Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 11 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes October 19, 2016 Page 15 of 16 Malmquist agrees. Ewy agrees. Meseck states criterion 3 which 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". Malmquist says I am okay with 3 because I think if the pergola is built in compliance, the patio is no longer usable. Stuart says 3 and 6 go together. Is this the minimum you can do and is it reasonable to do it? Ewy says in the other case we heard, the screening was in a horizontal direction. I think we granted a variance up to an 8' fence, just one little pop-up where their dining area was. This case is a view corridor from a duplex. No reasonably high fence will fix this problem. Meseck says if there was continued control of the property across the property line and a path to getting a clear agreement to plant something, I would go that way. But since there is no control by Steel Ranch over the Lanterns, in looking at options, what else can be done? At any given time, the Lanterns could say, "No, we are not going to do that" or they could take their trees down at any given time. Could it be done on the Steel Ranch side? Malmquist says I think their best option is the proposal they have, and it is approved by the HOA, which are traditionally very strict. It is in keeping with the same design structure of the neighborhood and the same material. Meseck says I can see all of those arguments. Does approving this open any other doors? I think this one is different or peculiar enough. Malmquist says I am okay with criterion 6 because given the narrowness of that patio, the relief you are looking for is the line of sight the duplex has which is 6-8' above you and directly down into your patio home. DeJong says is the view directly down or is there some skew. Mary Beth says their sliding door aligns with our sliding door almost exactly. The duplex on the other side has the same effect on our back patio, but this patio is the one we use the most. DeJong says the pergola as proposed doesn't give you exceptional privacy. Mary Beth says I think it will break it up. The HOA has given blanket permission to do pull down sun shades on your property, so that is another possibility while we are out there. Meseck says if the pergola is extended out to the fence line, you could pull down a shade without it coming down onto a table. Campbell says I agree with Staff's report. Motion made by Malmquist to approve Case #'T6 -038 -VA , 2214 W Hecla Drive — Variance Request — A request for a variance from the Takoda General Development Plan for relief from side setback requirements to allow a new pergola, seconded by Ewy. Roll call vote. Name Vote Andrew Meseck Yes James Stuart Yes Leslie Ewy Yes Gunnar Malmquist Yes Thomas DeJong Yes Lowell Campbell No Alison Gorsevski n/a Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 5-1. ➢ 826 Coal Creek Circle — Floodplain Development Permit Request — A request for a floodplain development permit to allow a 40,000 SF addition to the existing building. Case #16 -033 -FL — Continue to November 16, 2016 meeting Applicant: Davis Partnership Architects, Kevin Gzym Owner: TFG Coal Creek Property, LLC Case Manager: Scott Robinson, Senior Planner