Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 08 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 19, 2017 Page 6 of 7 Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Katz closes with mentioning that the original large deck was approximately the same size as the addition. With respect to the setbacks, he said he has reviewed the backyard multiple times to measure the setbacks. The addition is well within the setbacks; therefore, the deck would be well within the setbacks as well. He also points out that this neighborhood is in a suburban community, where most houses are similarly as close as Ms. Bequette's and his house. Privacy issues are a recurring theme in a suburban area. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Stuart said that he liked the staff report and the comments on privacy. When looking at criteria, he agreed with staff. The reason is because the new privacy incursion that would be placed on Ms. Bequette is rather minimal. The small deck is not a new invasion of privacy. There are other neighbors that have decks and windows that have similar layouts. The changes the applicant is making in the backyard is minimal. Campbell said he is not convinced by the staff's presentation that every lot in that subdivision qualifies for a variance because of size. He does not think it meets the criteria of unusual circumstance. He will not support this variance. Ewy said she disagreed with Campbell's opinion. The administrative variance process was put into place because of neighborhoods like the applicant's. There are multiple PUDS' in Louisville that are silent on the area coverage. The board worked with staff and the city council in order to create the administrative variance process for homeowners so that it would be fair for homeowners to do modest improvements to their homes. This lot is not unique to the neighborhood, but it is unique because the PUD is silent. The deck is very modest, and she thinks this deck will be a good improvement on the home. Williams said that she understands the encroachment of Ms. Bequette's privacy, but she cannot deny that the proposed deck meets all six criteria. She agrees with Ewy's thoughts and DeJong said he found staffs presentation and analysis to be thorough and complete. He agreed that the proposed deck meets all six criteria and is in favor of approving the variance. Motion made by Williams to approve 932 Sunflower St, a variance from Section 17.12.040 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) to allow an increase in the maximum lot coverage from 20% to 29.5% to allow for construction of a deck. Motion was seconded by Stuart. Roll call vote. Name Vote James Stuart Yes Thomas DeJong Yes Debra Williams Yes Leslie Ewy Yes Lowell Campbell No Andrew Meseck Rob Levinson Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 4-1. Business Items tentatively scheduled for May 17, 2017: Staff Comments: