Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 09 20

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes August 16, 2017 Page5of8 None heard. Questions for Staff: Ewy asked how the analysis of the administrative approval level became 30% equating back to the RL low density zoning district, instead of a medium density zoning district, which seems to be more appropriate for these neighborhoods. Zuccaro replied that when a property is in the RE zoning with a PUD and less than 8,000 square feet, that property is allowed the administrative variance review and approval of up to 30% lot coverage. Anything above 30% will call for a more in depth approval process. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: DeJong agreed with staff's analysis and presentation, but while addressing criteria two, he believes this lot is on the smaller side of the neighborhood. Addressing criteria five, he mentioned that there are already additions that are of similar models. The applicant's addition is below the maximum of the largest lot coverage of 34.2%. He concluded that the additional three percent is a reasonable accommodation for the house and neighborhood. Meseck said that when discussing a lot that is as small as the applicant's, three percent is a small amount to request. Questioning criteria three, Meseck wondered why the applicant does not go up for the addition to the floor plan. The problem with that is there are mobility issues that have to be considered. Meseck concluded that the design proposed by the applicant is the best option for the home and neighborhood. Addressing criteria five, Meseck said he is in disagreement with the board. He thought this addition would help preserve some of the character. He concluded with being in favor of the applicant. Levinson agreed with staff in that it concerns him that the applicant's house sits deeper from the open space and that that is the direction for the new addition. If the applicant was not going the full width, the applicant would not be meeting with the board. He concluded that he believes a compromise can be found without going to 33%. He would support a 30% lot coverage or below. Ewy expressed her concern with this neighborhood that there is nothing to stop homeowners from adding stories or doing additions that go up instead of out. She felt more comfortable keeping it at 30% so that this neighborhood's homes do not get become significantly larger homes through time. She believed the applicant can still receive enough additional space with only 30% for expanding the home's floor plan. Meseck asked staff if this particular zoning has a square footage issue like there is for the old town zoning. Ritchie replied that there is no square footage issue for this zone. Williams was surprised that the applicant did not meet two of the criteria's. The lot is incredibly small and that is unusual in her opinion. On criteria five, she believed this criterion is subjective. The subdivision's aesthetic is very random and the addition would change the character of the neighborhood. She concluded that she will be approving this application for those reasons. DeJong agreed with Ewy in that most of that neighborhood will eventually be two story minimum up to the maximum height allowed. In his opinion, the 33% was a reasonable accommodation for the applicant. Campbell said he believes that the applicant did not meet all the criteria so he feels inclined to agree with staff's conclusion. Motion made by Campbell to approve 392 Sycamore Lane, a variance from Section 17.12.040 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) to allow construction of an addition resulting in a lot coverage of 33%. Motion was seconded by Meseck. Roll call vote.