Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 11 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 9 of 16 Campbell says the bus stop issue is over blown. It is not a City bus stop but a school bus stop. The kids get there 10-15 minutes before the bus and then it is gone. Stuart says the applicant's comments about the headlights are compelling. This is uniquely situated so that the location of the pergola defends from this. Meseck says this issue may be better addressed with criterion 3 and 6 because of other alternatives that could eliminate it. Criterion 3 is "That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code". This applies directly to the setback itself and whether the proposed design is the only primary response. Malmquist says I agree with Stuart on 1 and 2, but 3 is where I have a hard time. Trees would have met the requirements and are not subject to the 10' setback. Landscaping is not subject to the setback. The old apples trees were 2' from the fence. Meseck says if Xcel had an issue with the pergola itself, they could remove it. That height is already at risk if they choose to do so. Ewy says the Xcel requirements do mention shrubs are allowed, such as an 8' shrub. Godec says the arborist said that the apple trees, because they continued to grow, had to be cut down. I am of the opinion that it was cheaper to cut them to the ground instead of coming back every three years to trim them. If I had any belief that I could have planted trees in this space, I would have planted them. I believe if I plant 6' high trees in this space, they could come next spring and cut them down to the ground. Stuart says there is a right place for the pergola and it is not in the middle of his yard. It is against the fence. As a result, that is the minimum variance. Otherwise, he would lose that part of his yard. Malmquist says I agree if the answer is that no greenery can meet the intent of criterion 3. I agree with Stuart that the pergola would be silly in the middle of the yard, and that up against the fence is not that offensive because of the way the yar 's cut for sight lines of that corner. It has a natural setback already from the street. Meseck says the perspective is from the hous ar'fhe dec . oving it in 10', your perspective would be somewhat similar. I am struggling with the design and why 10' is restrictive. The yard is quite deep and 10' with some allowable overhang towards the fence. Ewy says If the pergola was placed per setback, how would that adversely impact the yard? DeJong says that Staffs analysis is thorough and complete and well-reasoned. I believe that their conclusions are correct for all of the criteria. Ewy says I also agree with Staff's recommendations. Meseck says I could have been persuaded on 1 and 2, but 3 and 6 in this situation show that there could be viable alternatives. I agree with Staff. Stuart says I think 1, 2, 3, and 6 are all met. Malmquist says I think 1, 2, 3, and 6 are met. Motion made by DeJong to approve Case #16 -027 -VA, 749 Wildrose Way — Variance Request — An after -the -fact variance from Section 17.16.030 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) for relief from rear accessory setback requirements to permit a previously constructed pergola, seconded by Ewy. Roll call vote. Name Vote Andrew Meseck No James Stuart Yes Leslie Ewy No Gunnar Malmquist Yes Thomas DeJong No Lowell Campbell No Alison Gorsevski n/a Motion passed/failed: Fail Motion denied 4-2.