Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 11 16

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 12 of 16 Staff — The property was platted in 2010 and the house built in 2012. The Lanterns was approved in 2014 and is currently under construction. Criterion is met. 17.48.110 B.5 That the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. Staff — Pergola would be immediately abutting adjacent property. Criterion is not met. 17.48.110 B.6 That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code that is in question. Staff — Pergola could be built to comply with setbacks. Criterion is et. Staff Recommendations: Staff finds Criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 in Section 17.48.110 of therefore recommends denial of the variance request. Commission Questions of Staff: Ewy says this applicant could overhang the setback by 3' and be cantilevered . an they get the top of their pergola within 2' of the lot given it's a 5' setback? Robinson says the posts for the setback have to be at the 5' line. Meseck asks what would be the width of the pergola in this situation. Would it be 7'? Robinson says the house sits about 9.5' from the south lot line. The posts would sit about 4.5' from the house and the eaves could extend another 3'. It would be about a 7.5' of pergola and 2.5' of uncovered space. DeJong says in regard to the existing patio, does it stop 3' from the lot line also? Robinson says flatwork or - g less than 30" above grade does not have to comply with setback requirements. T lowed to go to the lot line and have no impact on zoning requirements. e not been met and Applicant Presentatio Keith Rensberger, 2 T, ouisville, CO Mary Beth Rensberger, „ ecla Drivisville, CO Thank you for considering our variance application and for a chance to comment at this meeting. I appreciate the time your Staff has given in working with us, and in their efforts in looking at our application. The Staff review has provided a detailed and literal interpretation of the setback requirement which is their charter and which puts that view into the record. I could argue a similarly detailed interpretation of the same points, reaching a different conclusion. For example, in criterion 1, it is mentioned in the review that the setback requirements are the same for all of the lots in this portion of Steel Ranch. While that is accurate in the strict sense, that indirectly acknowledges that all of the other lots in this portion of Steel Ranch are alike in their separation from the Lanterns, all of the other lots, except ours. That fact puts our lot in unique physical circumstances and therefore, this meets criterion 1 and by extension, criterion 2. Similarly, I could argue in criterion 3 that the 6' fence does not provide a buffer from the only outdoor living area in the Lanterns property, mainly their rear patio deck which is completely exposed to our deck due to its relative vertical elevation. But there is another dimension to this case, and that is livability, an attribute for which Louisville has been nationally recognized as a desirable place to live and raise a family. That consideration is being ignored by strict interpretation of lot shapes. We moved into this patio home four years ago. At that time, the property adjacent to us was vacant. We now find ourselves in a unique situation since the Lanterns development has created a significant and unforeseen loss of privacy for us, both for our family and for our future neighbors in the Lanterns. Ours is the only patio home in the Steel Ranch area which directly borders the new homes. The Lanterns duplexes are oriented in such