7 Meseck says I thought about this again for a month. I went through the criteria in detail and I have not changed my opinion. Many Old Town properties are fairly irregular, not in the orientation of the lot or the shape of the lot but where the buildings were put on lot. It can create some difficult hardships. Given the size of this lot, which I feel is not very common at all throughout town, you can see the footprint we are asking applicants to adhere to can be challenging to build any useful structure. I think the applicant has done a good job of trying to add onto the existing structure within the envelope provided. The encroachments are fairly minor and from the center out as opposed to from the property lines in. It will have minimal impact on the neighbors. There is little negative precedent from this going forward. I think Staff did a good job on this one and I recommend approval. Stuart says I was not here for the discussion and Staff presentation, but I read everything in detail. I did Google maps to look at everything. It is such a small lot and such a small building. The modifications being requested are so modest. I agree with every one of the criteria. I find this well suits the kind of thing we want to encourage. Ewy says over the month, I have also not changed my opinion in the matter. I feel the resulting building envelope from the OId Town Overlay is remarkably small and only 15' wide, which is not a viable buildable lot on its own. The variance requests are very modest. The applicant is going so far as to demolish an existing garage to offset their additional floor area being added to the site. I fully support this variance request. Malmquist says I second all three of the Board members. I think the addition is very modest and is in keeping with what we are seeing in Old Town. It is a big improvement and is a huge help to the family of three, sometimes four. The amount of square footage they are ending up with is very a small footprint. I am in favor. Campbell asks Staff a question. At the last meeting, I questioned the size of lots in Old Town. Did you get a chance to research that? Robinson says I have not done any further research on the size of lots in Old Town. Campbell says I did. The size of the lot at 913 LaFarge is 2800 sf, 821 LaFarge is 2950 sf, 817 LaFarge is 3195 sf, 815 LaFarge is 3072 sf, 809 LaFarge is 2901 sf, 745 LaFarge is 2972 sf, 738 Jefferson Street is 2966 sf, and 732 Jefferson Street is 3181 sf. All of those lots are smaller than this lot as described at the last meeting. I don't feel this lot qualifies under hardship 1 because this lot is larger than all the lots I have just mentioned. I don't think it qualifies as a hardship. What is the character of Old Town Louisville? It is small houses on small Tots. I don't support the idea of rezoning the OId Town area through the use of variances. I believe the proposed structure is over development. Stuart says while those lots are small, I think they are all potential variances. I think the rules set for 6000 and 7000 sf lots, the side margins to these tiny lots, are not correct. There could be a way to fix that, but right now the rules overly restrict people so they can't build anywhere. The only remedy I see is to look at variance potential. All of those Tots you listed are in conflict and subject to unreasonable rules set for 6000 and 7000 sf lots. Meseck says I understand the list of small lots and there are certainly others. It is not a surprise to me. What I see is the rectangular building envelope this property owner is held to, only a variance can help alleviate these issues. I think the applicant has done an admirable job of keeping things centered on the lot and not encroaching further on other property lines. We determined the applicant is 67' over the square footage of what's allowed. We are not looking at 400 sf or 1000 sf. We are within a couple tenths of a percent. They have done a good job of trying to meet that. The building envelope is unreasonable. If the other small lots come up before this Board, I would be inclined to lean toward variances provided that Staff approved them. Gorsevski says while I appreciate there are multiple other small lots within the vicinity of this home, I would also note that the existing house is not in conformance with the City zoning laws. If we refuse to grant a variance in this instance, we would essentially be requiring them to scrape their house and re -start within that envelope. Regarding your point about the character