Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />December 21, 2016 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />17.48.110 B.6 <br />That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least <br />modification possible of the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code that is in <br />question. Staff — No relief needed for property to develop consistent with other lots in <br />neighborhood - Criterion not met. <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment move to deny because Staff finds six criteria in <br />Municipal code Section 17.48.110 are not met. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Stuart says regarding criterion 5, I look at it as the pitch of the roof is not right and it changes <br />the look of the neighborhood, or building wall to wall and fence to fence. What is the objection to <br />criterion 5? Is it a statistic or specification that you think diminishes the character? <br />Zuccaro says it is looking at the bulk of the structure. The point of having the lot coverage <br />maximum is to have more open area and less structured area. If there is more above ground <br />structure in a neighborhood that exceeds the 20% standard (in this case, 31%), the bulk and <br />perception and density would not be consistent with the intended character of the neighborhood. <br />Stuart says when I think of character, I think of how it looks. <br />Zuccaro says from that standpoint, I think Staff would agree that it does fit in with the <br />neighborhood and is not an unusual type of improvement seen in this neighborhood. <br />Gorsevski says the existing structure covers 26% of the lot. It is already above the 20% <br />threshold. Is this common for this neighborhood? <br />Zuccaro says this is very common in the RE district in general. I did not analyze this <br />neighborhood specifically. <br />DeJong says as far as the height of deck, how high is it off the ground? <br />Zuccaro says the applicant's designer is here and will be able to specify the height off the <br />ground. The dimension from the ground to the base of the deck is 5'7" and the top of the <br />pergola is 14'1" above grade. <br />Stuart says we did not receive the letter from the neighbor directly behind this house that would <br />be facing this deck. <br />Zuccaro says Staff did not receive any public comment. <br />Malmquist asks if the pergola is there now. <br />Zuccaro says no. Because the deck is above 30" and regardless if the pergola was there, it all <br />counts towards lot coverage. <br />DeJong says I recall a property that came before us two months ago that was south of <br />Centennial Drive. They were looking for exceedance of lot coverage. In that situation, those <br />decks were almost on the ground. They were requesting a setback variance and had multiple <br />decks. There was discussion of whether or not the drawings were proper and identified which <br />decks would be removed. My understanding was that anything above 30" did not count towards <br />lot coverage. <br />Meseck says the rule is anything above 30" above ground counts towards lot coverage. We <br />have this discussion frequently. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Andy Hashman, Mosaic Outdoor Living, 133D McCaslin Blvd. Unit D, Louisville, CO <br />Hashman speaks. I am the lead designer for Mosaic Outdoor Living here in Louisville. This is <br />the first time I have had to present to the BOA. Hashman shows an overhead site plan. <br />There are two main points. The lot is unique because it is oddly shaped and I will point to some <br />things on the site plan. The entire front of the lot has a 20' setback for a fence. The applicant <br />