Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 11 15

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes September 20, 2017 Page 5 of 7 Staff informed the applicant immediately upon submittal that Staff would not be supporting this request. In staff's analysis, this request did not meet the variance criteria. Staff found developing and paying for architectural plans would be burdensome and difficult given the applicant's life circumstances so staff did not advise the creation of plans. Ritchie did have the conversation with the applicant that if the applicant was uncertain of approval or was concerned with the privacy constraints, they could provide some limited plans to the board. Levinson asked that if the applicant needed to table the proposal, would another application fee be applied. Zuccaro replied that staff would not require another application fee. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Stuart said that regarding the criteria, the idea is that family size should not drive the criteria. Family -size is something that is brought on by the applicant. The house is appropriate for only a certain amount of people, so unfortunately that is not a city issue. Criteria three and four are already not met because it's brought on by family size. In regards to the 90 foot addition, that is something that everyone should have. If that was the application by itself, Stuart said he would approve it. In Stuart's opinion though, there are too many criteria that have failed so he cannot approve this application. Williams said Stuart's thought process was the same as hers. There are some criteria that are subjective, but there are criteria that are not and the applicant does not meet those. All six criteria must be met and because they do not, Williams could not approve this. She said she would approve the 90 foot addition though. Meseck said that the 90 foot addition is the kind of reasonable request that the board would usually approve. He mentioned that regarding the plans, he did not believe providing them would make a difference in the board's decision. Levinson said he feels similar to the other board members and would listen to the proposal of just the 90 foot addition. Campbell said that he believed the property is not unique enough and that it does not meet enough criteria for it to be approved by him. DeJong's thoughts mirrored his fellow board members and believed that the 90 foot addition would be reasonable if it was its own application. He proposed that the application be continued two cycles from now. A motion to continue the variance to the November 15, 2017 board meeting was made by Meseck. Motion was seconded by DeJong. Roll call vote. Name Vote James Stuart Yes Thomas DeJong Yes Debra Williams Yes Leslie Ewy Yes Lowell Campbell No Andrew Meseck Yes Rob Levinson Yes Motion passed/failed: Pass Motion passes 5-1. Regular Business 722 Pine Street — Case VAR -0082-2017— Request for a variance from Section 17.12.050 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) Old Town Overlay zone district