Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 08 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 19, 2017 Page3of7 Commission Questions of Staff- DeJong asked about receiving the public comments during the notice period. He asked about the process of sending public notices to the houses adjacent to the property requesting a variance, and what is considered adjacent to the property. Ritchie explained that in the code, it states that properties across the street are considered adjacent. DeJong asked if there is a requirement for the number of letters that are required from the adjacent properties. Ritchie described that if staff does not get a letter of rejection, staff can approve the variance administratively without letters of support. If the applicant is able to obtain letters of support from all of the adjacent properties, staff does not have to comply with the notice requirements. DeJong asked if staff is happy with the amount of communication they have received from the adjacent property owners. Ritchie responds that the applicant had a general neighborhood support; however, the applicant did not meet the threshold to eliminate the public hearing or notice requirements. It did not necessarily satisfy any need of staff and at this point, the letters of support should be considered in the board members evaluation. Campbell asked if there is a PUD for the RE zoning district. Ritchie said that with zoning in the City of Louisville, there is always an underlying zoning that is in place. A PUD is essentially an overlay on top of that. A PUD can leave in place the zoning standards as well as adopt alternate zoning standards. This causes an additional layer of governance for that particular development. When a PUD has setbacks and lot coverages and they differ from the code, the PUD reigns. If the PUD does not include a provision for a development standard, which is the case here, then in that case, staff would default to the underlying zoning which is RE and the 20% lot coverage. Campbell said that he thinks the PUD is the primary zoning. He asked Ritchie if he was correct. Ritchie replied that legally it is both. Ritchie told Campbell that the PUD is the document staff looks to and that the criteria is based off of the PUD. If the PUD is silent on the criteria, then staff turns to the code. Because there is no lot coverage criteria on the PUD, the code says that staff has to look to the underlying zoning. The PUD is primary if there is a standard on it. Campbell told Ritchie that he thinks criteria two contradicts criteria one. He asked that she further explain this to him. Ritchie replied that she believes the two criteria's support one another. She came to this conclusion because in criteria one, it is identifying the level of deviation from the minimum lot size in RE. In criteria two, it is reconfirming that it is unusual for the RE zone district. Williams asked if there are other walk -out lots like the applicant's that would have to come to the board and get the board's approval. Ritchie said that it is a very likely possibility. Applicant Presentation: Applicant: Tucker Katz, 932 Sunflower St. Katz begun by stating that he would like to improve his home by building a modestly sized deck that would be 10 by 12 feet. The deck would be placed off of the main level of the home. The primary purpose of the deck would be for family dinners, kid activities, and adult relaxation. Katz pointed out that the deck will be well within his setbacks. The only additional protrusion the deck will cause is the stairs and the platform. The lot coverage will be approximately 29.5%.