Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 20, 2017 <br />Page 3 of 7 <br />Ritchie reviewed the location of the property, noted the floor area ratios of surrounding <br />properties and summarized the proposal. <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff found that all six criteria in Municipal code Section 17.48.110 were not met and <br />recommended the Board of Adjustment denial of the variance request. <br />Commission Questions of Staff:: <br />Stuart asked if the garage and the addition above the garage affected the floor area and <br />doubled it. <br />Ritchie said he was correct, that garages are included in the floor area. <br />Meseck asked if the addition had any impact on the lot coverage. <br />Ritchie said the 90 square foot addition alone does not require a lot coverage variance. <br />DeJong asked, in regards to the lot coverage, if the 0.49 in the presentation's table stood for <br />the 90 square foot addition. <br />Ritchie replied that the 0.49 stood for the existing condition today. <br />DeJong stated that since both the 90 square foot addition and the above garage portion are <br />both presented in the application, would a variance request still be needed if only the 90 square <br />foot addition was presented? <br />Ritchie said they would still need a floor area variance, but they would not need a lot coverage <br />variance. <br />Zuccaro pointed out that because they both are separate developments on the lot, if the board <br />was inclined to believe that one meets the criteria but not the other, they could decide them <br />separately. However, the board needs to be aware that staff did not analyze the two <br />developments in that manner. Staff has reviewed them as one submittal to the board. <br />Williams asked if the 90 square foot addition was the only proposal, would this proposal need <br />to even go to the board for approval. <br />Ritchie said she does not know exactly because she did not treat that request as a separate <br />application. She points out that the exact math for the floor area has not been conducted for just <br />the 90 square foot addition. <br />Meseck said the lot would still be over the 0.50 threshold, meaning it would still need the <br />board's approval. <br />Applicant Presentation: <br />Applicants: Aaron Roof and Molly Schaaf, 812 La Farge Ave <br />Roof described to the board his unique home, stating that it is a net -zero home, made of <br />concrete and stone. Some features the home has is it is an active solar home and it has a <br />recycled grey water system. They have a large amount of floor area lost though because of the <br />mechanical room created to uphold these eco -friendly features. Roof mentioned that the washer <br />and dryer are in the dining room, leaving little functionality for the growing family. Roof <br />proceeded to inform the board the hardships of trying to find a new home with more space and <br />livability, finding no success because of the costly prices. The application presented to the <br />board is the last resort for the family as they need the additional space added to the home in <br />order to make it functional again. <br />Regarding the criterion not being met, Roof believed he met criteria one because there are 693 <br />lots, locally and in Jefferson Place in Louisville, that are less than 5% their size or less. For <br />criteria two, the average lot size in Louisville is 7,000 square feet. Roof pointed out that his lot <br />sits at 3,000 square feet. Regarding the hardship criteria, Roof pointed out that as he mentioned <br />earlier in his presentation, the fact that the mechanical room takes up so much floor area and <br />